EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 40, No.

3, 2017

Social and Language Skills as Predictors of

Bullying Roles in Early Childhood: A Narrative
Summary of the Lit­er­a­ture
Lyndsay N. Jenkins
Nichole Mulvey
Margaret T. Floress
Eastern Illinois University

Abstract
Despite evidence that aggressive, victim, and prosocial be­hav­iors exist among
preschool ­children, preschool bullying has received much less attention than
school-­ age bullying from researchers and prac­ t i­
t ion­
ers. Preschool is an
impor­tant environment for examining social be­hav­iors ­because, for many
­children, it is the first formal context for systematic peer interaction. Though
early identification and intervention has the greatest likelihood of decreasing
aggression and victimization and increasing prosocial be­hav­iors, t­here is
­little information available for school-­based professionals to help identify po-
tential predictors of bullying, victimization, and defending among preschool
­children. Early intervention programs can be used to target ­children who
demonstrate early signs of ­these bullying roles. The goal of this review is to
summarize research that links bullying roles in preschool to language and
social development and offer suggestions for f­ uture research in this area.
Keywords: bullying, bystander roles, early childhood, preschool, social devel-
opment, victimization

T hough bullying has received a large amount of attention by popu­

lar media and researchers, the majority of empirical research has
focused on bullying among late elementary and ­middle school stu-
dents. Bullying tends to increase during elementary school and peak
in m­ iddle school (Nansel et al., 2001; Unnever & Cornell, 2003), but
­there is evidence that predictors of bullying be­hav­ior emerge as early
as preschool (ages 3–5), which is typically the first formal context for
consistent, systematic peer interaction (Vlachou, Andreou, Botsoglou,
& Didaskalou, 2011). Since early intervention can reduce or prevent
bullying be­hav­iors in young c­ hildren (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott,
2012), it is impor­tant to understand the developmental and social-­

Address correspondence to: Lyndsay N. Jenkins, Florida State University, 600

W. College Avenue, Tallahassee, FL 32306. Email: lnjenkins@fsu​.­edu.

Pages 401–418
402 JENKINS et al.

ecological nature of precursory bullying be­hav­ior in preschool, as ­these

be­hav­iors may lead to bullying in ­later years. The social-­ecological
model of bullying (e.g., Swearer & Espelage, 2011) emphasizes that bul-
lying is not maintained simply b ­ ecause of two individuals at a single
point in time. Rather, the be­hav­ior of bullies, victims, peers, teachers,
and parents occurring over time perpetuates social be­hav­ior. Research-
ers and education professionals should work to identify c­ hildren at risk
of becoming bullies and victims, as well as to identify prosocial c­ hildren
who may defend their peers, so that early intervention programs can be
used to target ­children who demonstrate early signs of ­these bullying
roles.
Although early intervention is often considered best practice for
preventing social, behavioral, and academic prob­lems, limited research
exists regarding potential predictors of bullying-­role be­hav­iors among
preschoolers when the earliest intervention could occur. Language
skills and social skills are likely candidates as predictors of risk
­because ­these skills play such a critical role in typical early childhood
development. Typical development of each of ­these critical skills sets
is described as context for interpreting how aty­pi­cal development in
­these areas may be predictive of ­later aggressive or victim be­hav­ior.
Typical Pragmatic/Social Language Development
By the time a typically developing child reaches preschool age,
foundational receptive and expressive language skills (i.e., content,
form, and use) have been established, though language, social, cogni-
tive, and motor growth continues to occur at a rapid rate. Given that
preschool classrooms are often the initial context for repeated interac-
tion with peers, developing complex pragmatic skills and peer-­related
social competence are considered hallmark standards of preschool
settings (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).
As young ­children learn more complex rules for governing the
use of language in context (i.e., pragmatics), social communication
skills, including social interaction and social cognition, develop. Typi-
cally developing preschool c­ hildren acquire foundational social com-
munication skills involving both verbal and nonverbal language
through social reciprocity with caretakers during the first two years
of life (Owens, 2012). Early social interactions emerge as joint attention
and communicative intent are established (Owens, 2012). The interac-
tive infant-­caregiver relationship shapes shared communication expe-
riences throughout toddlerhood as routines, play, and anticipation
of  be­hav­ior changes in partners drive social exchanges. As young
­children acquire the ability to formulate ­simple sentences, a­ fter about
18 months of age, the initial forms of narration and discourse begin
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 403

