CHILDREN’S EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, PERCEPTIONS ON

INTERPARENTAL CONFLICTS AND BULLYING ROLES

ANA-MARIA ŢEPORDEI1, ELENA-ALEXANDRA PANGA2

Abstract
The present study investigated the relationships among children’s global
emotional intelligence, their perceptions on interparental conflicts (in terms of
properties, perceived threat and self-blame), and their school bullying roles (i.e.,
aggressor, victim, and positive interactions). Data was collected from a sample of
120 Romanian middle school students (54% girls) attending the same school from a
rural area, by self-reported measures for all variables considered. Results indicated
significant negative correlations between emotional intelligence and each of the
other variables except for positive interactions, as well as positive relations between
all three dimensions of perceived marital conflicts and the bully role. Additionally,
victim role and bully role were found to be significantly positively correlated.
Further, properties of the perceived interparental conflicts were the only significant
predictor of the bully role, whereas emotional intelligence was the only significant
predictor of the victim role. Results are discussed and suggestions for future studies
are made.
Keywords: school bullying, bullying roles, emotional intelligence, interparental conflicts

Introduction
School violence is a worrying growing phenomenon in the Romanian
educational context, especially in middle and high schools. As a form of
interpersonal aggression, school bullying refers to long-term repeated intentional
negative actions manifested by one or more students towards another student in an
interpersonal unequal relation [Olweus, 1994]. These attacks may take different
forms of physical, psychological, social or verbal violence (e.g., harassment,
teasing, nicknaming, kicking, threats, insults, rejection, isolation, repeated denials
etc.) exerted on someone in an inferior position by someone with more power
either for his/ her own pleasure or for causing sufferance [see Curelaru, M., 2013;
Marian, 2011]. These aversive behaviors may have long-standing negative

1
Lecturer, Ph.D., “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Romania. E-mail:
ana.tepordei@uaic.ro
2
Mastery student, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Romania. E-mail:
alexa.ela94@yahoo.com
consequences on the social and emotional development as well as on the
interpersonal interactions for all the actors involved in school bullying.
Given the high negative impact of this form of aggression and the efforts made
towards preventing or diminishing it, there is a major interest in finding out what
causes one student to become a bully or a victim. There is a rich literature trying to
provide answers to this question from different perspectives with various studies
pointing out students’ personality traits [e.g., see Lazăr, 2013; Nastas, 2013], the
characteristics of their family microclimate [e.g., see Pascal, 2013] or the
characteristics of the school environment [e.g., Curelaru, V., 2013; Sălăvăstru &
Ţepordei, 2010].
In our present research we narrowed down this array of potential explicative
factors and focused on children’s emotional intelligence and their exposure to
interparental conflicts (seen as a likely source of influence on their emotional
development and on their aggression levels through imitative processes).
Regardless of their bullying roles, children’s emotional dysfunctions were proved
to be a constant presence (e.g., they are either highly aggressive or timid and
vulnerable, they have lower levels of socio-emotional skills and empathy, and they
don’t know how to say or describe what they feel when aggressing or being
aggressed) thought to be determined, among others, by a tensional and negative
affective family climate [e.g., Crapanzano, Frick & Terranova, 2010].

