Bullying in Schools [1 ed.] 9781608766406, 9781606922088

Citation preview

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

DAVID N. RICKLER

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA ISBN 978-1-60876-640-6 (E-Book) Available upon request

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.    New York

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

A Guide to Bullying in Schools Rana Sampson

Chapter 2

Student Reports of Bullying: Results from the 2001 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Index Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

vii

Emerging Aspects in Understanding Bullying in Schools: Implications for Research and Intervention Eleni Andreou, Anastasia Vlachou and Eleni Didaskalou Characteristics of Victims of Bullying: Implications for Research Tanya N. Beran

1

43

99

105 133

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE There is new concern about school violence, and police have assumed greater responsibility for helping school officials ensure students' safety. As pressure increases to place officers in schools, police agencies must decide how best to contribute to student safety. Will police presence on campuses most enhance safety? If police cannot or should not be on every campus, can they make other contributions to student safety? What are good approaches and practices? Perhaps more than any other school safety problem, bullying affects students' sense of security. The most effective ways to prevent or lessen bullying require school administrators' commitment and intensive effort; police interested in increasing school safety can use their influence to encourage schools to address the problem. This book provides police with information about bullying in schools, its extent and its causes, and enables police to steer schools away from common remedies that have proved ineffective elsewhere, and to develop ones that will work. Bullying is widespread and perhaps the most underreported safety problem on American school campuses. Chapter 1 - The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must address the specific problem the guides cover. Chapter 2 - Bullying in schools is an issue that continues to receive attention from researchers, educators, parents, and students. Despite the common assumption that bullying is a normal part of childhood and encompasses minor

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

viii

David N. Rickler

teasing and harassment (Lawrence 1998), researchers increasingly find that bullying is a problem that can be detrimental to students’ well-being (Nansel et al. 2001, 2003; Haynie et al. 2001). Bullying is commonly defined as being “exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (Olweus 1991). Olweus also suggests that bullying can be characterized by two distinct forms of negative actions: direct and indirect bullying behaviors. Direct bullying takes the form of overt, physical contact in which the victim is openly attacked. Indirect bullying takes the form of social isolation and intentional exclusion from activities. Both forms of bullying, occurring separately or together, can be harmful to students’ well-being and development. This chapter examines the prevalence and nature of bullying in relation to student characteristics, school characteristics, and victimization. In addition, the study explores other behaviors that were reported by the victim, such as fear, avoidance behavior, weapon carrying, and academic grades. It also examines student reports of being bullied by direct means only, bullied by indirect means only, and bullied both directly and indirectly. Readers are alerted to the limitations of the survey design and analysis approach with regard to causality. Conclusions about causality can not be made due to the cross-sectional, nonexperimental design of the survey used. And, while certain characteristics discussed in this chapter, such as school control, gang presence, security guards, and hallway monitors, may be related to one another, this analysis does not control for such relationships. Therefore, no causal inferences should be made between the variables of interest and bullying when reading these results. Chapter 3 - Bullying is a form of physical, verbal or social aggression that consists of repeated use of force against peers over extended periods of time. It includes name-calling, threatening, teasing, hitting and exclusion. For the victims, continuous bullying is a hurtful traumatic experience with many short-term, as well as long-term negative consequences. Bullying in schools has been recognised as a complex international problem resulting in a considerable amount of educational and psychological literature and research with the ultimate goal to inform the development of effective intervention policies. Most anti-bullying interventions provide activities to heighten students’ concern for victims, put clear class rules in place to react to bully-victim incidents and implement skills training or peer mediation programmes to improve students’ intervention behaviour. Despite the considerable efforts placed in the planning and implementation of anti-bullying programmes, the success of such programmes has not been self-evident. Sometimes the interventions are effective in some schools while in others the

Preface

ix

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

situation seems to get worse. School differences aside, studies suggest that there might be subgroups, which benefit more from the interventions than others in terms of lasting effects. Primary school-age children and boys seem to gain better long-term effects than secondary school pupils and girls, though contrary evidence also exists. Chapter 4 - In the present review paper, research and theory on the characteristics of victims of peer aggression (frequently called “bullying”) are critically examined. The psychological characteristics of victims and evidence of victim traits are discussed. Gender differences and age trends of victimization are also examined. To determine the development of childhood victimization, familial factors such as marital conflict, maternal depression and parental behaviors are considered. In addition to family characteristics, peer interactions that are associated with the development of victimization are examined. A summary of methodological difficulties in this area is provided. The paper concludes with some recommendations for future research.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In: Bullying in Schools Editor: David N. Rickler

ISBN 978-1-60692-208-8 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

A GUIDE TO BULLYING IN SCHOOLS* Rana Sampson ABOUT THE PROBLEM-SPECIFIC GUIDE SERIES The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who:

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

*

Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The guides are not primers in problem- oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of a problem- oriented policing project. They are designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have already identified. (A companion series of Problem-

Excerpted from cooperative agreement #99-CK-WX-K004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice; ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 May 2002

2

Rana Sampson

•

•

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.) Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere. Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. The guides describe responses that other police departments have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when police have discovered a more effective response, they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving the response to the problem. (A companion series of Response Guides has been produced to help you understand how commonly- used police responses work on a variety of problems.) Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject.

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

3

Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and public bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An effective problemsolver must know how to forge genuine partnerships with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in the community with whom police might work to improve the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals that individuals and groups other than the police are in a stronger position to address problems and that police ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing philosophy that promotes and supports organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problem-solving and policecommunity partnerships vary considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides. These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders of their own countries. Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police practice, and each guide is anonymously peerreviewed by a line police officer, a police executive and a researcher prior

4

Rana Sampson

to publication. The review process is independently managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to cops [email protected]. For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This web site offers free online access to: • • • • • • • •

the Problem-Specific Guides series the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise an interactive Problem Analysis Module a manual for crime analysts online access to important police research and practices information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

THE PROBLEM OF BULLYING IN SCHOOLS There is new concern about school violence, and police have assumed greater responsibility for helping school officials ensure students' safety. As pressure increases to place officers in schools, police agencies must decide how best to contribute to student safety. Will police presence on campuses most enhance safety? If police cannot or should not be on every campus, can they make other contributions to student safety? What are good approaches and practices? Perhaps more than any other school safety problem, bullying affects students' sense of security. The most effective ways to prevent or lessen bullying require school administrators' commitment and intensive effort; police interested in increasing school safety can use their influence to

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

5

encourage schools to address the problem. This guide provides police with information about bullying in schools, its extent and its causes, and enables police to steer schools away from common remedies that have proved ineffective elsewhere, and to develop ones that will work.1 Bullying is widespread and perhaps the most underreported safety problem on American school campuses.2 Contrary to popular belief, bullying occurs more often at school than on the way to and from there. Once thought of as simply a rite of passage or relatively harmless behavior that helps build young people's character, bullying is now known to have longlasting harmful effects, for both the victim and the bully. Bullying is often mistakenly viewed as a narrow range of antisocial behavior confined to elementary school recess yards. In the United States, awareness of the problem is growing, especially with reports that in two-thirds of the recent school shootings (for which the shooter was still alive to report), the attackers had previously been bullied. "In those cases, the experience of bullying appeared to play a major role in motivating the attacker."3,4 International research suggests that bullying is common at schools and occurs beyond elementary school; bullying occurs at all grade levels, although most frequently during elementary school. It occurs slightly less often in middle schools, and less so, but still frequently, in high schools.5 High school freshmen are particularly vulnerable. Dan Olweus, a researcher in Norway, conducted groundbreaking research in the 1970s exposing the widespread nature and harm of school bullying.6 Bullying is well documented in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, providing an extensive body of information on the problem. Research from some countries has shown that, without intervention, bullies are much more likely to develop a criminal record

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

Why should police care about a safety problem when others, such as school administrators, are better equipped to address it? One can find numerous examples of safety problems regarding which the most promising part of the police role is to raise awareness and engage others to effectively manage the problems. For example, in the case of drug dealing in privately owned apartment complexes, the most effective police strategy is to educate property owners and managers in effective strategies so they can reduce their property's vulnerability to drug markets. 2 Batsche and Knoff (1994). 3 U.S. Secret Service (2000). 4 It is important to note that while bullying may be a contributing factor in many school shootings, it is not the cause of the school shootings. 5 For an excellent review of bullying research up through 1992, see Farrington (1993). 6 Olweus (1978); an earlier edition was published in Swedish in 1973.

6

Rana Sampson

than their peers,7 and bullying victims suffer psychological harm long after the bullying stops.

Definition of Bullying Bullying has two key components: repeated harmful acts and an imbalance of power. It involves repeated physical, verbal or psychological attacks or intimidation directed against a victim who cannot properly defend him- or herself because of size or strength, or because the victim is outnumbered or less psychologically resilient.8 Bullying includes assault, tripping, intimidation, rumor- spreading and isolation, demands for money, destruction of property, theft of valued possessions, destruction of another's work, and name-calling. In the United States, several other school behaviors (some of which are illegal) are recognized as forms of bullying, such as: •

• •

sexual harassment (e.g., repeated exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual propositioning, and sexual abuse involving unwanted physical contact) ostracism based on perceived sexual orientation hazing (e.g., upper-level high school athletes' imposing painfully embarrassing initiation rituals on their new freshmen teammates) .9

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Not all taunting, teasing and fighting among schoolchildren constitutes bullying.10 "Two persons of approximately the same strength (physical or psychological)... fighting or quarreling" is not bullying. Rather, bullying entails repeated acts by someone perceived as physically or psychologically more powerful.

7

As young adults, former school bullies in Norway had a fourfold increase in the level of relatively serious, recidivist criminality (Olweus 1992). Dutch and Australian studies also found increased levels of criminal behavior by adults who had been bullies (Farrington 1993; Rigby and Slee 1999). 8 Smith et al. (eds.) (1999); Farrington (1993); Smith and Brain (2000). 9 U.S. Department of Education (1998). 10 Olweus (1992).

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

7

Related Problems Bullying in schools shares some similarities to the related problems listed below, each of which requires its own analysis and response. This guide does not directly address these problems: • • •

bullying of teachers by students bullying among inmates in juvenile detention facilities bullying as a means of gaining and retaining youth gang members and compelling them to commit crimes.