(McCabe & Rollins, 1994). Social communication skills continue to de-

velop as speech and language abilities increase in complexity during
the second and third year of life.
With the start of preschool, pragmatic communication skills, in-
cluding conversational turn-­taking and considering the perspective of
the communication partner, begin to emerge. One key milestone in the
developmental pro­cess is the growth of theory of mind, the ability to
understand that peers differ from self in regard to knowledge, emo-
tions, and desires, resulting in adapted language use accordingly
(American Speech Language Hearing Association, 2015). The begin-
ning of theory of mind emerges as early as three years old, but is solidi-
fied in typically developing ­children around five years of age, resulting
in an ability to take ­others perspectives, use and understand ­mental
state verbs, and participate in increasingly complex pretend play
(Miller, 2006). As more complex language skills emerge, the ability to
initiate interaction with and respond to peers develops. According to
Caprara, Werner, Rourke, Zubernis, and Balaraman (2000), the critical
age in which ­children are sensitive to social development and social
prob­lem solving skills is 5–6  years. If ­children do not gain ­these
impor­tant skills they are more likely to be alienated by their peers and
exhibit prob­lem be­hav­iors (Miles & Stipek, 2006).
Compounding this already complex interplay of pragmatic lan-
guage and social skill development is variability in what is considered
typical language acquisition for preschool c­ hildren. Unevenness in typ-
ical language acquisition before the age of 5 results in im­mense vari-
ability in consistent and appropriate use of social language skills, as
basic forms of language (i.e., content and form) aid effective social in-
teractions (Owens, 2012). Individuals may show appropriate social
intent but lack efficiency in interaction based on poor content and
form skills. Thus, poor or delayed language skills often result in an
inability to interact appropriately with peers. Developing friendships,
the primary socialization context for ­children, is dependent upon ap-
propriate and positive social interactions in preschool (Hadley &
Schuele, 1998).
Typical Early Social Conflict
Social conflicts are thought to be part of typical development for
preschoolers and often focus on disagreements over objects and rules
for play (Raikes, Virmani, Thompson, & Hatton, 2013). A conflict can
be defined as mutual opposition between c­ hildren that involves an
initiator and a responder (David, Murphy, Naylor, & Stonecipher,
2004). Although it is well established that preschool c­ hildren demon-
strate more maladaptive be­hav­iors than older c­ hildren, it is unclear to
404 JENKINS et al.

what extent or to what frequency they do so. Furthermore, research

on conflict in preschool has implications for bullying research ­because
maladaptive and prosocial behavioral patterns are learned early in
life. Therefore, although bullying may not be demonstrated in the
same way among preschool c­ hildren as in older c­ hildren, ­there is a
dearth of information on w ­ hether preschool students demonstrate
precursor be­hav­iors to prevent or exacerbate bullying in ­later grades.
It is not clear what type of social conflicts in preschool might be con-
sidered bullying predictors, since social conflicts are a “normal” part
of development at this stage. B ­ ecause the difference between typical
and aty­pi­cal social conflicts in preschool is not entirely clear, ­future
research should explore this.
Previous research exploring social conflict in preschool provides
applicable information that is relevant to preschool social interactions.
David and colleagues (2004) found that the initiator of conflict tends to
focus on positive outcomes, while the victimized child focuses on the
negative outcomes. According to reports from young ­children, the
initiator does not see conflict as oppositional, and young ­children
tend to minimize their role in conflict while emphasizing harm done
by other c­ hildren involved in the altercation (David et  al., 2004). In
other words, a child who has a toy taken away and retaliates by throw-
ing something ­will emphasize that he or she had the toy first and min-
imize the act of throwing. In the study, preschoolers who initiated
conflict also tended to express more positive emotions, such as joy,
compared to the receiver of the conflict, who tended to express more
negative emotions, such as sadness. Additionally, the child’s role in the
argument may influence their expectations for f­uture interactions.
This implies that if two ­children have a history of conflicted interac-
tions, f­ uture conflicted interactions would be expected (David et al.,
2004). Typically, as c­ hildren develop greater negotiation skills, peer
conflict decreases, which results in more positive relationships among
older ­children (Raikes et al., 2013). While Raikes and colleagues found
a normative decline in peer conflict as ­children enter elementary
school, higher quality relationships with peers ­were associated with
early secure relationships and greater positive social skill develop-
ment. This highlights the need for ­children to experience early, posi-
tive social interactions.
­There is evidence to suggest that social and language skills may
be early predictors of aggressive, victim, and prosocial be­hav­ior, but
the viability of t­ hese predictors has not been explored empirically at
this point. The goal of this review is to provide a narrative summary
of research that links bullying roles in preschool to language and so-
cial development and offer suggestions for f­ uture research in this area.
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 405

Although systematic search procedures w

­ ere conducted, the goal was
not to create a quantitative review.