Emotional intelligence and bullying

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to people’s ability to recognize both their own
and the others’ distinctive emotions, to control and share these affective states and
to use them in guiding their thought and behavior [Mayer, Caruso & Salovey,
2000; Schutte et al., 1998]. From an interpersonal perspective, EI and especially
empathy refer to heaving an emotional reaction towards someone but also to have
the perspective-taking cognitive ability, that is being able to acknowledge and
understand other’s perspective and reactions.
Individuals with higher levels of EI are better at recognizing and regulating their
own emotions, and they are more likely to engage in positive relations with close
friends or in general [e.g., Lopes, Salovey & Straus, 2003]. They are also more
empathic therefore being better at anticipating potential negative feelings elicited
in others’ by their own behavior. Being aware of their potential negative emotional
impact on others and trying to avoid consequent feelings of remorse or guilt might
lead those with higher EI to less engagement in bullying behaviors [Gini et al.,
2007; Lomas et al., 2012]. Previous findings show that bullies tend to have a lower
ability of expressing emotions together with a lower ability of recognizing the
others’ [e.g., Cohen & Strayer, 1996]. Still, some authors argue that the ability of
perspective taking is necessary but not sufficient; one might recognize the other’s
emotion, but he/ she needs also the ability or willingness to share this emotion
[e.g., Hoffman, 2000, cf. Gini et al., 2007]. Interestingly, research on bullying
showed that this problematic development of EI skills is also to be found when
focusing on victimization. Gini [2006] found that the lower the students’ ability to
recognize and understand the emotions and intentions of others, the higher their
risk to become the target of their bully peers. He also found that while bullies
showed fewer difficulties in social cognition tasks than victims, they also displayed
a higher level of moral disengagement mechanisms, thus reiterating the
abovementioned distinction between the cognitive ability to understand other’s
emotions and the ability to share them.
Both school victims and aggressors were found to have difficulties in
controlling and regulating their own emotions and behaviors [e.g., Crapanzano,
Frick & Terranova, 2010]. Proactive aggressors tend to have lower levels of guilt,
empathy, and responsiveness to negative emotional stimuli, together with a higher
belief that aggression is an effective way to get what they want. The reactive
aggressors are more impulsive, more prone to interpret negatively ambiguous
emotional stimuli, and less effective in controlling their response when being
provoked. The victims show lower levels of self-autonomy and communication
skills, they are more isolated and have difficulties in initiating or maintaining
social relations with others due to their anxiety, timidity, or fear of being rejected
and criticized.
When trying to understand these differences in children’s emotional
development and their social skills, one crucial impact factor is their family
context. In their study on parental meta-emotions and parental emotion coaching
Gotteman, Katz and Hooven [1997] argue that when parents accept their children
and express their affection or feelings, they encourage and help their children to
identify, to understand, and to use their own emotions. In this way children develop
and manifest a higher ability of emotion regulation and control, behaving in more
positive and effective ways. Conversely, negative attitudes towards children as
well as a lower level of emotional bondage among family memebers represent a
significant risk factor for developing aggressive behaviors in children [see Alegre,
2011, for a review].
As Goleman [2001] pointed out, family life is the individuals’ first emotional
schooling from a very early age. In this microclimate we learn to recognize our
own emotions as well as the others’ reactions to our emotions. We learn how to
interpret and select our emotions, how to read and express our hopes and fears.
And this emotional schooling does not refer solely to what parents tell children or
do for children; it also refers to the emotional and behavioral models offered by
parents by the way they express and treat their own emotions along with the
emotions expressed and shared in their marital relation.