Extent of the Bullying Problem

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Extensive studies in other countries during the 1980s and 1990s generally found that between 8 and 38 percent of students are bullied with some regularity,11 and that between five and nine percent of students bully others with some regularity. Chronic victims of bullying, bullied once a week or more, generally constitute between 8 and 20 percent of the student population.12 In the United States, fewer studies have been done. A recent study of a nationally representative sample of students found higher levels of bullying in America than in some other countries. Thirteen percent of 6ththrough 10th-grade students bully, 10 percent reported being victims, and an additional six percent are victim-bullies.13 This study excluded elementary-age students (who often experience high levels of bullying) and did not limit bullying to school grounds. Several smaller studies from different parts of the country confirm high levels of bullying behaviors, with 10 to 29 percent of students reported to be either bullies or victims.14,15 11

A South Carolina study found that 20 percent of students bully others with some regularity (Limber et al. 1998). In an English study involving 25 schools and nearly 3,500 students, 9 percent of the students admitted to having bullied others by sexual touching [Glover and Cartwright, with Gleeson (1 998)]. 12 Olweus (1992); Rigby and Slee (1999); Ortega and Lera (2000); Salmivalli (1999); Farrington (1993). 13 Nansel et al. (2001). 14 Perry, Kusel, and Perry (1988); Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins (1999), citing Bosworth, Espelage, DuBay, Dahlberg, and Daytner (1996); Hoover, Oliver, and Hazler (1992); Olweus

8

Rana Sampson

Clearly, the percentage of students who are bullies and victims varies by research study, often depending on the definition used, the time frame examined (e.g., ever, frequently, once a week)16 and other factors.17 Despite these differences, bullying appears to be widespread in schools in every country studying the problem.18

A Threshold Problem: The Reluctance To Report

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Most students do not report bullying to adults. Surveys from a variety of countries confirm that many victims and witnesses fail to tell teachers or even parents.19 As a result, teachers may underestimate the extent of bullying in their school and may be able to identify only a portion of the actual bullies. Studies also suggest that children do not believe that most teachers intervene when told about bullying.20

and Limber (1999), citing Melton, Limber, Cunningham, Osgood, Cambers, Flerx, Henggeler, and Nation (1998). 15 In some of the studies, lack of a common definition of bullying potentially distorts the estimates of the problem (Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins 1999). In addition, in the United States, the lack of a galvanized focus on bullying has resulted in a lack of large-scale school research efforts (such as those in Scandinavia, England, Japan, and Australia). Thus we have only limited insights into the problem of bullying here. 16 For the first time, during the 1997- 98 school year, the United States participated in an international study of young people's health, behavior and lifestyles, which included conducting surveys on school bullying. (European countries have participated in the study since 1982.) Researchers gathered data on 120,000 students from 28 countries. Upwards of 20 percent of 15year-old U.S. students reported they had been bullied at school during the current term. However, a 2000 U.S. Department of Education report on school crime (based on 1999 data), using a very narrow–and perhaps too limited–definition of bullying than the earlier report, showed that 5 percent of students ages 12 through 18 had reported being bullied at school in the last six months (Kaufman et al. 2000). 17 The "Annual Report on School Safety," developed in response to a 1997 school shooting in West Paducah, Kentucky did not until 1999 contain any data on school bullying. The 1999 school bullying data are aggregate, useful only in international comparisons, since specific types of bullying are not categorized. The report tracks thefts, weapons, injuries, threats, and physical fights, and some measures of harassment and hate crimes. However, the proportion of incidents that have their roots in bullying is not specified. 18 The words "bully" and "bullying" are used in this guide as shorthand to include all of the different forms of bullying behavior. 19 Rigby and Slee (1999); Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano, and Slee (1999). 20 Farrington (1993), citing Whitney and Smith (1991).

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

9

"If the victims are as miserable as the research suggests, why don't they appeal for help? One reason may be that, historically, adults' responses have been so disappointing."21 In a survey of American middle and high school students, "66 percent of victims of bullying believed school professionals responded poorly to the bullying problems that they observed."22 Some of the reasons victims gave for not telling include: • • • • • • •

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

fearing retaliation feeling shame at not being able to stand up for themselves fearing they would not be believed not wanting to worry their parents having no confidence that anything would change as a result thinking their parents' or teacher's advice would make the problem worse fearing their teacher would tell the bully who told on him or her thinking it was worse to be thought of as a snitch.23

The same is true of student-witnesses. Although most students agree that bullying is wrong, witnesses rarely tell teachers and only infrequently intervene on behalf of the victim. Some students worry that intervening will raise a bully's wrath and make him or her the next target. Also, there may be "diffusion of responsibility"; in other words, students may falsely believe that no one person has responsibility to stop the bullying, absent a teacher or a parent. Student-witnesses appear to have a central role in creating opportunities for bullying. In a study of bullying in junior and senior high schools in small Midwestern towns, 88 percent of students reported having observed bullying.24 While some researchers refer to witnesses as "bystanders," others use a more refined description of the witness role. In each bullying act, there is a victim, the ringleader bully, assistant bullies 21 22 23

Clarke and Kiselica (1997). Hoover, Oliver, and Hazler (1992); Australian students reported similarly [Rigby (1996)].

Similarly, many sexual assault and domestic violence victims keep their abuse a secret from the police. Police in many jurisdictions see increased reporting of these crimes as an important first step to reducing the potential for future violence, while victims often see it as jeopardizing their safety. Some of the same interests and concerns are found in the area of school bullying. 24 Limber (1998), citing Hazler, Hoover, and Oliver (1991).

10

Rana Sampson

(they join in), reinforcers (they provide an audience or laugh with or encourage the bully), outsiders (they stay away or take no sides), and defenders (they step in, stick up for or comfort the victim).25 Studies suggest only between 10 and 20 percent of noninvolved students provide any real help when another student is victimized.26

Bullying Behavior Despite country and cultural differences, certain similarities by gender, age, location, and type of victimization appear in bullying in the U.S. and elsewhere. • •

•

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

25 26 27

Bullying more often takes place at school than on the way to and from school.27 Boy bullies tend to rely on physical aggression more than girl bullies, who often use teasing, rumor-spreading, exclusion, and social isolation. These latter forms of bullying are referred to as "indirect bullying." Physical bullying (a form of "direct bullying") is the least common form of bullying, and verbal bullying (which may be "direct" or "indirect") the most common.28 Some researchers speculate that girls value social relationships more than boys do, so girl bullies set out to disrupt social relationships with gossip, isolation, silent treatment, and exclusion. Girls tend to bully girls, while boys bully both boys and girls. Consistently, studies indicate that boys are more likely to bully than girls. Some studies show that boys are more often victimized, at least during elementary school years; others show that bullies victimize girls and boys in near equal proportions.29 Bullies often do not operate alone. In the United Kingdom, two different studies found that almost half the incidents of bullying

Salmivalli (1999); also see Olweus and Limber (1999). Salmivalli (1999); Stevens, Van Oost, and De Bourdeaudhuij (2000), citing Pepler (1994).

Clarke and Kiselica (1997). Rigby and Slee (1999). 29 Limber et al. (1998). 28

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

•

•

•

•

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

30

11

are one-on-one, while the other half involves additional youngsters.30 Bullying does not end in elementary school. Middle school seems to provide ample opportunities for bullying, although at lesser rates. The same is true of the beginning years of high school. Bullying by boys declines substantially after age 15. Bullying by girls begins declining significantly at age 14.31,32 So interventions in middle and early high school years are also important. Studies in Europe and Scandinavia show that some schools seem to have higher bullying rates than others. Researchers generally believe that bullying rates are unrelated to school or class size, or to whether a school is in a city or suburb (although one study found that reporting was higher in inner-city schools). Schools in socially disadvantaged areas seem to have higher bullying rates,33 and classes with students with behavioral, emotional or learning problems have more bullies and victims than classes without such students.34 There is a strong belief that the degree of the school principal's involvement (discussed later in this guide) helps determine the level of bullying. There is some evidence that racial bullying occurs in the United States. In a nationally representative study combining data about bullying at and outside of school, 25 percent of students victimized by bullying reported they were belittled about their race or religion (eight percent of those victims were bullied frequently about it).35 The study also found that black youth reported being bullied less than their Hispanic and white peers. Racial bullying is also a problem in Canada and England. "In Toronto, one in eight children

Smith and Sharp (1994). Rigby and Slee (1999); Ortega and Lera (2000). 32 Results from several countries, including Australia and England, indicate that as students progress through the middle to upper grades in school, they become more desensitized to bullying. High school seniors are the exception: they show greater alarm about the problem, just at the point when they will be leaving the environment (O'Moore 1999). 33 Farrington (1993), citing Stephenson and Smith (1991) and Whitney and Smith (1991). 34 Farrington (1993), citing Zeigler and Rosenstein-Manner (1991) and Stephenson and Smith (1991). 35 Nansel et al. (2001). 31

12

Rana Sampson overall, and one in three of those in inner- city schools, said that racial bullying often occurred in their schools."36 In four schools– two primary, two secondary–in Liverpool and London, researchers found that Bengali and black students were disproportionately victimized.37

One of the things we do not yet know about bullying is whether certain types of bullying, for instance racial bullying or rumor spreading, are more harmful than other types. Clearly, much depends on the victim's vulnerability, yet certain types of bullying may have longer-term impact on the victim. It is also unclear what happens when a bully stops bullying. Does another student take that bully's place? Must the victim also change his or her behavior to prevent another student from stepping in? While specific studies on displacement have not been done, it appears that the more comprehensive the school approach to tackling bullying, the less opportunity there is for another bully to rise up.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Bullies Many of the European and Scandinavian studies concur that bullies tend to be aggressive, dominant and slightly below average in intelligence and reading ability (by middle school), and most evidence suggests that bullies are at least of average popularity.38 The belief that bullies "are insecure, deep down" is probably incorrect.39 Bullies do not appear to have much empathy for their victims.40 Young bullies tend to remain bullies, without appropriate intervention. "Adolescent bullies tend to become adult bullies, and then tend to have children who are bullies."41 In one study in which researchers followed bullies as they grew up, they found that youth who were bullies at 14 tended to have children who were bullies at 32, suggesting an intergenerational link.42 They also found that "[b]ullies have 36