Methods

A systematic lit­er­a­ture search was conducted to find pertinent ar-

ticles for this summary. Articles included in the review w ­ ere selected
based on lit­er­a­ture searches conducted using PsycInfo, PsycARTICLES,
ERIC, EBSCO, and Google Scholar, as well as manual searching of
reference sections of articles. The “related articles” feature of the search
engines was also utilized to find articles with similar topics. Search
terms in the following categories ­were used in combination with the
terms preschool and early childhood during lit­er­a­ture searches: bullying
roles (i.e., bully, victim, bystander, defender, prosocial, aggressive, vic-
timization), social skills (i.e., social skills, social competence, social de-
velopment, social be­ h av­ior), and language skills (i.e., language
development, social communication, pragmatic language, language
impairment). A publication year restriction was not used. Search en-
gine results w ­ ere screened by the authors. Potential publications for the
review w ­ ere identified by reading titles and abstracts and determining
the relevance of the topic to the goal of the proj­ect. Restrictions based
on location of study (e.g., within and outside of the United States) and
sample size ­were not used. When manually searching reference
sections, the titles of the articles ­were examined. If the title was perti-
nent, the abstract was obtained to determine relevance. Using ­these
procedures, 26 articles w ­ ere chosen to be included in the narrative
summary, which ­were chosen from a total of 43 pos­si­ble articles.

Summary of the Lit­er­a­ture

Preschool Bullying Roles

Much of the bullying lit­er­a­ture has focused on the dyadic rela-
tionship of the bully and the victim; however, many other individuals
indirectly involved in bullying, such as assistants, defenders, reinforc-
ers, and outsiders, are also of interest. In general, bullies are individu-
als who perpetrate aggressive be­hav­ior, and victims are the recipients
of aggressive be­hav­ior. A recent review by Vlachou and colleagues
(2011) extensively describes characteristics of bullies and victims in
preschool, so detailed descriptions are not provided in this review.
Other roles are defined below.
406 JENKINS et al.

One difficulty of studying bullying in the preschool population

is that some researchers argue about the appropriateness of the term
bullying for preschool ­children. Olweus (1993) stated that bullying in-
volves aggressive be­hav­ior repeated over time and directed t­oward
an individual in an intentional manner. The aggressor must also have
some kind of dominance over the victim, such as physical, intellec-
tual, or social power (Olweus, 1993). It is likely that many aggressive
social be­hav­iors in preschool do not meet ­these criteria b ­ ecause some
degree of aggressive be­hav­ior is considered developmentally appro-
priate among preschool-­age ­children (David et al., 2004; Raikes et al.,
2013). For example, grabbing toys from peers is a typical be­hav­ior in
preschool, but deliberately and repeatedly taking items from a peer in
­middle school is likely considered bullying. In other words, bullying
may “look” dif­fer­ent in preschool, thus the traditional three-­prong
definition of bullying (i.e., repeated, intentional, power differential)
used in research with older youth may not apply to preschool. Instead
of focusing on bullying among preschool students, it may make sense
to examine socially aggressive be­hav­iors more broadly. Preschool
­children may not “bully” their peers, but the frequency with which
they engage in socially aggressive be­hav­iors may predict f­ uture bul-
lying role be­hav­iors.
Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, and Kaukiainen
(1996) introduced and defined other bullying roles, which are often
referred to collectively as bystanders. “Assistants” help bullies commit
aggressive acts (e.g., hold down a victim, point out victims), while “re-
inforcers” encourage and support bullies. “Defenders” stand up for
victims, report bullying, or help victims by becoming friends with
them; and “outsiders” are not aware of or ignore bullying. In general,
it is rare to find studies that include preschool reinforcers, assistants,
and outsiders. Defenders are the most studied group of bystanders
among studies with school-­age ­children and adolescents. It is impor­
tant to study t­ hese bystander roles ­because, among older youth, only
20–30% of ­children and adolescents are involved as bullies or victims
(Salmivalli et al., 1996), which means that the majority of c­ hildren are
bystanders. Bystanders, if acting appropriately, have the ability to
thwart bullying, and thus play an impor­tant role in prevention of bul-
lying (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999;
Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). B
­ ecause very l­ ittle information
exists about bystanders in preschool populations, it is not clear how
many preschool ­children are bystanders.
Monks, Smith, and Swettenham (2003) found that preschool
­children most frequently nominated their peers for roles of aggressor,
victim, and defender, but rarely for peripheral roles such as assistant,
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 407