Interparental conflicts and children’s bullying roles

The socio-emotional climate in the family context represents an important factor
in children’s emotional and social development. Thousands of children in many
countries worldwide had been exposed to domestic violence and research showed
that witnessing or, worse, being the victim of interparental aggression during their
childhood is a predictor of children’s future displaying aggression in both
interpersonal and intimate relations [e.g., Magwa, 2013].
According to some Romanian studies in our country the domestic violence still
is a frequent phenomenon, with 60% of the population investigated considering it
an ordinary thing and also legitimate in 16% of the cases [see Muntean &
Munteanu, 2011]. The father’s need for power and control, the lack of mother’s
authority, disagreements and lack of communication between parents, as well as
intolerance towards children’s behaviors or partener’s conduct are few of the
characteristics leading to marital conflicts or disfunctional families. In many cases
children’s aggression is a response mechanism triggered by the lack of parental
affection or by frustrations and tensions appraised within their family contexts.
Many bullying victims come also from emotionally dysfunctional families. On one
hand, parental overprotection towards their children may enhance the latter’s
anxiety and insecurity; on the other hand, exposure to aggressive behaviors among
family members may lead to children’s low self-esteem and heightened fear or
feelings of threat. Therefore these contexts create a cognitive and emotional
vicious circle out of which it is extremely difficult for the victimized children to
come out [Pascal, 2013].
Despite the common sense belief that young children are not too affected by
their parents’ arguments or conflicts, scientific studies showed the opposite: the
younger the children, the more affected they are and the posttraumatic effects will
be more serious and enduring [e.g., Magwa, 2013]. Preschoolers have usually three
types of reactions when their parents argue: some of them feel negative emotions
both during and after the conflict, others express no feelings on the moment but
afterwards they feel anger, while others feel negative emotions during the conflict
saying afterwards that they didn’t care. It is true that, when compared to older
children, the younger ones might not always be aware of their parents’ being in
conflict, but when they do become aware they are more vulnerable and at more risk
due to their less developed cognitive processing which reduces their apprehension
of the contextual factors, their ability to make various causal inferences or
attributions, and therefore the effectiveness of their coping mechanisms [e.g.,
Cummings, Zahn‐Waxler, & Radke‐Yarrow, 1984].
In the present study our approach on the link between family context and
children’s bullying roles is grounded in Grych and Fincham’s [1990]
comprehensive cognitive-contextual framework of the relation between marital
conflicts and children’s adjustment. Their model focuses on children’s responses to
their parents’ conflicts and on their coping mechanisms to these stressors. The
authors try to explain when and how children appraise these marital conflicts
(primary processing) and their cognitive processing in attempting to understand
and response to these episodes (secondary processing), and also which are the
individual and contextual factors that might moderate the stressfulness of these
conflicts for the children. As they argue, there is no married couple without some
degree of problems, but children are not necessarily always aware of them either
because they are too young, or because these interparental disagreements are not
expressed or overt so it is unlikely to be directly affected them. As studies showed
[cf. Grych & Fincham, 1990] the “encapsulated conflicts” (reflected by apathy or
indifference between parents) were less correlated to children’s problems than the
overtly unhappy tensional conflictual parents.
Children’s appraisal of the conflict and their initial affective response (i.e.,
primary processing) to it are influenced by the characteristics of these conflicts in
terms of frequency, intensity, content and resolution. Exposure to more frequent
marital conflicts, especially those concerning the children’s behavior or the
marriage, that imply a higher degree of hostility expressed by verbal or/ and
physical aggression, and that are poorly resolved are more likely to be perceived as
threatening and stressful and to have a more negative affective impact on
children’s emotional and behavioral adjustment [e.g., Coyne, Barrett & Duffy,
2000]. Furthermore, the authors argue that children’s causal attributions for the
event and their potential inferences on blame and responsibility (i.e., secondary
processing) are also likely to be moderated by both proximal (their mood and
expectations) and distal contextual factors (their age, temperament, past experience
with conflicts, emotional climate).
There are several possible mechanisms that could explain these theoretically
assumed causal relations between perceptions of marital conflicts and children’s
adjustment. Modeling through imitation (not mimicry), as described by Bandura
[1977], could be one such mechanism. By being exposed to verbally and/ or
physically aggressive family conflicts children might get the message that
aggression is permitted and it is a way (sometimes rewarding) to deal with
unpleasant or distressful stimuli. In these cases children’s tendency to imitate and
to take their parents’ model is even higher because the source (i.e., parents) has a
higher status and power, it is more important and salient, and also more attractive
and affectively closed to the child. Other possible mechanisms are those referring
to conflict as a factor deteriorating the parent-child affective bondage,
communication and interactions, or to the conflict as a stressor inducing higher
levels of distress especially when it is frequent, intense and unresolved. This makes
children to use their initial basic few coping mechanisms, mainly aggression or
anxiety/ withdrawal, coping strategies that are likely to be consistent and
perpetuated in time and in various stressful situations [Cummings, Zahn‐Waxler, &
Radke‐Yarrow, 1984].
All these possible explanations are plausible and it is difficult to clearly detect
in empirical studies which one weights more. Yet, whatever the underlying
mechanism, there is an undoubtedly significant relation between perceived
interparental conflicts and children’s emotional and behavioral adjustment.

The present study

Our mainly exploratory objective was to see how bullying roles, emotional
intelligence and perceived interparental conflicts are related in a sample of
Romanian middle school children. More specifically, we were interested in finding
out how each bullying role (i.e., bully and victim) and the positive interaction,
respectively, are correlated with children’s global emotional intelligence, with the
characteristics of perceived marital conflicts (in terms of frequency, duration and
resolution), as well as with children’s feelings of threat and self-blame. Moreover
we investigated if and which of these independent variables are significant
predictors for children’s negative (bullying roles) and positive social interactions
with their peers.

Method
Participants and procedure. 120 middle school students (54% girls) in the 7th
and 8th grade took part in our study. Their ages ranged from 13 to 15 years and they
were all enrolled in a public school from a rural area in the Eastern region of
Romania. To note, this school does not have an educational counselor thus all
children’s disciplinary problems are being handled either by master teachers or by
each teacher during his/ her classes.
Written permission for the study was given by the school principle and by the
teachers during whose classes the questionnaires were administered in paper-and-
pencil format. Students were guaranteed anonymity and they were informed that
they could withdraw at any time. Initially 140 participants completed the measures,
but 5 of them withdrew from the study and the answers of other 15 students were
not included in the statistical analyses for being either incomplete or with multiple
answers for the same item.