Farrington (1993), citing Ziegler and Rosenstein-Manner (1991). Home Office (1996). 38 Farrington (1993). 39 Olweus (1978); Smith and Brain (2000); but see Bernstein and Watson (1997). 40 Bernstein and Watson (1997). 41 Farrington (1993). 42 Farrington (1993) reporting on his earlier research. 37

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

13

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

some similarities with other types of offenders. Bullies tend to be drawn disproportionately from lower socioeconomic-status families with poor child-rearing techniques, tend to be impulsive, and tend to be unsuccessful in school."43 In Australia, research shows that bullies have low empathy levels, are generally uncooperative and, based on self-reports, come from dysfunctional families low on love. Their parents tend to frequently criticize them and strictly control them.44 Dutch (and other) researchers have found a correlation between harsh physical punishments such as beatings, strict disciplinarian parents and bullying.45 In U.S. studies, researchers have found higher bullying rates among boys whose parents use physical punishment or violence against them.46 Some researchers suggest that bullies have poor social skills and compensate by bullying. Others suggest that bullies have keen insight into others' mental states and take advantage of that by picking on the emotionally less resilient.47 Along this line, there is some suggestion, currently being explored in research in the United States and elsewhere, that those who bully in the early grades are initially popular and considered leaders. However, by the third grade, the aggressive behavior is less well-regarded by peers, and those who become popular are those who do not bully. Some research also suggests that "[bullies] direct aggressive behavior at a variety of targets. As they learn the reactions of their peers, their pool of victims becomes increasingly smaller, and their choice of victims more consistent."48 Thus, bullies ultimately focus on peers who become chronic victims due to how those peers respond to aggression. This indicates that identifying chronic victims early on can be important for effective intervention. A number of researchers believe that bullying occurs due to a combination of social interactions with parents, peers and teachers.49 The history of the parent-child relationship may contribute to cultivating a

43

Farrington (1993). Rigby and Slee (1999). 45 Junger-Tas and Van Kesteren (1999). 46 Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins (1999). 47 See generally Smith and Brain (2000) for a discussion of the research on this topic. 48 See Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins (1999) for a discussion of these different avenues of recent bullying research. 49 Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, and Van Oost (2000). 44

14

Rana Sampson

bully, and low levels of peer and teacher intervention combine to create opportunities for chronic bullies to thrive (as will be discussed later).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Incidents of Bullying Bullying most often occurs where adult supervision is low or absent: schoolyards, cafeterias, bathrooms, hallways, and stairwells.50 "Olweus (1994) found that there is an inverse relationship between the number of supervising adults present and the number of bully/victim incidents."51 The design of less-supervised locations can create opportunities for bullying. For instance, if bullying occurs in a cafeteria while students vie for places in line for food, line management techniques, perhaps drawn from crime prevention through environmental design, could limit the opportunity to bully. A number of studies have found that bullying also occurs in classrooms and on school buses, although less so than in recess areas and hallways. Upon greater scrutiny, one may find that in certain classrooms, bullying thrives, and in others, it is rare. Classroom bullying may have more to do with the classroom management techniques a teacher uses than with the number of adult supervisors in the room. Other areas also offer opportunities for bullying. The Internet creates opportunities for cyber-bullies, who can operate anonymously and harm a wide audience. For example, middle school, high school, and college students from Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley area posted web site messages that were …full of sexual innuendo aimed at individual students and focusing on topics such as ‘the weirdest people at your school.’ The online bulletin boards had been accessed more than 67,000 times [in a two-week period], prompting a sense of despair among scores of teenagers disparaged on the site, and frustration among parents and school administrators.... One crying student, whose address and phone number were published on the site, was barraged with calls from people calling her a slut and a prostitute.52

50

Farrington (1993); Zeigler and Rosenstein-Manner (1991). Clarke and Kiselica (1997). 52 Banks, Kaplan, and Groves (2001). 51

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

15

A psychologist interviewed for the Los Angeles Times remarked on the harm of such Internet bullying: It's not just a few of the kids at school; it's the whole world.... Anybody could log on and see what they said about you....What's written remains, haunting, torturing these kids.53 The imbalance of power here was not in the bully's size or strength, but in the instrument the bully chose to use, bringing worldwide publication to vicious school gossip.

Victims of Bullying •

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

53

Most bullies victimize students in the same class or year, although 30 percent of victims report that the bully was older, and approximately ten percent report that the bully was younger.54 It is unknown the extent to which physical, mental, or speech difficulties, eyeglasses, skin color, language, height, weight, hygiene, posture, and dress play a role in victim selection.55 One major study found "the only external characteristics...to be associated with victimization were that victims tended to be smaller and weaker than their peers."56 One study found that nonassertive youth who were socially incompetent had an increased likelihood of victimization.57 Having friends, especially ones who will help protect against bullying, appears to reduce the chances of victimization.58 A Dutch study found that "more than half of those who say they have no friends are being bullied (51%), vs. only 11 percent of those who say they have more than five friends."59

Banks, Kaplan, and Groves (2001), quoting therapist Veronica Thomas. Farrington (1993), citing Whitney and Smith (1991). 55 Farrington (1993); also see Bernstein and Watson (1997), citing Olweus (1978); Perry, Kusel, and Perry (1988). 56 Bernstein and Watson (1997), citing Olweus (1978). 57 Schwartz, Dodge, and Cole (1993). 58 Hodges and Perry (1997). 59 Junger-Tas and Van Kesteren (1999). 54

16

Rana Sampson

Consequences of Bullying Victims of bullying suffer consequences beyond embarrassment. Some victims experience psychological and/or physical distress, are frequently absent and cannot concentrate on schoolwork. Research generally shows that victims have low self-esteem, and their victimization can lead to depression60 that can last for years after the victimization.61 In Australia, researchers found that between five and ten percent of students stayed at home to avoid being bullied. Boys and girls who were bullied at least once a week experienced poorer health, more frequently contemplated suicide, and suffered from depression, social dysfunction, anxiety, and insomnia.62 Another study found that adolescent victims, once they are adults, were more likely than non-bullied adults individuals to have children who are victims.63

Chronic Victims of Bullying

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

While many, if not most, students have been bullied at some point in their school career,64 chronic victims receive the brunt of the harm. It appears that a small subset of six to ten percent of school-age children are chronic victims,65 some bullied as often as several times a week.66 There are more chronic victims in elementary school than in middle school, and the pool of chronic victims further shrinks as students enter high school. If a student is a chronic victim at age 15 (high school age), it would not be surprising to find that he or she has suffered through years of victimization. Because of the harm involved, anti-bullying interventions should include a component tailored to counter the abuse chronic victims suffer.

60

Smith and Brain (2000). Farrington (1993). 62 Rigby and Slee (1999). 63 Farrington (1993). 64 Junger-Tas and Van Kesteren (1999). 65 See Bernstein and Watson (1997) for a discussion of the research on chronic victims; also see Perry, Kusel and Perry (1988). 66 These figures are based on studies in Dublin, Toronto and Sheffield, England (Farrington 1993). Olweus, however, in his Norwegian studies, found smaller percentages of chronic victims. 61

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

17

Several researchers suggest, although there is not agreement, that some chronic victims are "irritating" or "provocative" because their coping strategies include aggressively reacting to the bullying.67 The majority of chronic victims, however, are extremely passive and do not defend themselves. Provocative victims may be particularly difficult to help because their behavior must change substantially to lessen their abuse. Teri DeBruhl

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

School bullying takes many forms including assault, tripping, intimidation, rumorspreading and isolation, demands for money, destruction of property, theft of valued possessions, destruction of another's work, and name-calling. In this photo, a bully assaults the victim as another student watches. Studies suggest only between 10 and 20 percent of noninvolved students provide any real help when another student is victimized.

Both provocative and passive chronic victims tend to be anxious and insecure, "which may signal to others that they are easy targets."68 They are also less able to control their emotions, and more socially withdrawn. Tragically, chronic victims may return to bullies to try to continue the perceived relationship, which may initiate a new cycle of victimization. Chronic victims often remain victims even after switching to new classes with new students, suggesting that, without other interventions, nothing will change.69 In describing chronic victims, Olweus states: "It does not require much imagination to understand what it is to go through the school years in a state of more or less permanent anxiety and insecurity, and with 67

Farrington (1993); Olweus (1993). See generally Bernstein and Watson (1997). 69 Bernstein and Watson (1997); also see Salmivalli (1999). 68

18

Rana Sampson

poor self-esteem. It is not surprising that the victims' devaluation of themselves sometimes becomes so overwhelming that they see suicide as the only possible solution."70,71 In the United States, courts appear open to at least hearing arguments from chronic victims of bullying who allege that schools have a duty to stop persistent victimization.72 It has yet to be decided to what extent schools have an obligation to keep students free from mistreatment by their peers. However, early and sincere attention to the problem of bullying is a school's best defense.

UNDERSTANDING YOUR LOCAL PROBLEM The information provided is only a generalized description of bullying in schools. You must combine this general information with a more specific understanding of your school's problem. Analyzing a school's problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy. Police who work with schools may even find that many of the thefts, assaults and batteries, hate crimes, and threats on school campuses (elementary, middle, and high school level) are symptoms of bullying and are perpetrated by a small percentage of chronic tormentors.

Asking the Right Questions The following are some critical questions73 you should ask in analyzing your particular problem of bullying in schools, even if the 70

Olweus (1992). A handful of chronic victims make the leap from suicidal to homicidal thoughts. Clearly, access to guns is also an issue. 72 Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins (1999). 73 The problem of bullying requires extensive surveying of those affected. It is recommended that police link with local colleges, universities, or researchers to prepare and pretest survey instruments. Internationally valid questionnaires, adapted from Olweus' questionnaires, are available to survey students, classroom teachers and other staff involved in managing bullying problems. These have been used as part of a comparative project in Japan, Norway, England, the Netherlands, and the state of Washington, and require written permission for use from Dan Olweus (Research Center for Health Promotion, Christies Gate 13, N-5015, Bergen, Norway). The value of using these questionnaires is the ability to make comparisons among a wide range of other sites. If you use anonymous written surveys of students, it is important to develop some other means for gathering

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

71

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

19

answers are not always readily available. The answers to these and other questions will help you guide the school in choosing the most appropriate set of responses later on.