reinforcer, and outsider. Camodeca, Caravita, and Coppola (2014) also

provided evidence that bullying roles can be identified among pre-
school ­children. A peer-­report mea­sure was used to assess bully roles
including bully, follower, victim, defender of the victim, and outsider.
Distinct roles w ­ ere identified, and nominations between peers and
teachers w ­ ere consistent, except for the role of outsider. Preschoolers
identified as defenders ­were also likely to be identified by trained
observers as socially competent, whereas other roles ­were negatively
correlated.
Among school-­ age populations, defenders are considered
­children with high levels of prosocial skills, such as empathy and
sense of responsibility. Typical defending be­hav­iors include confront-
ing bullies, reporting bullying to teachers, and including or trying to
become friends with peers who have been victimized. Defending
seems to be more common in elementary as compared to ­middle
school (Endresen & Olweus, 2001), and even among younger preschool
­children, defending-­like be­hav­iors may be fairly common. Given that
preschool ­children are at the beginning stages of developing complex
social communication, they likely do not show empathy in the same
way as adolescents. Rather than the term defending, it may be more ap-
propriate to look for “prosocial” be­hav­iors among preschool c­ hildren.
­These prosocial be­hav­iors may be early indicators of perspective-­
taking and empathy that may develop into defending be­hav­ior ­later
in elementary school.
­These studies provide evidence that preschool-­aged ­children en-
gage in dif­fer­ent bully roles; however, they may be better able to iden-
tify or describe central bully roles, rather than peripheral roles. One
explanation for this may be due to preschool c­ hildren’s understand-
ing of what is considered bullying. Vlachou and colleagues (2011) hy-
pothesized that preschoolers report higher rates of bullying using
peer nominations ­because they do not fully understand the vari­ous
components of what defines bullying. Similarly, younger ­children’s
concrete thinking and understanding of concepts (e.g., bullying) may
lead them to identify central bullying roles more so than peripheral
roles. Given the level of development of preschoolers’ social, cognitive,
and language skills, definitions and terminology used with older pop-
ulations may not be appropriate for preschool populations.
Language and Social Skills Associated with Preschool Bullying Roles
Though ­there is much research on language development and
bullying individually, very few studies have examined the association
between language development and bullying, particularly among
preschool-­age ­children. Of the few studies that have examined bullying
408 JENKINS et al.

roles and social skills, all have been conducted on populations outside
of the United States (e.g., in the United Kingdom, Italy, & Spain), and
the majority of results focus on bully and victim roles (e.g., Camodeca
et al. 2014; Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2005; Monks, Ruiz, & Val,
2002; Perren & Alsaker, 2006). ­There is some research exploring the
association between language and social skills with aggression, vic-
timization, and prosocial be­hav­ior, but few studies have examined
interrelations between ­these variables in the preschool population. Re-
gardless, ­there are strong indicators that ­these three variables may be
related as described below.
Aggressor. Although physical and relational aggression have
been observed in young school-­age ­children, younger c­ hildren are
more likely than older ­c hildren to use direct (physical) methods of
aggression (Monks et  al., 2002; Perren & Alsaker, 2006). Perren and
Alsaker (2006) reported that in a sample of 345 c­ hildren, aged 5–7 years,
­children classified in bully and bully-­victim roles w ­ ere more aggres-
sive than their peers. Additionally, bully-­victims (i.e., c­ hildren who are
both a bully and a victim) ­were found to be less cooperative and less
sociable. Bullies ­were less prosocial and had more leadership skills
than non-­involved ­children. Bullies also belonged to larger social clus-
ters and ­were frequently affiliated with other bullies or bully-­victims.
Despite bullies being associated with larger social clusters, Monks and
colleagues (2003) found that ­children (4 to 6 years) nominated to the
aggressor role w ­ ere less liked by their peers than c­ hildren nominated
to the victim or defender roles. Similarly, Monks and colleagues (2002)
reported that Spanish preschool ­children aged 4 to 6 assigned to an
aggressor role w ­ ere more likely to be socially rejected. T ­ hese findings
demand further research to better understand ­these somewhat con-
flicting results that suggest although bullies may be sociable, they may
not be liked and accepted by their peers.
In terms of social cognitive and executive functioning skills,
Monks et al. (2005) examined victimization among 104 c­ hildren aged
4–6 years. ­Children w ­ ere presented with a cartoon to elicit peer nomi-
nations for aggressor, victim, and defender. Results indicated that al-
though aggressors had lower levels of social cognitive and executive
functioning skills, levels ­were not significantly dif­fer­ent from other
roles. T
­ hese findings differ from older populations, possibly due to the
developmental nature of social cognition and executive function skills
in the preschool population. For instance, it may be difficult to find
differences in scores when the majority of c­ hildren ages 4–6 have dif-
ficulty taking someone e­ lse’s perspective or curbing their impulses. In
addition, c­ hildren at this age engage in dif­fer­ent types of aggression.
Preschool ­children engage in more direct forms of aggression, rather
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 409