Measures
Emotional intelligence. Students’ global emotional intelligence was measured
with the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale [SREIS; Schutte, Malouff, Hall,
Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim, 1998]. This 33-item unifactorial
instrument was designed to assess various aspects of emotional intelligence such as
appraisal, expression, regulation and use of one’s emotions (e.g., “By looking at
their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing”, “When
I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last”). The scale was
reported to have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability [e.g.,
Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001; Schutte et al., 1998], also on Romanian
population [Frumos & Labăr, 2009]. Respondents rated their agreement with each
item on a 5-point Lickert scale, where 1=”total disagreement” and 5= “total
agreement”. The average score was computed with a higher score indicating a
higher emotional intelligence. Previous studies [e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar,
2001] already tested the scale on early adolescents (13-15 years) concluding that it
is a valid measure of the emotional intelligence for this age group. In the present
study, the scale showed good internal consistency (see Table 2).
Exposure to marital conflicts. For assessing this variable participants completed
the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale [CPIC; Grych, Sied, &
Fincham, 1992]. This instrument measures specific aspects of interpersonal
conflict from the child’s perspective and it was developed based on Grych and
Fincham [1990]’s cognitive-contextual model for understanding the interparental
conflicts. The 52 items of the scale were initially divided into nine subscales finally
refined and narrowed down to three dimensions: 1. the conflict properties subscale
(nineteen items) assessing the frequency, intensity and the resolution of the
perceived interparental conflicts (e.g., “They may not think I know it, but my
parents argue or disagree a lot”; “Even after my parents stop arguing they stay mad
at each other”); 2. the perceived threat subscale (twelve items) assessing children’s
threat and their coping efficacy (e.g., “When my parents argue I’m afraid that
something bad will happen”; “I don’t know what to do when my parents have
arguments”); 3. the self-blame subscale (nine items) assessing the extent to which
children blame themselves and feel responsible for these marital conflicts (e.g.,
“It’s usually my fault when my parents argue”; “My parents’ arguments are usually
about something I did”). Responses were given on a 3-point scale where 0=
“false”, 1= “sort of true”, and 2= “true”, with a higher score indicating a higher
frequency and intensity of poorly resolved conflicts, higher levels of perceived
threat and self-blame, respectively. The instrument showed acceptable levels of
internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity being significantly
correlated with both parents’ self-reports on marital conflicts and with various
indices of children’s aggression and adjustment [e.g., Bickham & Fiese, 1997;
Grych, Sied, & Fincham, 1992; Grych et al., 2000]. In this study, the three
subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (see Table 2).
Bullying roles. For measuring students’ forms of participation in bullying acts
we used the adapted Romanian version [Beldean-Galea & Jurcău, 2010] of the
Students’ Self-Report Questionnaire developed by Stevens, de Bourdeaudhuij and
Van Oost [2000] for assessing behavioral outcomes in the interactions among
students at school. This 22-item instrument comprises three different subscales: the
bully scale (eight items; e.g., “How often did it happen that you tried to hurt other
students”) measuring the extant of bullying other students, the victim scale (eight
items; e.g., “How often did it happen that other students tried to hurt you”)
measuring the extant of victimization, and the positive interaction scale (six items;
e.g., “How often did it happen that other students shared something with you”)
measuring the level of positive interactions among students. Respondents used a 4-
point Lickert scale from 0= “it has not happened” to 4= “several times a week”, a
higher score indicating a higher tendency to display that role during social
interactions among students. In our study, all three subscales showed acceptable
internal consistency (see Table 2).