The School • Does the school believe it has a problem with bullying? • Is the school aware of the long-term harms associated with bullying and chronic victimization? • Is the school aware of the different types of behavior that constitute bullying? • Does the school know how often bullying occurs on the campus each year? • How does the school's level of bullying compare with that of other schools that have examined bullying? • Does the school have a policy to guide teachers and other staff in handling incidents of bullying? • How does the school identify bullies? Are records kept? Are they adequate? Are school counselors in the loop? • What insights do teachers have about bullying? Can they identify some of the chronic victims and bullies? • How are others (e.g., parents, police) brought into the loop, and at what point? • Given that most bullying occurs in areas where there are no teachers, is the current method for identifying bullies adequate?

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Offenders • Where do bullies operate at the school? • What are the consequences for bullying at the school? Are they applied consistently? • Does the bullying stop? How is this determined? Victims and Victimization • Does the school know all the victims of bullying? • How does the school identify victims? Given that most victims and information from students on the specific identities of chronic victims and chronic bullies. Once gathered, compare this information with that in school records and with teachers' observations to see if there is some agreement. For additional information on bullying surveys, also see the European Commission's TMR Network Project on bullying, involving collaboration among five European countries.

20

Rana Sampson

• •

witnesses do not report, is the current system for identifying victims adequate? Who are the chronic victims? What has the school done to protect them? What are the most common forms of bullying victimization? Does the school policy address them? Does the school have a policy regarding the reporting of bullying and the role of bystanders?

Locations Where Bullying Occurs • Where does bullying most often occur? Do data support this? • When does bullying occur at those locations? • Are those who supervise the locations during those times trained to identify and appropriately handle bullying incidents? • Has the school made changes to the locations to minimize bullying opportunities?

MEASURING YOUR EFFECTIVENESS

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

You should encourage the school to measure its bullying problem before implementing responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after implementing them, to determine whether they have been effective. Measurement allows school staff to determine to what degree their efforts have succeeded, and suggests how they might modify their responses if they are not producing the intended results. For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. The following potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to bullying should be taken using before-andafter surveys: • • • • • •

percentage of victims, by type of bullying number of repeat victims number of chronic bullies frequency of victimization (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly) percentage of bullying incidents reported to parents or authorities number of students who are knowledgeable about bullying and how they should respond

A Guide to Bullying in Schools • • • •

21

percentage of students who witness bullying who report it to teachers or parents willingness of students to step in and help someone being bullied attendance, tardiness, behavior, and disciplinary reports of chronic victims and bullies bullying rates at specific bullying hot spots (e.g., bathrooms, cafeteria, schoolyard).

RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM OF BULLYING IN SCHOOLS Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of, among other things, the extent of the problem, including the level of bullying and the identification of bullying hot spots, chronic victims and chronic offenders. Outlined below are approaches used to address bullying, along with information about their effectiveness.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

General Requirements for an Effective Strategy to Counter Bullying in Schools 1. Enlisting the school principal's commitment and involvement. The school principal's commitment to and involvement in addressing school bullying are key. In fact, in comparing schools with high and low bullying rates, some research suggests that a principal's investment in preventing and controlling bullying contributes to low rates.74 A police officer's knowledge of and interest in the problem may serve to convince a principal to invest the time and energy to collaboratively and comprehensively tackle it. 2. Using a multifaceted, comprehensive approach. A multifaceted, comprehensive approach is more effective than one that focuses on only one or two aspects of school bullying. A multifaceted, comprehensive approach includes:

74

Farrington (1993), citing Stephenson and Smith (1991); for similar conclusions, also see Roland (2000).

22

Rana Sampson •

•

• • • • • •

•

establishing a schoolwide policy that addresses indirect bullying (e.g., rumor spreading, isolation, social exclusion), which is more hidden, as well as direct bullying (e.g., physical aggression) providing guidelines for teachers, other staff and students (including witnesses) on specific actions to take if bullying occurs educating and involving parents so they understand the problem, recognize its signs and intervene appropriately adopting specific strategies to deal with individual bullies and victims, including meeting with their parents encouraging students to report known bullying developing a comprehensive reporting system to track bullying and the interventions used with specific bullies and victims encouraging students to be helpful to classmates who may be bullied developing tailored strategies to counter bullying in specific school hot spots, using environmental redesign, increased supervision (e.g., by teachers, other staff members, parents, volunteers) or technological monitoring equipment conducting post-intervention surveys to assess the strategies' impact on school bullying.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Specific Responses to Reduce Bullying in Schools 3. Using the "whole-school" approach.75 Olweus developed and tested the whole-school approach in Scandinavia. It contains elements listed under requirement 1 and 2 above (school principal's involvement and the multi-faceted, comprehensive approach) and it has undergone repeated evaluations in other countries, including the United States, with a range of successful results, including a 50 percent reduction in bullying in 42 schools in one area of Norway. However, most other applications of this approach achieve improvements in the 20 to 30 percent range, 75

Some research refers to the whole- school approach as the "schoolwide" approach or "organizational" approach. The three are identical, requiring interventions at the school, class and individual level.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

23

which is significant.76 In some studies, the results are achieved primarily in the second year. This approach can reduce the level of bullying and other antisocial behavior, such as vandalism, fighting, theft, and truancy, and improve the "social climate," order and discipline in class. The whole-school approach is somewhat easier to implement in elementary schools, due to their size and structure. Students in these schools generally interact with only one or two teachers a year, guaranteeing higher levels of consistent messages from teachers to students.77 However, significant gains can also be achieved in middle and high schools.78 Research tells us that the whole-school approach requires renewed effort each year (reinforcing anti-bullying strategies with returning students, their parents and school staff), which may be at odds with a school's, or even a police department's, concern about tackling the latest hot topic. However, onetime efforts will be less effective. Thus, schools must prepare themselves to maintain momentum for anti-bullying initiatives year after year. 4. Increasing student reporting of bullying. To address the problem of students' resistance to reporting bullying, some schools have set up a bully hot line. One in England received thousands of calls shortly after it was established. Some schools use a "bully box"; students drop a note in the box to alert teachers and administrators about problem bullies. Other approaches to increase reporting are also used. In one Kentucky town, a police officer, keen to increase reporting, developed a short in-class segment titled "Hero vs. Snitch," in which he discussed why reporting is heroic behavior, not tattling. 5. Developing activities in less-supervised areas. In these areas (e.g., schoolyards, lunchrooms), trained supervisors spot bullying and initiate activities that limit opportunities for it. Such activities must be of interest to bullies and curb their behavior. 76

Olweus and Limber (1999); Pitts and Smith (1996); also see the evaluation by The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, at www.Colorado.EDU/cspv/blueprints/model/ten bully.htm. 77 Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, and Van Oost (2000); Stevens found zero outcomes in secondary schools. 78 Pitts and Smith (1996); but see Stevens, De Bourdeauhuij, and Van Oost (2000).

24

Rana Sampson 6. Reducing the amount of time students can spend less supervised. Since much bullying occurs during less- supervised time (e.g., recess, lunch breaks, class changes), reducing the amount of time available to students can reduce the amount of bullying. 7. Staggering recess, lunch and/or class-release times. This approach minimizes the number of bullies and victims present at one time, so supervisors have less trouble spotting bullying. However, supervisors must be mindful that most bullies are in the same grade as their victims. 8. Monitoring areas where bullying can be expected (e.g., bathrooms). Adult monitoring can increase the risk that bullies get caught, but may require increased staffing or trained volunteers. 9. Assigning bullies to a particular location or to particular chores during release times. This approach separates bullies from their intended victims. Some teachers give bullies constructive tasks to occupy them during release times. Careful victim monitoring is required to ensure that bullies do not pick on victims at other times.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Sean Lynch

The photo on the left illustrates a school hallway during class release time. The photo on the right shows two of the strategies the school adopted to reduce bullying behavior in the hallways: staggered class release times (evidenced by fewer students in the hallway) and teacher monitoring of hallway behavior during class release time.

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

25

10. Posting classroom signs prohibiting bullying and listing the consequences for it. This puts would-be bullies on notice and outlines the risks they take. Teachers must consistently enforce the rules for them to have meaning. Schools should post signs in each classroom and apply age- appropriate penalties. 11. Providing teachers with effective classroom management training. To address bullying, schools should ensure that all their teachers have effective classroom management training. Since research suggests that classes containing students with behavioral, emotional, or learning problems have more bullies and victims, teachers in those classes may require additional tailored training in spotting and handling bullying. 12. Having high-level school administrators inform late- enrolling students about the school's bullying policy. This removes any excuse new students have for bullying, and stresses the importance the school places on countering it.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Responses with Limited Effectiveness 13. Training students in conflict resolution and peer mediation. A number of schools adopt conflict resolution and peer mediation training to address bullying (and other) problems. "Because bullying involves harassment by powerful children of children with less power (rather than a conflict between peers of relatively equal status), common conflict- resolution strategies or mediation may not be effective."79 In fact, they may actually further victimize a child.80 The training often offers too little for those students who really need it, and too much for those who already have the skills. The whole-school approach, in contrast, does not assume that students alone can solve the bullying problem; interventions at all levels are required: school, class, individual, teacher, parent, and peer.81 79

Limber et al. (1998). Personal correspondence from Sue Limber to the author, November 9, 2001. 81 In terms of peer mediation, one Flemish study found that elementary- and many middle school-age students lack confidence in successfully intervening (Stevens, Van Oost, and De Bourdeaudhuij 2000). In another study, researchers found that only small numbers of students were willing to go to peer-support training, and that it was harder to get boys or male teachers involved (Naylor and 80

26

Rana Sampson 14. Adopting a "zero tolerance" policy. Some schools, in their rush to "do something" about bullying, adopt a "zero tolerance" policy against it, without an in-depth analysis of their specific problem or the comprehensive involvement of administrators, teachers, other staff, student-witnesses, parents, bullies, and victims at the school, class, and individual level. This approach may result in a high level of suspensions without full comprehension of how behavior needs to and can be changed. It does not solve the problem of the bully, who typically spends more unsupervised time in the home or community if suspended or expelled. Zero tolerance may also ultimately have a chilling effect on reporting of bullying. 15. Providing group therapy for bullies. Some schools provide selfesteem training for bullies. This may be misdirected: research suggests that most bullies do not lack in self-esteem.82 16. Encouraging victims to simply "stand up"to bullies. Without adequate support or adult involvement this strategy may be harmful and physically dangerous for a victim of bullying.83

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO BULLYING IN SCHOOLS The table below summarizes the responses to bullying in schools, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.