than relational (i.e., indirect) aggression, which requires fewer social

cognitive and executive functioning skills.
Strong verbal skills may also induce relationally aggressive strat-
egies between the ages of 3 to 5 years (Bonica, Arnold, Fisher, Zeljo, &
Yershova, 2013). Relational aggression can include tactics, such as one
child announcing to another a refusal to play with him or her, to
achieve social goals. In general, girls tend to develop and demonstrate
verbal skills sooner than males (Finegan, Niccols, & Sitarenios, 1992;
Tallal, 1991); therefore, it is not surprising that preschool-­age girls have
been found to use relationally aggressive bullying strategies (i.e., so-
cial exclusion) more than boys, who w ­ ere more likely to use physical
aggression (Monks et al., 2005).
Victim. Current research in school-­age ­children suggests that
­children who have language impairments are more likely to experi-
ence social difficulties, due to their difficulties in meeting the lin-
guistic demands of a social exchange. More specifically, deficits in
communication skills, driven by language, correlate with deficiencies
in social cognition through poor emotional competence, executive
functioning, inferencing, and theory of mind (Brinton, Robinson, &
Fujiki, 2004). A child with language impairment may experience dif-
ficulty expressing thoughts or understanding peer language use, or
both. Language impairments negatively influence ­children’s ability to
interact with their peers (Brinton & Fujiki, 1999; Hadley & Schuele,
1998), placing them at risk for victimization and relationship difficulties
such as social rejection due to poor conflict resolution and negotiation
(Lindsay, Dockrell, & Mackie, 2008). Lindsay and colleagues (2008)
also suggest that school-­age ­children with speech and language dis-
orders have increased be­hav­ior prob­lems overall, especially in terms
of peer relations. Given that preschool c­ hildren typically develop into
competent communicators at varying times, questions arise about
how and when both social and language skills develop and how
­these constructs influence each other at this early age.
The connection between language impairments and social diffi-
culties may be related to a number of potential variables, such as
self-­regulation, internalizing characteristics, anxiety, attention prob­
lems, and social isolation (Clegg, Hollis, Mawhood, & Rutter, 2005;
Conti-­Ramsden & Botting, 2004; Fujiki, Spackman, Brinton, & Hall,
2004; Lindsay et al., 2008; Redmond, 2011). The tendency for c­ hildren
with language impairments to be on the outskirts of the group could
lead them to become ideal targets for preschool peers to initiate con-
flict (Brinton & Fujiki, 1999). ­Children with communication disorders
are typically not accepted by their peers due to difficulties with spe-
cific social tasks and as a result, are at risk for more social prob­lems
410 JENKINS et al.

(Brinton & Fujiki, 1999). Internalizing prob­lems such as sadness,

depression, or loneliness are seen more often in ­children with com-
munication impairments, and ­these c­ hildren are also more easily dis-
tracted and anxious when surrounded by their peers (Brinton &
Fujiki, 1999). The internalizing prob­lems and social difficulties of
­children with communication deficits provide evidence that language
impairments may lead to social isolation and victimization at the pre-
school level.
Researchers have also examined victimization and social skills.
Monks and colleagues (2005) presented preschool-­aged c­ hildren with
a cartoon to elicit peer nominations for aggressor, victim, and de-
fender. Although not statistically significant, victims showed slightly
above average or average social cognitive and executive functioning
skills, which is c­ ounter to findings of m
­ iddle school victims who typi-
cally have low social cognitive skills (Sutton, Smith, & Sweetenham,
1999). ­These findings may not be surprising, considering that the victim
role in preschool is less stable (Monks et al., 2003). B ­ ecause they are
young and have a lack of ongoing peer experiences compared to older
­children, it is pos­si­ble that preschool-­aged ­children have not had
enough ongoing peer interactions to establish a victim role.
Malti, Perren, and Buchmann (2010) assessed and examined vic-
timization experiences, empathy, and emotional symptoms in 175 kin-
dergarten ­ children. Participants ­ were recruited at approximately
6 years of age and followed for 1 year. Results suggested that peer vic-
timization impairs ­children’s emotional well-­being and ­children with
average or high levels of empathy may be more sensitive to negative
experiences. Interestingly, as victimization increased, empathy de-
creased. T­hese findings suggest that victimization may impede
social-­emotional development in young ­children, where ­these c­ hildren
may become less sensitive to the needs of o ­ thers over time.
Prosocial. Many studies support a positive correlation between
language and social development. In other words, c­hildren with
strong overall language skills tend to have stronger social skills and
positive peer outcomes. For instance, Monks and colleagues (2002)
found that among Spanish preschool ­children aged 4 to 6 years, de-
fenders ­were the most popu­lar c­ hildren in the class. Camodeca and
colleagues (2014) used a peer report mea­sure to examine the relation
between bullying roles (i.e., bully, follower, victim, defender of the vic-
tim, and outsider) and social competence among 320 preschool
­children. Results indicated that the defender role was positively re-
lated to social competence. Monks and colleagues (2005) reported
similar findings in their study where they presented 104 preschool-­
aged c­ hildren with a cartoon to elicit peer nominations for aggressor,
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 411

victim, and defender roles. Although defenders scored significantly

higher than aggressors on an executive functioning task and above
average on a social cognitive task, t­hese scores w ­ ere not statistically
significant from other roles. However, results are in congruence with
previous research with older c­ hildren. For instance, among older de-
fenders (7–10 years of age), Sutton and colleagues (1999) found that de-
fenders performed well on tasks assessing theory of mind.
Although the findings in the Monks and colleagues (2005) study
­were not significantly dif­fer­ent from the other groups (aggressor and
victim), scores assessing social cognitive skills and executive function-
ing w­ ere higher. This may suggest that t­hese young c­hildren are
starting to formulate and practice skills that ­will enable them to be
more socially aware (i.e., theory of mind) as they grow older. Research-
ers have suggested that ­children who have good theory of mind may
be better able to understand a victimized peer’s distress and inter-
vene. Nonetheless, additional research in this area is sorely needed.