Results
Cronbach’s Alphas were computed to test the internal consistency of all
instruments used and descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations
were calculated for the continous variables. Independent samples t-test was used to
analyze gender differences on each of these variables. Pearson correlation was used
to test bivariate associations between variables in the study. Hierarchical multiple
regression analyses and simple linear regression, respectively, were used to
evaluate the predictive streangth of emotional intelligence and dimensions of
perceived interparental conflict on children’s bullying roles. P-values ≤.05 were
considered statistically significant.
Preliminary analyses
Means and standard deviations for all variables are displayed in Table 1.
Significant gender differences were found on children’s emotional intelligence,
self-blame, and bully role. Specifically, boys in our sample reported lower levels of
global emotional intelligence than girls, together with higher levels of self-blame
felt when exposed to interparental conflicts, and higher levels of bully behaviors,
respectively (see Table 1).
 Total Boys (N = 55) Girls (N = 65) t-test
(N = 120) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Emotional intelligence 3.71 (.47) 3.61 (.46) 3.80 (.46) -2.20*
Conflict properties .69 (.35) .73 (.35) .65 (.35) 1.35
Self-blame .73 (.38) .84 (.38) .64 (.36) 2.87**
Perceived threat .74 (.46) .79 (.43) .70 (.48) 1.006
Bully .61 (.59) .79 (.71) .46 (.41) 3.13**
Victim 1.03 (.69) 1.02 (.68) 1.03 (.70) -.07
Positive interaction 2.58 (.85) 2.50 (.95) 2.65 (.76) -.95
Note: *p < .05 **p < .01
Table 1. Gender differences on emotional intelligence, perception on interparental
conflicts (properties, self-blame, perceived threat) and bullying roles

Correlations
Our data (see Table 2) revealed significant negative correlations between
children’s global emotional intelligence and each of the other variables (i.e.,
dimensions of the perceived marital conflicts, the bully, and the victim role) except
for the positive interaction. The bully role was significantly positively associated
with all three dimensions of the interparental conflicts (i.e., conflict properties,
self-blame and perceived threat). Neither the victim role nor the positive
interaction was significantly related to these three dimensions of the marital
conflicts. Moreover, a quite strong positive correlation was found between the
victim role and the bully role, as well as a weak but significant positive association
between the victim role and the positive interaction. Finally, perceived threat was
found to be strongly positively correlated with conflict properties, and also with
self-blame (though this latter correlation was much weaker).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Emotional intelligence .815
2.Conflict properties -.207* .825
3.Self-blame -.198* .178 .611
4.Perceived threat -.224* .748** .243** .798
** **
5.Bully -.235 .329 .228* .256** .755
*
6.Victim -.218 .178 .059 .170 .503** .730
7.Positive interaction .078 -.082 -.057 -.068 -.138 .198* .764
Note: Internal consistency Alpha Cronbach indices are presented in italics on the diagonal;
*
p < .05 **p < .01
Table 2. Correlations between emotional intelligence, perception on interparental
conflicts (properties, self-blame, perceived threat) and bullying roles
 Predictors for the bully role
Based on the abovementioned pattern of correlations, four predictors were used
in the hierarchical multiple regression for explaining the bully role, namely
emotional intelligence, conflict properties, self-blame and perceived threat. These
four predictors were entered the analysis in two steps: (1) emotional intelligence
(2) the three dimensions of the conflict. Results (see Table 3) showed that, when
taken alone, emotional intelligence was a significant, though weak, predictor of the
bully role (Model 1), explaining only 5 % of the variance of the criterion variable.
After entering the three dimensions of the interparental conflict (Model 2), the
predictive power of the regression model significantly increases with 9.8 % (∆R2 =
.098), explaining 12.6 % of the total variance of the bully role. In this second regression
model only the variable conflict properties was found to be a significant predictor of the
bully role, with emotional intelligence losing its predictive significance.

Variables B SE B β
Model 1
Emotional intelligence -.30 .11 -.24**
Model 2
Emotional intelligence -.19 .11 -.15
Conflict properties .47 .22 .28*
Self-blame .23 .14 .15
Perceived threat -.03 .17 -.03
Note: for Model 1, R2adj = .050; for Model 2, R2adj = .126, ∆R2 = .098 (p<.01); * p < .05 **
p
< .01
Table 3. First hierarchical multiple regression results for predicting children’s
bully role

The collinearity statistics for Model 2 revealed a multicollinearity situation as