Cowie 1999). In one study in Australia, however, Peterson and Rigby (1999) found a tremendous number of peer interventions, as part of a whole-school approach. The result was a modest decline in reported bullying of students in their first year of high school, but not in the other years. The authors still found this significant because the transition year into high school can be intense for bullying. 82 Personal correspondence from Sue Limber to the author, November 9, 2001. 83 Personal correspondence from Sue Limber to the author, November 9, 2001.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Response Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... No. General Requirements for an Effective Strategy To Counter Bullying in Schools 1. 19 Enlisting the school Police officers ...officers are aware of principal's commitment convince the principal best practices and involvement of the importance of tackling bullying 2.

19

Using a multifaceted, comprehensive approach

3.

20

Using the "wholeschool" approach

Response 1

Page No.

Response

Once baseline surveys are completed, the school adopts a comprehensive series of strategies to address the specific survey findings Baseline data reveal the details of the problem; interventions are implemented at the school, class and individual level

How It Works

...the principal assigns a high- level project (or team) manager to ensure the full implementation and progress of the strategies ...school administrators are fully committed to addressing the problem, and are knowledgeable of the components of the approach 1

Works Best If...

Considerations

to help influence the principal; unfortunately, in some cases, only a crisis will galvanize the principal's attention Sometimes it is difficult to isolate the effectiveness of individual interventions

Availability and use of local resources, such as university researchers, to assist in survey development and testing, or alternatively, use of Olweus' survey; parental permission may be needed to survey students; community's and school's commitment to uncovering the full details of the problem Considerations

For examples of policies for the school, class, students, and parents see Glover and Cartwright, with Gleeson (1998).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

No. General Requirements for an Effective Strategy To Counter Bullying in Schools 4. 21 Increasing student Increases bullies' ...students are reporting of risk of getting convinced that bullying caught reporting is appropriate behavior

5.

21

Developing activities in lesssupervised areas

Increases the effort bullies must make by decreasing their opportunity to bully

6.

22

Reducing the amount of time students can spend less supervised

7.

22

Staggering recess, lunch and/or class- release times

Increases the risk that bullying will be exposed and reduces the amount of time for it to occur Ensures fewer bullies and victims are together at the same time, increasing supervisors' ability to spot bullying

...the activities interest bullies and are designed to limit their ability to victimize others ...supervisors are trained to spot and respond to bullying

...bullies and victims are not in the same classes or, if they are, supervisors are well trained to spot and respond to bullying

Some schools establish a hot line, while others install a bully box where students can leave notes alerting school personnel to bullying; non-anonymous reporting should be encouraged to lessen student fear of reprisal Requires staff or volunteers (students, parents, seniors) and age-appropriate programming Requires scheduling changes

If some bullies are in the same classes with their victims, other remedies are also needed

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Response Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... No. General Requirements for an Effective Strategy To Counter Bullying in Schools 8. 22 Monitoring areas Increases bullies' ...it is done where bullying can risk of getting frequently enough be expected (e.g., caught to make the risk bathrooms) real ...careful Increases the 9. 23 Assigning bullies consideration is effort bullies to a particular given to which of must make to location or to the two bully because this particular chores approaches is separates bullies during release more appropriate from victims times for each particular bully ...signs are Removes 10. 23 Posting posted in all the excuse classroom classrooms of ignorance signs and prohibiting underscores bullying and the risks listing the consequences for it ...teachers are Increases 11. 23 Providing committed to bullies' risk of teachers with stopping getting caught effective classroom in classrooms, classroom bullying, and and decreases management those teaching victims' risk of training higher-risk harm classes are given additional specialized training

Considerations

May require increased staffing or trained volunteers Isolating bullies may further anger them and cause additional problems for their victims

Signs and consequences should be age- appropriate

Identifying those teachers who need extra assistance must be handled delicately, although it should be noted that most U.S. teachers receive no instruction on classroom management techniques, so it is not surprising that some have fewer skills in these

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Response Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... No. General Requirements for an Effective Strategy To Counter Bullying in Schools ...done at the Decreases late12. 23 Having hightime of enrolling level school enrollment and students' risk administrators by someone of bullying or inform lateperceived as being bullied enrolling having a high students about level of the school's authority bullying policy 13. 23 Training students in Allows students to ...conflicts are conflict resolution play the key role between students of and peer mediation in resolving relatively equal bullying problems status, and not between bullies and weaker victims ...used as a last 14. 24 Guarantees that Adopting a zero resort, after bullies who get tolerance" policy other responses caught will be have failed penalized on the first offense 15.

24

Providing group therapy for bullies

Intended to build selfesteem of bullies

16.

24

Encouraging victims to simply "stand up" to bullies

Directly pits victim against bully

...bullies suggest that they have low self-esteem and it is the cause of their bullying ...accompanied by adequate support or adult involvement

Considerations

Schools may consider having late-enrolling students sign "bullyfree agreements" acknowledging the rules and the consequences for violations May be more appropriate for problems other than bullying (e.g., conflicts between peers of equal power or status) Bullying is too widespread, longstanding and complex for it to stop simply due to such a policy Most bullies do not have low-esteem

May be harmful or physically dangerous

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

31

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE BROCHURE EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT SCHOOL BULLYING1 TheSchool District is collaborating with the Police Department to implement the Bullying Prevention Program to address bullying among children in grades ____ to ____.

What is bullying? Bullying occurs when one child or group of children repeatedly hurts another child through actions or words. Bullying may involve physical aggression, such as fighting, shoving or kicking; verbal aggression, such as name-calling; or more subtle aggression, such as socially isolating a child.

Why focus on bullying?

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

All of us are concerned about the levels of violence among young people in our communities and schools. Studies have shown that 60 percent of children identified as bullies in middle school go on to have arrest records. We need to address these children's behavioral problems at an early age, before they become even more serious. In addition, victims of bullies may have problems with depression, poor school attendance and low self-esteem. It is important to help create a school environment where all children feel safe and can learn to the best of their abilities.

What does this program involve? The Bullying Prevention Program involves the total effort of all school staff (teachers, principals, guidance counselors, cafeteria workers, custodians, bus drivers, etc.), as well as students, parents and other community members, to reduce bullying. 1

This brochure is copied (with minor changes) with the permission of its author, Susan Limber, Clemson University, Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life. This particular brochure is most appropriate for parents of elementary or middle school students.

32

Rana Sampson The school's efforts will include: • • • • • • •

identifying bullies and their victims, to address individual problems and needs establishing schoolwide rules and applying consistent sanctions against bullies holding regular classroom meetings to discuss bullying with children increasing supervision of children at school rewarding children for good social behaviors holding schoolwide assemblies on bullying using videos, books and other resources on bullying.

Will this program help? Studies have shown that the Bullying Prevention Program can be very effective in reducing bullying and related antisocial behavior among schoolchildren. In places where this program has been used, bullying has been reduced by 25 to 50 percent. Fighting, vandalizing, drinking, and other antisocial behaviors also have decreased, and children and school personnel involved in the program have reported that they felt more positive about school.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

How can parents get involved? Through mailings, PTA meetings and other school events, we hope to inform you about the Bullying Prevention Program and the many problems associated with bullying. We will discuss ways to determine whether your children may be bullies or victims of bullying, and we will suggest strategies and resources for you. We will encourage you to become involved in a variety of creative projects developed by your school to raise awareness of the problems of violence and of efforts to reduce bullying at school and in the community.

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

33

How can I tell if my child is being bullied? Your child may be the victim of bullying if he or she: • • • • • • • • •

comes home from school with torn or dirty clothing, or damaged books has cuts, bruises, or scratches has few, if any, friends to play with seems afraid to go to school, or complains of headaches or stomach pains doesn't sleep well or has bad dreams loses interest in schoolwork seems sad, depressed, or moody is anxious or has poor self-esteem is quiet, sensitive, or passive.

If your child shows several of these warning signs, it's possible he or she is being bullied. You may want to talk with your child to find out what is troubling him or her, and schedule a conference to discuss your concerns with school staff.

How can I tell if my child is bullying others?

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Your child may be bullying others if he or she: • • • • •

teases, threatens, or kicks other children is hot-tempered or impulsive, or has a hard time following rules is aggressive toward adults is tough or shows no sympathy for children who are bullied has been involved in other antisocial behavior, such as vandalism or theft.

If your child shows several of these warning signs, it's possible that he or she is bullying others. You may want to spend some extra time talking with your child about his or her behavior, and schedule a conference to talk about the issue with school staff.

34

Rana Sampson

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rana Sampson is a national problem-oriented policing consultant and the former director of public safety for the University of San Diego. She was previously a White House Fellow; National Institute of Justice Fellow; senior researcher and trainer at the Police Executive Research Forum; attorney; and patrol officer, undercover narcotics officer and patrol sergeant with the New York City Police Department, where she was awarded several commendations of merit and won the National Improvement of Justice Award. She is the coauthor (with Michael Scott) of Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, which documents high-quality crime control efforts from around the United States, Canada and Europe. She is a judge for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing, a former judge for the police Fulbright awards, and a commissioner with California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Sampson holds a law degree from Harvard and a bachelor's degree from Barnard College, Columbia University.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Banks, S., K. Kaplan and M. Groves (2001). "Web Site Where Students Slung Vicious Gossip Is Shut Down." Los Angeles Times, March 3, p. A1. Batsche, G., and H. Knoff (1994). "Bullies and Their Victims: Understanding a Pervasive Problem in the Schools." School Psychology Review 23(2):165–174. Bernstein, J., and M. Watson (1997). "Children Who Are Targets of Bullying: A Victim Pattern." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12(4):483–498. Clarke, E., and M. Kiselica (1997). "A Systemic Counseling Approach to the Problem of Bullying." Elementary School Guidance and Counseling 31(4):310–335. Eron, L., L. Huesmann, E. Dubow, R. Romanoff, and P. Yarmel (1987). "Aggression and Its Correlates Over 22 Years." In D. Crowell, I. Evans and C. O'Donnell (eds.), Childhood Aggression and Violence: Sources of Influence, Prevention and Control. New York: Plenum Press. European Commission (updated 2001). "TMR Network Project: Nature and Prevention of Bullying."