Discussion

At the heart of bullying research is the idea that understanding

bullying be­hav­ior better w ­ ill facilitate prevention. Therefore, if the
goal is to prevent bullying, a larger-­scale approach to prevention must
occur, including bullying prevention efforts starting in early child-
hood, as well as multitiered systems of prevention and interventions
targeted ­toward specific at-­risk groups of students. Based on this re-
view, we offer several recommendations for ­future research in the area
of preschool bullying as well as implications for prevention efforts.
First, early intervention is key, so research on precursors to ag-
gressive, victim, and prosocial be­hav­ior must be conducted with pre-
school samples. Longitudinal research that begins with very young
­children ­will be able to answer impor­tant research questions regard-
ing precursory bullying-­role be­hav­iors. Second, it is not sufficient to
identify bullies and victims and intervene solely with t­ hese individu-
als. It is impor­tant to also study, train, and encourage students to
engage in defending be­hav­iors. Teaching and reinforcing prosocial
be­hav­iors in preschool ­will give schools a head start in preventing
­future bullying prob­lems. This is especially impor­tant considering
that during the ­m iddle school years bullying increases and defend-
ing be­hav­iors decline. Teaching and having c­ hildren practice defend-
ing from a very early age may better prepare c­ hildren to navigate
­middle school, where c­ hildren are most likely to experience or wit-
ness bullying. Third, it may be pos­si­ble to identify c­ hildren that may
412 JENKINS et al.

show early warning signs of bullying, victim, or defending be­hav­iors

based on their social and language skills in preschool. Examining the
association between t­hese skills and bullying may reveal impor­tant
relationships that ­will propel f­uture research and teaching practices
in school.
Fourth, as mentioned above, t­ here are dif­fer­ent types of aggres-
sive be­hav­iors. The most common types of aggression for preschool
­children can be categorized as physical aggression and relational/social
aggression (Crick et  al., 2006). Physical aggression includes be­hav­iors
such as hitting, shoving, pulling, and taking objects, while relational or
social aggression includes social exclusion, threatening friendship with-
drawal, and ignoring. Verbal aggression is also noted in preschool, but
is less sophisticated than verbal bullying in older ­children and mostly
includes name calling. Though the empirical lit­er­a­ture has not exam-
ined relationships among types of aggression, pragmatic language, and
social skills, it is pos­si­ble that students with dif­fer­ent social and lan-
guage abilities engage in, are the recipient of, or defend against dif­fer­
ent types of aggression. For example, ­children with poor social language
skills may not engage in certain verbally aggressive be­hav­iors (e.g.,
gossiping and threatening friendship withdrawal). Language and so-
cial skills of preschool ­children in relation to aggressive be­hav­iors
should be examined with consideration of dif­fer­ent types of aggres-
sive be­hav­iors.
Fifth, it is not clear if other bystander roles are pres­ent in pre-
school social interactions. Bystander roles (e.g., reinforcers, assistants,
and outsiders) have not been widely studied in any of the school-­age
bullying lit­er­a­ture, but research on bystanders is particularly absent
within the preschool population research. ­Future research may need
to explore when more diverse bystander roles start to emerge.
Fi­nally, additional researchers, particularly using longitudinal
methods, need to clarify the causal relationship between language and
social impairments and bullying roles. Language impairments in pre-
schoolers seem to be connected to bullying and social deficits. How-
ever, social competency can be achieved by c­ hildren with language
impairments if directly targeted. ­Children with language impairments
can improve social and language skills when each child’s specific social
language deficit is identified and remediated (Horo­w itz, Jansson,
Ljungberg, & Hedenbro, 2006). Due to the positive correlation between
prior social interaction and the reduction of bullying, it can be inferred
that increasing appropriate social interactions prevent bullying in this
population of preschool c­ hildren with language impairments. If pre-
schoolers with language impairments are better able to effectively re-
spond to conflict ­after social skills intervention, they may also increase
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 413