both conflict properties and perceived threat variables had tolerance coefficients
(.438 and .425, respectively) much lower than the minimal accepted value (1-
R2adj= .874), due to the high correlation between the two independent variables (r =
.748). Therefore a second regression analysis was conducted entering the four
predictors in three steps: (1) emotional intelligence (2) conflict properties and self-
blame (3) perceived threat. Results (see Table 4) showed that emotional
intelligence, conflict properties and self-blame all taken together (Model 2) explain
13.3 % of the total variance of the dependent variable, this regression model being
the best of the three and with the conflict properties variable being the only
significant predictor. When entered the regression analysis, perceived threat
variable decreased the predictive power of the model to 12.6 % (Model 3).
 Variables B SE B β
Model 1
Emotional intelligence -.30 .11 -.24**
Model 2
Emotional intelligence -.19 .11 -.15
Conflict properties .44 .15 .26**
Self-blame .23 .13 .15
Model 3
Emotional intelligence -.19 .11 -.16
Conflict properties .47 .22 .28*
Self-blame .23 .14 .15
Perceived threat -.03 .17 -.03
Note: for Model 1, R2adj = .050; for Model 2, R2adj = .133, ∆R2 = .097 (p < .01); for Model 3,
R2adj = .126, ∆R2 = .000 (p > .05); * p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 4. Second hierarchical multiple regression results for predicting children’s
bully role

Predictor of the victim role

Since none of the three dimensions of the interparental conflicts correlated
significantly with the victim role, emotional intelligence was the only predictor
used in this liner regression analysis. Results (see Table 5) showed that emotional
intelligence was a significant yet weak negative predictor of the victim role (F (1,118)
= 5.903, p < .05) explaining 4.8 % of the variance in the victim role variable.

R R2 B SE B β
Emotional intelligence .218 .048 -.318 .131 -.218**
Note: ** p < .01
Table 5. Simple linear regression results for predicting children’s victim role

Discussion
The main purpose of the present exploratory study was to investigate how
middle school children’s bullying roles are related to and predicted by their global
emotional intelligence, their perceptions on interparental conflicts as well as their
potential negative feelings induced by these conflicts. The first preliminary
analyses revealed some significant gender differences. In line with previous studies
[see Lazăr, 2013], boys in our sample were found to engage more frequently in
bully behaviors than girls, and to have lower levels of global emotional
intelligence. They also reported higher levels of self-blame felt when exposed to
interparental conflicts. This might be due to the fact that within families boys are
generally less submissive and quiet than girls and they might perceive the content
of their parents’ arguments as being linked more to their own misconduct than to
the state of their parents’ marriage.
Our correlation analyses revealed that children in both bully and victim position
tend to have lower levels of EI. This confirms previous findings showing that both
aggressors and victims in school bullying tend to be less emphatic, less able to
appraise and regulate their own emotions, and less able to recognize and
understand others’ emotions [e.g., Crapanzano, Frick & Terranova, 2010; Gini,
2006]. EI was also found to be negatively correlated to all three dimensions of the
marital conflicts. This means that children’s lower levels of emotional intelligence
are associated with exposure to and perception of frequent and intense interparental
conflicts accompanied by higher levels of perceived threat and self-blame.
Further, all these three dimensions of the perceived conflicts were found to be
significantly related only to engagement in bully behaviors, but not to victimization
or positive interactions. This confirms Grych and Fingham’s [1990] initial idea
postulated in their model that children’s perception of intense interparental
arguments inducing feelings of threat and self-blame will negatively affect their
social and emotional adjustment [Grych et al., 2000]. Aggressiveness is perceived
and perpetuated as a convenient coping mechanisms in conflictual situations, when
feeling frustrated, when trying to dominate others or to impose his/ her own will,
thus leading children to engage in bully behaviors. The fact that emotional
intelligence was the only significant, though weak, predictor of the victim role and
that victimization was not significantly related to these perceived family conflicts
is convergent with the previous research showing that although victims also tend to
belong to problematic and somehow dysfunctional family environments, the
problems mainly reside in parental educational styles, emotional dependency and
insecurity, overprotection leading to poorer emotional and social skills, and less in