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

35

Farrington, D. (1993). "Understanding and Preventing Bullying." In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Glover, D., and N. Cartwright, with D. Gleeson (1998). Towards BullyFree Schools: Interventions in Action. Buckingham (England): Open University Press. Harachi, T., R. Catalano and J. Hawkins (1999). "United States." In P. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (eds.), The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. Hodges, E., M. Malone and D. Perry (1997). "Individual Risk and Social Risk as Interacting Determinants of Victimization in the Peer Group." Developmental Psychology 33(6):1032–1039. Home Office (1996). Preventing School Bullying: Things You Can Do. London: Home Office, Police Research Group. Hoover, J., R. Oliver and R. Hazler (1992). "Bullying: Perceptions of Adolescent Victims in the Midwestern USA." School Psychology International 13(1):5–1 6. Junger-Tas, J., and J. Van Kesteren (1999). Bullying and Delinquency in a Dutch School Population. The Hague (Netherlands): Kugler Publications. Kaufman, P., X. Chen, S. Choy, S. Ruddy, A. Miller, J. Fleury, K. Chandler, M. Rand, P. Klaus, and M. Planty (2000). Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Limber, S., V. Flerx, M. Nation, and G. Melton (1998). "Bullying Among School Children in the United States." In M. Watts (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Sociology, Vol. 18. Stamford (Conneticut): Jai Press Inc. Nansel, T., M. Overpeck, R. Pilla, W. Ruan, B. Simons- Morton, and P. Scheidt (2001). "Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment." Journal of the American Medical Association 28 5(1 6):2094–21 00. Naylor, P., and H. Cowie (1999). "The Effectiveness of Peer Support Systems in Challenging School Bullying: The Perspectives and Experiences of Teachers and Pupils." Journal of Adolescence 22:467– 479. Olweus, D. (1992). "Bullying Among Schoolchildren: Intervention and Prevention." In R. Peters, R. McMahon and V. Quinsey (eds.),

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

36

Rana Sampson

Aggression and Violence Throughout the Life Span. Newbury Park (California): Sage Publications. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press. Olweus, D., and S. Limber (1999). "Bullying Prevention Program." In D. Elliott (ed.), Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Boulder (Colorado): Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado. O'Moore, M. (1999). "Critical Issues for Teacher Training To Counter Bullying and Victimisation in Ireland." Aggressive Behavior 26:99– 111. Ortega, R., and M. Lera (2000). "The Seville Anti-Bullying in School Project." Aggressive Behavior 26:11 3–1 23. Perry, D., S. Kusel and L. Perry (1988). "Victims of Peer Aggression." Developmental Psychology 24(6) :807–814. Peterson, L., and K. Rigby (1999). "Countering Bullying at an Australian Secondary School, With Students as Helpers." Journal of Adolescence 22:481–492. Pitts, J., and P. Smith (1996). Preventing School Bullying. Police Research Series, Paper 63. London: Home Office. Rigby, K. (1996). "Preventing Peer Victimisation in Schools." In C. Sumner, M. Israel, M. O'Connell, and R. Sarre (eds.), International Victimology: Selected Papers From the Eighth International Symposium. Griffith (Australia): Australian Institute of Criminology. Rigby, K., and P. Slee (1999). "Australia." In P. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (eds.), The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. Roland, E. (2000). "Bullying in School: Three National Innovations in Norwegian Schools in 15 Years." Aggressive Behavior 26:135–143. Salmivalli, C. (1999). "Participant Role Approach to School Bullying: Implications for Interventions." Journal of Adolescence 22:453–459. Schwartz, D., K. Dodge and J. Cole (1993). "The Emergence of Chronic Peer Victimization in Boys' Play Groups." Child Development 64:1755–1772. Smith, P., and P. Brain (2000). "Bullying in Schools: Lessons From Two Decades of Research." Aggressive Behavior 26:1–9. Smith, P., and S. Sharp (1994). School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. Smith, P., Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (eds.) (1999). The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross- National Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

37

Stevens, V., I. De Bourdeaudhuij and P. Van Oost (2000). "Bullying in Flemish Schools: An Evaluation of Anti- Bullying Intervention in Primary and Secondary Schools." British Journal of Educational Psychology 70:195–210. Stevens, V., P. Van Oost and I. De Bourdeaudhuij (2000). "The Effects of an Anti-Bullying Intervention Programme on Peers' Attitudes and Behaviour." Journal of Adolescence 23:21–34. U.S. Department of Education (1998). Preventing Bullying: A Manual for Schools and Communities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available by order at www.ed.gov/pubs. U.S. Secret Service (2000). An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools. www.treas.gov/usss. Zeigler, S. and M. Rosenstein-Manner (1991). Bullying in School. Toronto: Board of Education.

OTHER PROBLEM-ORIENTED GUIDES FOR POLICE

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Problem-Specific Guides Series 1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-93258200-2 2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1932582-02-9 4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1932582-05-3 7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

38

Rana Sampson

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1932582-14-2 16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. ISBN: 1-93258227-4 22. Stalking. the National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. ISBN: 1932582-30-4 23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1932582-43-6 30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41X 31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-93258246-0 33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

39

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8 38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2 39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0 41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7 42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. ISBN: 1-9325 8272-X 45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6 46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2 47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0 48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-78-9 49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7 50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7 51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Response Guides Series 1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 ISBN: 1932582-58-4

40

Rana Sampson

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5 6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

Problem-Solving Tools Series 1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5 4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2 6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4 7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0 8. Using Crime Prevention through Enviornmental Design in Problem Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Abandoned Vehicles Bicycle Theft Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues Child Abuse Crime and Disorder in Parks Transient Encampments Problem-Solving Tools Designing a Problem Analysis System Displacement

A Guide to Bullying in Schools

41

Response Guides Enhancing Lighting For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj .gov.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, including: • • •

Recommended readings in problem-oriented situational crime prevention A complete listing of other POP Guides A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

policing

and

Designed for police and those who work with them to address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in problemoriented policing.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In: Bullying in Schools Editor: David N. Rickler

ISBN 978-1-60692-208-8 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

STUDENT REPORTS OF BULLYING: RESULTS FROM THE 2001 SCHOOL CRIME SUPPLEMENT TO THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY∗ Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Bullying in schools is an issue that continues to receive attention from researchers, educators, parents, and students. Despite the common assumption that bullying is a normal part of childhood and encompasses minor teasing and harassment (Lawrence 1998), researchers increasingly find that bullying is a problem that can be detrimental to students’ well-being (Nansel et al. 2001, 2003; Haynie et al. 2001). Bullying is commonly defined as being “exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (Olweus 1991). Olweus also suggests that bullying can be characterized by two distinct forms of negative actions: direct and indirect bullying behaviors. Direct bullying takes the form of overt, physical contact in which the victim is openly attacked. Indirect bullying takes the form of social isolation and intentional exclusion from activities. Both forms of bullying, occurring separately or together, can be harmful to students’ well-being and development. ∗

Excerpted from NCES 2005-310, dated July 2005.

44

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger This chapter examines the prevalence and nature of bullying in relation to student characteristics, school characteristics, and victimization. In addition, the study explores other behaviors that were reported by the victim, such as fear, avoidance behavior, weapon carrying, and academic grades. It also examines student reports of being bullied by direct means only, bullied by indirect means only, and bullied both directly and indirectly. Readers are alerted to the limitations of the survey design and analysis approach with regard to causality. Conclusions about causality can not be made due to the cross-sectional, nonexperimental design of the survey used. And, while certain characteristics discussed in this chapter, such as school control, gang presence, security guards, and hallway monitors, may be related to one another, this analysis does not control for such relationships. Therefore, no causal inferences should be made between the variables of interest and bullying when reading these results. As reported by public and private school students, ages 12 through 18, in the 2001 School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), major findings include the following: ♦

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

♦

1

Fourteen percent of students reported being the victims of bullying. In 2001, 14 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that they had been bullied at school in the 6 months prior to the interview (appendix B, table 1). About 3 percent reported that they had been bullied only through direct or physical means, almost 7 percent reported being bullied only indirectly through social exclusion or rejection, and approximately 5 percent reported being bullied both directly and indirectly.1 Sex differences were not detected in most types of bullying. No measurable differences were detected between boys and girls in reports of being bullied, directly or indirectly, in the 6 months prior to the survey (appendix B, table 1). However, differences did emerge between boys and girls who were bullied both directly and indirectly. Specifically, boys were more likely than girls to report being the victims of both direct and indirect bullying (5 percent of boys vs. 4 percent of girls).

Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked “Have you been bullied at school? That is, has anyone picked on you a lot or tried to make you do things you did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. Students were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. References to “bullying“ include youth who reported they were either directly or indirectly bullied. Categories are mutually exclusive. Directly Only, Indirectly Only, and Both Directly and Indirectly are distinct categories. Students appearing in one category do not appear in other categories.

Student Reports of Bullying ♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

♦

2

45

White, non-Hispanic students were more likely than Black, non-Hispanic students and Other, non-Hispanic students to report being bullied2 (15 percent of White students vs. 12 percent and 11 percent of Other and Black students, respectively) (appendix B, table 1). When reports of indirect bullying only were examined, White students’ and Black students’ reports exceeded those of Hispanic students (7 percent, 7 percent, and 4 percent, respectively). White students (5 percent) were more likely than Black students (3 percent) to report being bullied both directly and indirectly. Younger students were more likely than older students to report being bullied. Students’ reports of being bullied (either directly or indirectly) decreased as grade level increased from 6th (24 percent) to 12th grade (7 percent) (appendix B, table 1). Differences were not detected between public and private school students’ reports of being bullied at school. No measurable differences were detected in public and private school students’ reports of being bullied, directly or indirectly, or in both ways (appendix B, table 2). Students in schools where gangs were present were more likely to report being the victims of bullying. In 2001, students who reported the presence of street gangs at school were more likely to report being bullied (21 percent) than those who reported no presence of street gangs (13 percent) (appendix B, table 2). Fewer students reported bullying in schools with supervision by police officers, security officers, or staff hallway monitors. In schools where a security guard or assigned police officer was present, fewer students (13 percent) reported being bullied compared to students in schools with no such supervision (16 percent) (appendix B, table 2). Fewer students in schools with staff hallway monitors reported being bullied than did students in schools without such hallway supervision (14 vs. 18 percent). Victims of bullying were more likely to experience a criminal victimization at school. Bullied students were more likely to experience any type of victimization (13 percent), a serious violent victimization (2 percent), a violent victimization (7 percent), or a property victimization (8 percent) at school when compared to those students who were not bullied (4 percent, 0.3 percent, 1 percent, and 4 percent, respectively) (appendix B, table 3).3 Students who reported only direct bullying were more likely to be violently victimized than students who reported only indirect bullying (11 percent vs. 3 percent).