their opportunities for positive social interactions with peers. When a

positive relationship is established between preschoolers with lan-
guage impairments and their typically developing peers, the former
are better able to effectively respond to conflict and improve their so-
cial skills, thus experiencing more social interactions. Increased social
interactions would, in turn, provide a better foundation to build ­these
students’ social and language skills (Horo­witz et al., 2006).
Ser­vice providers such as school psychologists and speech-­
language pathologists have a unique opportunity to enhance pre-
school students’ appropriate social interactions. Gaining a greater
understanding of the interplay between pragmatic language develop-
ment and early opportunities for social interaction in preschool ­will
provide the first steps to decreasing bullying experiences in preschool.
In addition to the research needs mentioned above, profession-
als working with ­children should engage in more intentional, explicit
teaching and practicing of social and emotional learning. Many states
have social and emotional learning standards that are geared t­ oward
teaching impor­tant skills to students to prevent as many social and
emotional difficulties as pos­si­ble (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Tay-
lor, & Schellinger, 2011). Preschool educators should begin to follow
the social and emotional learning standards as part a multitiered ser­
vice delivery model. Many public schools use a multitiered ser­vice de-
livery model (a.k.a. Response to Intervention, Pyramid Model, Positive
Be­hav­ior Supports, or Positive Be­hav­ior and Intervention Supports). A
benefit of multitiered systems of support is that explicit, systematic in-
struction is used to teach all students the most impor­tant skills (e.g.,
academic, social, behavioral, or emotional skills). For ­children that are
not successful with this first tier of instruction, specialized instruction
is used to meet their needs. This multitiered model of social and emo-
tional learning is an ideal framework for beginning bullying pre-
vention at the preschool level. Addressing the limitations of this
recommendation (e.g., not all c­ hildren attend preschool, range of qual-
ity of preschool ser­vices and/or staff) w ­ ill not be an easy task; how-
ever, this article provides a starting place to explore potential solutions
and areas of research that w ­ ill likely lead to the prevention of bully-
ing among older youth and adolescence.

References
American Speech Language Hearing Association (2015). Components of
Social Communication. Retrieved from http://­www​.­asha​.­org​
/­uploadedFiles​/­ASHA​/­Practice​_­Portal​/­Clinical​_­Topics​/­Social​
_­Communication​_­Disorders​_­in​_­School​-­Age​_­Children​/­Compo​
414 JENKINS et al.

nents​-­o f​-­S ocial​-­C ommunication​.­p df#search​=­%22compo​

nents%22
Bonica, C., Arnold, D. H., Fisher, P. H., Zeljo, A., & Yershova, K. (2003).
Relational aggression, relational victimization, and language
development in preschoolers. Social Development, 12, 551–562.
doi:10.1111/1467–9507.00248
Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1999). Social interactional be­hav­iors of ­children
with specific language impairment. Topics in Language Disor­
ders, 19, 49–69. doi: 10.1097/00011363–199902000–00006
Brinton, B., Robinson, L. A., & Fujiki, M. (2004). Description of a program
for social language intervention: “If you can have a conversa-
tion, you can have a relationship.” Language, Speech, and Hearing
Ser­vices in Schools, 35, 283–290.
Camodeca, M., Caravita, S., & Coppola, G. (2014). Bullying in pre-
school: The associations between participant roles, social
competence, and social preference.  Aggressive Be­hav­ior, 41,
310–321. doi: 10.1002/ab.21541
Caprara, K. W., Werner, R. S., Rourke, M., Zubernis, L. S., & Balaraman,
G. (2000). The relationship between psychological under-
standing and positive social be­hav­iors. Social Development, 12,
198–221. doi: 10.1111/1467–9507.00229
Clegg, J., Hollis, C., Mawhood, L., & Rutter, M. (2005). Developmental
language disorders—­a follow-up in ­later adult life. Cognitive,
language and psychosocial outcomes. The Journal of Child Psy­
chol­ogy and Psychiatry, 46, 128–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1469–7610​
.2004.00342.x
Conti-­Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victim-
ization in c­ hildren with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 145–161. doi: 10.1044/1092–
4388​(2014/013)
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds). (2009). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs (3rd ed.). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young ­Children.
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in
the playground and in the classroom. School Psy­chol­ogy Inter­
national, 21, 22–36. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211002
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Burr, J. E., Cullerton-­Sen, C., Jansen-­Yeh, E., &
Ralston, P. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational and physi-
cal aggression in preschool.  Journal of Applied Developmental
Psy­chol­ogy, 27, 254–268. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.02.006
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 415

David, K., Murphy, B., Naylor, J., & Stonecipher, K. (2004). The effects
of conflict role and intensity on preschoolers’ expectations
about peer conflict. International Journal of Behavioral Develop­
ment, 28, 508–517. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000216
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., &
Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ so-
cial and emotional learning: A meta-­analysis of school-­based
universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2010.01564.x
Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2001). Self-­reported empathy in Norwe-
gian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship
to bullying. In Stipek, D. & Bohart, A., eds., Constructive and
Destructive Be­hav­ior: Implications for ­Family, School, and Society,
147–165. Washington: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10433–007
Finegan, J. A. K., Niccols, G. A., & Sitarenios, G. (1992). Relations be-
tween prenatal testosterone levels and cognitive-­abilities at
4  years. Developmental Psy­chol­ogy, 28,  1075–1089. doi:
10.1037/0012–1649.28.6.1075
Fujiki, M., Spackman, M., Brinton, B., & Hall, A. (2004). The relation-
ship of language and emotion regulation skills to reticence in
­children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 637–646. doi: 10.1044/1092–
4388 (2004/049)
Hadley, P. A., & Schuele, C. M. (1998). Facilitating Peer InteractionSo-
cially Relevant Objectives for Preschool Language Interven-
tion. American Journal of Speech-­Language Pathology, 7(4), 25–36.
doi: 10.1044/1058–0360.0704.25
Horo­witz, L., Jansson, L., Ljungberg, T., & Hedenbro, M. (2006). Interac-
tion before conflict and conflict resolution in pre-­school boys
with language impairment. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 41, 441–466. doi:10.1080/1368282050​
0292551
Lindsay, G., Dockrell, J. E., & Mackie, C. (2008). Vulnerability to bully-
ing in c­ hildren with a history of specific speech and language
difficulties. Eu­ro­pean Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 1–16.
doi: 10.1080/08856250701791203
Malti, T., Perren, S., & Buchmann, M. (2010). ­Children’s peer victimiza-
tion, empathy, and emotional symptoms. Child Psychiatry
­Human Development, 41, 98–113. doi: 10.1007/s10578–009–0155–8
416 JENKINS et al.