marital conflicts [see Pascal, 2013].
Interestingly, our data revealed an apparently surprising strong positive
correlation between the victim role and the bully role. Although we generally tend
to see these two roles as being opposite, the existing literature states that they are
rather complementary and might coexist portraying the so called bully-victims
children. Our result might indicate that in our sample there could be more
provocative victims than passive victims [see Nastas, 2013], that is more
aggressive and irritable children, emotionally and socially immature, who tend to
react violently when intimidated. These types of children are poorly adapted in
school, have difficult relations with teachers and generally meet negative reactions
from their peers who tend to hares them. Further, we found also a significant but
weak positive relation between the victim role and the positive interactions with
peers. This might be linked with the rather passive/ submissive victims in our
sample, who tend to be less aggressive, more insecure and anxious, more sensitive
and introverted, with very few friends, who may attract positive behaviors from
some of their more benevolent, compassionate or emphatic peers.
Finally, the regression analyses confirmed the main assumption in Grych and
Fingham’s [1990] cognitive-contextual framework of the relation between marital
conflicts and children’s adjustment. Specifically, the characteristics of the
interparental conflicts were found to be the only significant predictor of children’s
bully roles. Although emotional intelligence significantly correlates with and
predicts the bully role when considered alone, it loses its predictive strength when
all independent variables are considered together. This means that exposure to, or
worse, involvement into frequent, intense, verbally or physically aggressive
interparental conflicts that are poorly resolved with hostility lingering on between
parents is a significant positive predictor of children’s engagement in aggressive
behaviors at school, as a sign of internalization and perpetuation of their parental
negative models. The child’s emotional intelligence might count maybe as a distal
contextual factor influencing the secondary processing of the conflict in terms of
causal attributions regarding responsibility and blame, thus moderating or
mediating this abovementioned predictive relation. As suggested by our results, the
perceived threat component of the Grych and Fingham’s model should be
considered not as much as a direct predictor, but more as a negative emotional
consequence of the strongly negative marital conflicts perceived by the child,
turning them into more powerful stressors and eliciting various coping
mechanisms. This idea could be tested by stronger and more rigorous statistical
causality paths analyses [e.g., Grych et al., 2000].
Several limitations of the current study need to be considered. First, it is its
exploratory and correlational nature that does not allow for direct causal
explanations or inferences among the variables considered here. Second, it has a
quite narrow approach by focusing only on one personal factor (i.e., global
emotional intelligence) and on one family factor (i.e., perceived interparental
conflicts) with its three dimensions (i.e., properties of the conflicts, perceived
threat and self-blame associated with these conflicts) from the vast array of
potential variables predicting or leading to engagement in different school bullying
roles. Third, except for the perceived conflicts subscales, the measures used were
global, without differentiating among the components of emotional intelligence,
and among various types of school aggressors or victims as described in the
literature, respectively. Fourth, our results have little generalizability due to our
small and very specific sample of participants, namely middle school students from
one school in a rural area.
 Despite these limitations, the present study showed the significant influence of
the properties of perceived interparental conflicts mainly on children’s bully
behaviors, thus directly confirming one of the main theoretical assumptions in
Grych and Fingham’s model [1990]. It also revealed in our sample the presence of
a more atypical profile of school bullying victims [see Nastas, 2013], namely the
so-called bully-victims. Future research should be conducted on larger samples of
both middle and high school students, from various schools in both rural and urban
areas to see if and how these results replicate. Furthermore, future studies should
address our suggestions and assumptions made in this discussions section, by
testing the mediating or moderating effects of emotional intelligence (and its
components) alongside with other variables proposed by Grych and Fingham
[1990] on the relations among marital conflicts, the negative emotions induced by
them and children’s various profiles of school bullies or victims.