For ease of presentation, White, non-Hispanic, Black, non-Hispanic, and Other, non-Hispanic race/ethnicities will be described as White, Black, and Other. 3 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Any crimes include violent crimes and theft.

46

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger ♦

♦

♦

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

♦

Victims of bullying were more afraid of being attacked at school and elsewhere. Bullied students were more likely to report being fearful of attack at school at least some of the time (18 percent), on the way to and from school (11 percent), and away from school (12 percent) than were students who were not bullied (3 percent, 2 percent, and 3 percent, respectively) (appendix B, table 4). Victims of bullying were more likely to avoid certain areas of the school and certain activities out of fear of an attack. Specifically, bullied students were more likely than nonbullied students to report the following avoidance behaviors: avoiding the shortest route to school (6 percent of bullied students vs. 2 percent of nonbullied students); the entrance to the school (4 percent vs. 1 percent); hallways or stairs (7 percent vs. 1 percent); and the school cafeteria (6 percent vs. 1 percent) (appendix B, table 5). Bullied students were also more likely than nonbullied students to avoid restrooms (7 percent vs. 2 percent), the parking lot (5 percent vs. 1 percent), and other places inside the school building (5 percent vs. 1 percent) or other places on school grounds (6 percent vs. 1 percent). Victims of bullying were more likely to report that they carried weapons to school and were engaged in physical fights. Specifically, students who were bullied were more likely to report that they carried a weapon to school for protection (4 percent), as compared to students who were not bullied (1 percent) (appendix B, table 6). Bullied students were also more likely to report being involved in a physical fight (15 percent), compared to nonbullied students (4 percent). Of those students who reported lower grades, victims of bullying were more likely to report receiving D's and F's than their nonbullied counterparts. Bullied students were more likely to report receiving lower academic grades, or mostly D's and F's, than their nonbullied peers (8 percent vs. 3 percent) (appendix B, table 7). Victims of both forms of bullying were more likely to report mostly D's and F's (12 percent) than those bullied either directly only or indirectly only (7 percent and 6 percent).

INTRODUCTION Students are victims of a spectrum of problem behaviors at school, ranging from minor disciplinary problems to criminal victimization (DeVoe et al. 2004). Bullying is one form of these problem behaviors that concerns students, educators, and parents because of its potential detriment to the students’ wellbeing (Nansel et al. 2001, 2003; Haynie et al. 2001).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

47

Defining bullying is a difficult task; however, most research agrees that bullying comprises physical, verbal, and psychological behaviors such as hitting, teasing, taunting, and manipulating social relationships (Banks 1997; Ericson 2001). The investigation of bullying is further complicated by the complex dynamics of bullying scenarios and the developmental context for social development in which bullying plays a role. Further, aggression among youth often serves varied purposes for children at different stages of development. Hawkins, Pepler, and Craig (2001) found that peers were present in 88 percent of bullying episodes. Thus, bullying frequently involves the support of peers within the school community and is often not an isolated event between two individuals. In addition, aggressive behavior, such as bullying, is expressed differently over time and may change in purpose, as children transition from middle to secondary school. As Cairns et al. (1989) discuss, patterns of, and motivation for aggression change over the course of childhood and cannot be examined independently of the developmental context in which aggression occurs. Cillessen and Mayeaux (2004) found that physical and relational aggression, peer approval, and popularity were intricately linked, but that the relationships between these variables vary with age, gender, and by type of aggression. While resolution to these definitional, contextual, and developmental complexities are unable to be addressed in the current investigation, this chapter provides a broad summary of bullying reported by student victims in 2001. Olweus (1993) has produced an instructive definition of bullying that includes three essential elements of bullying behavior: (1) the behavior is aggressive and negative; (2) the behavior is carried out repeatedly; and (3) the behavior occurs in a relationship where there is an imbalance of power between the parties involved. This tripartite definition of bullying is now used by many researchers (e.g., Smith et al. 2002). In a further refinement of the variety of behaviors that encompass bullying, Olweus identifies two subtypes of bullying that are used as the basis of this chapter. The first subtype is direct, physical aggression, and the second is indirect behavior such as social exclusion or rejection. Direct bullying often takes the form of overt, physical contact in which the victim is openly attacked. Indirect bullying often takes the form of social isolation and intentional exclusion from activities. Research suggests that indirect forms of bullying are more often employed by girls than boys (Ericson 2001; Banks 1997; Carney and Merrell 2001; Crick and Grotpeter 1995). Researchers of aggression stress the importance of the distinction between its physical and social forms. Underwood, Galen, and Paquette (2001) more recently coined the term “social aggression“ to encompass the less physical and indirect forms of hurtful behavior. These authors discourage the use of the term “indirect” because the term implies that the behavior does not

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

48

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

involve direct or overt interaction with the victim. They also favor the term “social aggression” as it more aptly targets the purpose of the behavior as harmful. Finally, they believe that this type of aggression can be conveyed through nonverbal means, such as social exclusion and the term “social aggression” is more accurate. For the purposes of this article, the term “indirect“ will be retained to show the dichotomy of behaviors being discussed and to maintain the conceptualization proposed by Olweus, recognizing that more current conceptualizations exist in the literature. The term “indirect bullying” includes both verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and does not imply that the victim was unaware of the activity. This Statistical Analysis Report provides estimates of bullying at school as reported by students ages 12 through 18 who were enrolled in grades 6 through 12 in the 6 months prior to survey administration. School-related data are drawn from the 2001 School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Data about characteristics of the individual (including sex, race/ethnicity, household income, and urbanicity) and victimization are drawn from NCVS variables appended to the SCS data. The NCVS is the nation’s primary source of information on crime victimization and the victims of crime. The NCVS collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of crimes experienced by Americans and their households each year. The survey measures both crimes reported and not reported to police. The NCVS collects data on all members of selected households and surveys all who are age 12 and above, for a total of about 79,000 people, every 6 months. The SCS is a supplement to the NCVS that was created to collect additional information about school-related victimization on a national level. It is administered for a 6-month period from January through June in all NCVS households. The SCS is a nationally representative sample of students ages 12 through 18 and has been administered in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003, with plans for collection in 2005. This study focuses on the 2001 collection. Respondents eligible for the supplement were those in the specified age range who attended school during the 6 months prior to the interview and were enrolled in grades 6 through 12. A total of 8,374 students participated in the 2001 SCS. The 2001 SCS questionnaire measures respondents’ perceptions of whether they have been bullied directly and/or indirectly, and specifies the aggressive nature of the behavior and whether or not the behavior happens “often” or “a lot.” Specifically, youth were first asked “Have you been bullied at school? That is, has anyone picked on you a lot or tried to make you do things you did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. In a separate

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

49

question, students were also asked if they have often felt rejected by other students at school: “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This type of bullying is referred to as indirect bullying. This chapter focuses not only on the prevalence of bullying, but also on those subsets of students who reported being the victims of direct bullying, indirect bullying, and both direct and indirect bullying. Different types of bullying may affect different groups of students, occur in different types of schools, or affect student behavior in different ways. These distinctions allow readers to differentiate between students who were either physically (directly) or socially (indirectly) bullied, and also to identify those students who were bullied both physically and socially.4 Additional analysis describes the characteristics of students affected by these types of behavior and the characteristics of schools in which these behaviors occur. Because of prior research that suggests victims of bullying may resort to aggressive behaviors in response to being bullied (Nansel et al. 2003), the extent to which reports of bullying arerelated to victim behaviors such as weapon carrying, physical fights, fear, and avoidance is explored. Finally, for educators, the academic success of students is of paramount importance. For this reason, self-reported academic performance of bullied students is also examined. Readers should note that estimates of bullying presented in this study are derived from victims' self-reports of bullying experiences. Limitations inherent to victimization surveys such as the SCS might impact estimates of bullying (Cantor and Lynch 2000). First, the SCS includes unbounded interviews, or interviews that include victimizations that exceed the 6-month reference period asked of SCS respondents. This may artificially increase reports of victimization since respondents may recall events outside of the given reference period. Second, the SCS does not use a classification scheme for determining bullying events. That is, the larger NCVS uses sets of characteristics to classify events as criminal whereas the SCS often relies on the respondent to self-determine a condition. This allows for the victim to use his own interpretation or conceptions to define a situation, when the same situation may not have been labeled bullying by a bystander or the offender. Third, victim surveys emphasize crime events as incidents at one point in time. Reality tells us that victims can often live in a state of victimization where they are threatened or victimized regularly. While the NCVS does allow for these 4

Students who reported being the victims of both forms of bullying were not necessarily bullied more than students who reported either direct or indirect bullying. Rather, these students simply reported that they were subject to a wider variety of bullying behaviors including both direct and indirect means.

50

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

series to be flagged for criminal victimizations, reports of bullying behaviors are not collected in this way. Additional caution is in order when examining bullying as well as the other variables used in this report. Because all variables of interest on the SCS are selfreported, information about the respondent and his school may be inaccurate due to error in recall, falsification, or exaggeration. For example, a student either may not be forthright or artificially inflate his self-reported academic grades. In addition, the respondent may forget a bullying event entirely or recall the characteristics of the event inaccurately. This would lead to an underestimation of victimization. There is no independent or external verification of any of the SCS variables used in this report. Finally, readers are alerted to the limitations of the survey design and analysis approach with regard to causality. Conclusions about causality can not be made due to the cross-sectional, non-experimental design of the SCS. And, while certain characteristics discussed in this report, such as school control, gang presence, security guards and hallway monitors, may be related to one another, this analysis does not control for such relationships. Therefore, no causal inferences should be made between the variables of interest and bullying when reading these results.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN SCHOOLS In 2001, approximately 14 percent of students ages 12 through 18 were victims of bullying at school in the 6 months prior to the survey administration (figure 1 and appendix B, table 1). For this report, the total percentage of students bullied refers to those students who were either directly or indirectly bullied. Three percent reported only direct bullying—that someone had picked on them a lot or tried to make them do something they did not want to do. Seven percent of students reported only indirect bullying—that other students had rejected them or excluded them from activities. Five percent reported being bullied both directly and indirectly.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIED STUDENTS When looking at the direct and indirect forms of bullying, prior research suggests, first, that boys typically engage in more direct bullying methods than girls and are more often the victims of this type of bullying (Nansel et al. 2001;

Student Reports of Bullying

51

Olweus 1997). Second, research suggests indirect bullying, such as social exclusion and rejection, is the type of bullying used more frequently by girls than boys (Banks 1997; Olweus 1997, 1999).