McCabe, A., & Rollins, P. M. (1994). Assessment of preschool narrative

skills. American Journal of Speech-­Language Pathology, 3, 45–56.
doi: 10.1044/1058–0360.0301.45
Miles, S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal as-
sociations between social be­hav­ior and literacy achievement in
a sample of low-­income elementary school c­ hildren. Child De­
velopment, 77, 103–117. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2006.00859.x
Miller, C. A. (2006). Developmental relationships between language
and theory of mind. American Journal of Speech-­Language Pa­
thology, 15, 142–154. doi:10.1044/1058–0360(2006/014)
Monks, C., Ruiz, R. O., & Val, E. T. (2002). Unjustified aggression in pre-
school. Aggressive Be­hav­ior, 28, 458–476. doi:10.1002/ab.10032
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims,
and defenders in preschool: Peer, self-­, and teacher reports.
Merill-­Palmer Quarterly, 49, 453–469. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0024
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). Psychological cor-
relates of peer victimisation in preschool: Social cognitive
skills, executive function and attachment profiles. Aggressive
Be­hav­ior, 31, 571–588. doi:10.1002/ab.20099
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-­Morton,
B., & Scheit, P. (2001). Bully be­hav­iors among US youth: Preva-
lence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. doi: 10.1001/
jama.285.16.2094
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bully-
ing: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adoles­
cence, 22, 437–452. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0238
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can
do. Oxford, ­England: Wiley-­Blackwell.
Owens,  R.  E. (2012). Language development: An introduction (8th  ed.).
Upper ­Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social be­h av­ior and peer rela-
tionships of victims, bully-­v ictims, and bullies in kinder-
garten. Journal of Child Psy­chol­ogy and Psychiatry, 47, 45–57.
doi:10.1111/j.1469–7610.2005.01445.x
Polanin, J., Espelage, D., & Pigott, T. (2012). A meta-­analysis of school-­
based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander
intervention be­hav­ior. School Psy­chol­ogy Review, 41, 47–65.
Raikes, H. A., Virmani, E. A., Thompson, R. A., & Hatton, H. (2013).
Declines in peer conflict from preschool through first grade:
PRESCHOOL SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE SKILLS 417

Influences from early attachment and social information pro­

cessing. Attachment & H ­ uman Development, 15, 65–82. doi:10.10
80/14616734.2012.728381
Redmond, S. M. (2011). Peer victimization among students with specific
language impairment, attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
and typical development. Language, Speech, Hearing Ser­vices in
Schools, 42, 520–535. doi: 10:1044/0161–1461(2011/10–0078)
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kauki-
ainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group pro­cess: Participant roles
and their relations to social status within the group. Aggres­
sive Be­hav­ior, 22, 1–15. doi:10​.­1002​/­(SICI)1098–2337(1996)22:1&lt
;1::AID​-­AB1>3​.­0​.­CO;2​-­T
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders ­matter:
Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the fre-
quency of bullying be­hav­ior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical
Child & Adolescent Psy­chol­ogy, 40, 668–676. doi:10.1080/1537441
6.2011.597090
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bul-
lying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal
of Developmental Psy­chol­ogy, 17, 435–450. doi:10.1348/0261510​
99165384
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Expanding the social-­ecological
framework of bullying among youth: Lessons learned from
the past and directions for the f­ uture. In D.L. Espelage & S.M.
Swearer (Eds.). Bullying in North American schools (2nd  ed.)
(pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tallal, P. (1991). Hormonal influences in developmental learning disabil-
ities. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16,  203–211. doi: 10.1016/0306–
4530(91)​90079–9
Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). Bullying, self-­control, and ADHD.
Journal of Interpersonal Vio­lence, 18, 129–147. doi: 10.1177/​0886​
260502238731
Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., & Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bul-
lying/victim prob­lems among preschool ­children: A review
of current research evidence. Educational Psy­chol­ogy Review,
23, 329–358. doi: 10.1007/s10648–011–9153-­z
Copyright of Education & Treatment of Children is the property of West Virginia University
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.