REFERENCES

 Alegre, A., 2011, “Parenting styles and children’s emotional intelligence: What do we
know?”, in The Family Journal, 19(1), pp. 56-62.
 Beldean-Galea, I.E., Jurcău, N., 2010, “Studiul calităţilor psihometrice ale unui
chestionar de evaluare a fenomenului bullying la elevi”, in Romanian journal of
applied psychology, 12(1), pp. 15-20.
 Bickham, N.L., Fiese, B.H., 1997, “Extension of the Children's Perceptions of
Interparental Conflict Scale for use with late adolescents”, in Journal of Family
Psychology, 11(2), pp. 246-250.
 Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A.Y., Bajgar, J., 2001, “Measuring emotional intelligence in
adolescents”, in Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), pp. 1105-1119.
 Cohen, D., & Strayer, J., 1996, “Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison
youth”, in Developmental psychology, 32(6), p. 988-998.
 Coyne, J.J., Barrett, P.M., Duffy, A.L., 2000, “Threat vigilance in child witnesses of
domestic violence: A pilot study utilizing the ambiguous situations paradigm”, in
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(3), pp. 377-388.
 Crapanzano, A.M., Frick, P.J., Terranova, A.M., 2010, “Patterns of physical and
relational aggression in a school-based sample of boys and girls”, in Journal of
abnormal child psychology, 38(4), pp. 433-445.
 Cummings, E.M., Zahn‐Waxler, C., Radke‐Yarrow, M., 1984, “Developmental
changes in children's reactions to anger in the home”, in Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 25(1), pp. 63-74.
 Curelaru, M., 2013, “Violenţă şcolară şi agresivitate”, in Curelaru, M. (Ed.), Violenţa
în şcoală. Repere pentru analiză şi intervenţie, Editura Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan
Cuza” din Iaşi, pp. 11-31.
 Curelaru, V., 2013, “Managementul disciplinei şi violenţa şcolară”, in Curelaru, M.
(Ed.), Violenţa în şcoală. Repere pentru analiză şi intervenţie, Editura Universităţii
„Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi, pp. 151-174.
 Frumos, V. F., Labăr, A. V., 2009, “Socio-emotional factors correlative to academic
performance of students in teacher training module”, in Annals of “Stefan cel Mare”
University, Suceava, Educational Sciences Series, VI, pp. 588-597.
 Gini, G., 2006, “Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What's wrong?” in
Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), pp. 528-539.
 Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., Altoè, G., 2007, “Does empathy predict adolescents'
bullying and defending behavior?”, in Aggressive behavior, 33(5), pp. 467-476.
 Goleman, D., 2001, Inteligenţa emoţională. Bucureşti: Editura Curtea Veche.
 Gottman, J.M., Katz, L.F., Hooven, C., 1997, Meta-emotion: How families
communicate emotionally. Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Grych, J.H., Fincham, F.D., 1990, “Marital conflict and children's adjustment: a
cognitive-contextual framework”, in Psychological bulletin, 108(2), pp. 267-290.
 Grych, J.H., Fincham, F.D., Jouriles, E.N., McDonald, R., 2000, “Interparental
Conflict and Child Adjustment: Testing the Mediational Role of Appraisals in the
Cognitive‐Contextual Framework”, in Child development, 71(6), pp. 1648-1661.
 Grych, J.H., Seid, M., Fincham, F.D., 1992, “Assessing marital conflict from the
child's perspective: The Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale”, in Child
development, 63(3), pp. 558-572.
 Lazăr, I., 2013, “Agresorul şcolar: consideraţii teoretice”, in Curelaru, M. (Ed.),
Violenţa în şcoală. Repere pentru analiză şi intervenţie, Editura Universităţii
„Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi, pp. 111-131.
 Lomas, J., Stough, C., Hansen, K., Downey, L.A., 2012, “Brief report: Emotional
intelligence, victimisation and bullying in adolescents”, in Journal of adolescence,
35(1), pp. 207-211.
 Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Straus, R., 2003, “Emotional intelligence, personality, and
the perceived quality of social relationships”, in Personality and individual
Differences, 35(3), pp. 641-658.
 Magwa, S., 2013, “Experiencing and witnessing domestic violence on school aged
children”, in International Journal of Social Science & Education, 3, pp. 582-596.
 Marian, C., 2011, Agresivitatea în şcoală. Determinări, mecanisme şi traiectorii,
Editura Limes, Cluj-Napoca.
 Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., Salovey, P., 2000, “Emotional intelligence meets the
traditional standards for an intelligence”, in Intelligence, 27(4), pp. 267-298.
 Muntean, A., Munteanu, A., 2011, Violenţă, traumă, rezilienţă. Iaşi: Editura Polirom.
 Nastas, D., 2013, “Victima violenţei şcolare: caracteristici şi clasificări”, in Curelaru,
M. (Ed.), Violenţa în şcoală. Repere pentru analiză şi intervenţie, Editura Universităţii
„Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi, pp. 133-149.
 Olweus, D., 1994, “Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school
based intervention program”, in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
35(7), pp. 1171-1190.
 Pascal, E., 2013, “Impactul variabilelor socio-demografice asupra violenţei şcolare”, in
Curelaru, M. (Ed.), Violenţa în şcoală. Repere pentru analiză şi intervenţie, Editura
Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi, pp. 89-109.
 Sălăvăstru, D., Ţepordei, A. M., 2010, “The Impact of socio-economical and school
context upon students’ attitudes towards school violence”, in Zukauskiene, R. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the XIV European Conference on Developmental Psychology, ECDP,
Vilnius, Lithuania, August 18-22, 2009, Medimond International Proceedings, Italy,
pp. 491-496.
 Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J.,
Dornheim, L., 1998, “Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence”, in Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), pp. 167-177.
 Stevens, V., Bourdeaudhuij, I., Oost, P., 2000, “Bullying in Flemish schools: An
evaluation of anti‐bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools”, in British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), pp. 195-210.