Previous studies indicate that when identifying individuals involved in bullying, the concordance between self‐ and peer‐ reports is low to moderate. There is support that self‐ and peer‐ identified victims constitute distinct types of victims and differ in adjustment. Likewise, differentiating between self‐ and peer‐ reports of bullying may also reveal distinct types of bullies. The goal of this study was to examine differences between types of bullies identified via dyadic nominations (self‐identified, victimidentified, and self/victim identified). First, we examined the concordance between dyadic nominations of bullying and traditional measures of bullying (i.e., self‐ and peer‐reports). Second, we compared the behavioral profiles of the bully types to nonbullies, with a focus on aggressive behaviors and social status. Third, we examined whether the types of bullies targeted victims with different levels of popularity, as well as the role of their own popularity and prioritizing of popularity. Participants were 1,008 Dutch adolescents (50.1% male, Mage = 14.14 years, standard deviation [SD] = 1.30) who completed a classroom assessment of dyadic nominations, peer nominations, and self‐report items. Results indicated that victim identified and self/victim identified bullies were more aggressive, more popular, and less socially preferred than self‐identified bullies and nonbullies. Self/victim identified bullies targeted victims with the highest social status. The association between bully type and victims' popularity was further qualified by bullies' own popularity and the degree to which they prioritized popularity. Implications for the implementation of dyadic nominations are discussed.

All information about the content of the files is described in 'read me_Malamut et al_2020.pdf'. This file also contains information about the recruitment, participants and data collection. Data and the syntax for the analyses as presented in the paper are also stored.