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school.Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied, bullied directly only, bullied indirectly only, and bullied in both ways: 2001.

In this analysis of the 2001 SCS, no measurable differences were detected between boys and girls in their reports of direct or indirect bullying only, but when looking at students who were bullied both directly and indirectly, measurable differences did emerge (appendix B, table 1). In the 2001 SCS, boys were more likely than girls to report being both directly and indirectly bullied (5 percent of boys vs. 4 percent of girls) (appendix B, table 1). White, non-Hispanic students were more likely than Other, non-Hispanic students and Black, non-Hispanic students to report being bullied (15 percent of White, non-Hispanic students vs. 11 percent and 12 percent of Other, non-

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

52

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Hispanic and Black, non-Hispanic students, respectively) (appendix B, table 1).5 When indirect bullying behavior was examined, White and Black students’ reports (7 percent each) were higher than those of Hispanic students’ (4 percent). Those students who were bullied both directly and indirectly were more likely to be White than Black (5 percent vs. 3 percent).6 No measurable - racial/ethnic differences in bullying were detected among victims of only direct bullying behavior. While the research on race/ethnicity and bullying is scant, the findings by Nansel et al. (2001) found that Black youth were less likely than their White and Hispanic peers to report being bullied. As the grade levels of students in the 2001 SCS increased, from 6th through 12th grades, the total percentage of students reporting that they were bullied decreased (figure 2 and appendix B, table 1). Specifically, 24 percent of 6thgraders reported being bullied at school, compared to 7 percent of 12th-graders. Sixth-grade students were more likely than 12th-grade students to report both direct (5 percent vs. 1 percent) and indirect (10 percent vs. 5 percent) bullying. This finding is consistent with previous research on bullying and grade level and is explained in terms of establishing social hierarchies. Specifically, prior researchers suggest that bullying may be used as a way to establish dominance in social structures and that the transition to middle school (which traditionally occurs around the 6th grade) should be accompanied by an increase in bullying and then follow an age-related decline as dominance hierarchies are solidified (Pellegrini and Long 2002; Pellegrini and Bartini 2001). Another possible reason for this finding comes from Olweus’ (1993) research, which suggests that younger and weaker students are exposed more frequently to bullying and that a considerable part of bullying behavior is carried out by older students against these younger victims. Olweus (1978, 1980) found no relationship between socioeconomic status of the family and being the victim of bullying and suggests that there are similar proportions of bullies and victims across all socioeconomic levels. Interestingly, Olweus attributes this finding to the relative homogeneity in the Scandinavian countries in which his studies were conducted. He speculates that in other countries, such as the United States, stronger associations between bullying and socioeconomic indicators, such as income, would be found. However, no pattern 5

For the remainder of this report, White, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; and Other, nonHispanic race/ethnicities are described as White, Black, and Other, respectively, for ease of presentation. 6 While estimates among other race/ethnicity categories may appear to be different, these differences may not be statistically significant due to large standard errors. Please refer to Appendix A for further discussion about standard errors and the design of the survey.

Student Reports of Bullying

53

was detected between student reports of bullying and student household income in the 2001 SCS, a nationally representative U.S. data set (appendix B, table 1). Likewise, no measurable differences were detected in the total percentage of students who reported bullying by students’ residential urbanicity (appendix B, table 1). Nansel and her colleagues (2001) found no measurable differences among rural, suburban, and urban students’ reports of bullying in their investigation as well.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

STUDENT REPORTS OF SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS WHERE BULLYING OCCURS7 About 14 percent of students in both public schools and private schools reported being bullied (appendix B, table 2). Three percent of public and private school students reported direct bullying only, and 7 percent of public and private school students reported indirect bullying only. In 2001, students who reported the presence of street gangs at school were more likely to report being bullied in any way (21 percent) than those who reported that street gangs were not present (13 percent) (appendix B, table 2). Similarly, those who reported street gangs at school were more likely to report direct bullying only (5 percent), indirect bullying only (8 percent), and both direct and indirect bullying (8 percent) than those students who did not report a street gang presence (3 percent, 6 percent, and 4 percent, respectively). Schools take various measures to guard against criminal victimization and disciplinary problems. Increasing supervision of students is one avenue toward decreasing bullying in schools (Olweus 1993). Supervision, such as the employment of security personnel and the use of hallway monitors may deter bullies from attacking or threatening other students, calling them names, or making fun of them. In 2001, fewer students reported being bullied in schools with a security guard or an assigned police officer (13 percent), compared to students in schools with no such supervision (16 percent) (figure 3 and table 2). No measurable differences were detected (between schools with and without security officers) for either direct bullying or indirect bullying considered separately. More students were victims of both types of bullying in schools with

7

These data on school characteristics do not represent a sample of schools, rather they represent a sample of students. Thus, school characteristics are discussed in terms of student reports of school characteristics in this section.

54

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

security personnel (6 percent) than in schools without security guards or assigned police officers (4 percent).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. 1 Categories are mutually exclusive. Directly Only, Indirectly Only and Both Directly and Indirectly are distinct categories. Students appearing in one category do not appear in other categories. Figure 2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school during the previous 6 months, by grade level: 2001.

Another common practice of supervision is hallway monitoring by school staff. Hall monitoring by school staff was associated with fewer bullied students (14 percent of students were bullied in schools with staff hallway monitors, vs. 18 percent of students being bullied in schools without such monitors). However, no measurable differences were detected in students’ reports of direct bullying in schools with and without hallway supervision (figure 3 and appendix B, table 2).

Student Reports of Bullying

55

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. 1 Categories are mutually exclusive. Directly Only, Indirectly Only and Both Directly and Indirectly are distinct categories. Students appearing in one category do not appear in other categories.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school during the previous 6 months, by security presence and hallway supervision: 2001

Students were less likely to report being indirectly bullied only in schools with hallway supervision (6 percent) than in schools without such supervision (9 percent). No measurable differences were detected in both direct and indirect bullying in schools with and without hallway supervision. Readers should note that while school characteristics such as school control, gang presence, security guards, and hallway monitors may be related to one another, the analysis does not control for such relationships. These data cannot address the question of whether having security guards or hallway monitors had an impact on bullying. Therefore, no causal inferences should be made when reading these results.

56

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION Elliott (1994) suggests that bullied students are at higher risk for criminal victimization at school, especially violent victimization. The purpose of this section is to examine student reports of bullying and their reports of serious violent, violent, and property victimization. Prior to presenting the results, some explanation of the differences between these two constructs, bullying and criminal victimization, and how they are collected is necessary. Information on criminal victimization is collected in the main NCVS, to which the SCS is a supplement. Victimization is collected using a classification scheme in which the respondent identifies the characteristics of an event and those characteristics are used to classify the event as criminal. (For more information on the construction of the NCVS victimization variables used in this report, see the Glossary in appendix A). Readers may suspect that students who report direct bullying, or more overt physical attacks, may be reporting many of the same instances in their reports of criminal victimization. However, these two concepts are addressed quite differently during data collection for the SCS and therefore are reported as distinct events in this report. As stated, the larger NCVS uses sets of characteristics to classify events as criminal. This was the approach taken for determining the serious violent, violent, and property victimizations reported here. In contrast, the SCS relies on the respondent to self-determine if they are bullied. Specifically, respondents are asked if they are bullied and allowed to determine if they fall into the bullying category based on the definition provided, rather than asked about characteristics of the situation and allowing the analyst to determine if the respondent has been bullied. This allows for the victim to use his or her own interpretation to define a situation, when the same situation may not have been labeled bullying by a bystander or the offender. Results show, in 2001, 6 percent of all students ages 12 through 18 reported any form of criminal victimization at school (appendix B, table 3).8 Serious violent victimization at school (including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault), was reported by less than 1 percent of students, and violent victimization at school (which includes those offenses in the serious violent category plus simple assaults) was reported by 2 percent of all students. Property

8

Any victimization includes those students who reported being the victim of a violent crime or a property crime. Students who reported being the victim of both a property and a violent crime are counted once in the “any“ category.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

57

victimization, which includes theft of a student’s property at school, was reported by 4 percent of students (figure 4 and appendix B, table 3). Students who report being bullied at school were at least twice as likely to report being the victims of crime at school compared to nonbullied students. When focusing on the total sample of students who reported being bullied at school (14 percent of the entire sample) (see appendix B, table 1), these students were more likely to experience any victimization, a serious violent victimization, a violent victimization, or a property victimization at school when compared to those students who were not bullied (figure 4 and appendix B, table 3). Specifically, 13 percent of bullied students reported any victimization at school compared to 4 percent of nonbullied students. About 2 percent of bullied students reported a serious violent victimization, 7 percent reported a violent victimization, and 8 percent reported a -property theft; 0.3 percent of nonbullied students reported a serious violent victimization, 1 percent reported a violent victimization, and 4 percent reported a property theft. When looking at those students who were directly and/or indirectly bullied, interesting results emerge. First, the findings show that 18 percent of directly, or physically bullied students reported any victimization, and 7 percent of indirectly bullied students reported any victimization (figure 4 and appendix B, table 3). About 17 percent of students who reported both direct and indirect bullying reported any victimization. Second, the findings show that students who reported both types of bullying were more likely than students who reported only direct or indirect bullying to report being seriously violently victimized. About 1 percent of only directly bullied students and 0.3 percent of only indirectly bullied students reported a serious violent victimization, compared to larger percentage (4 percent) of students reporting both types of bullying. Third, directly bullied students were more likely than indirectly bullied students to be violently victimized (11 percent vs. 3 percent). Eleven percent of students reporting both forms of bullying also reported a violent victimization, a finding that is consistent with previous literature (Elliott 1994). Finally, victims of direct bullying only (9 percent) or both forms of bullying (10 percent) were more likely than those who reported only indirect bullying (5 percent) to be the victims of property victimization.

58

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.Any crimes include violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12– 18 is 24,315,000. 1 Categories are mutually exclusive. 2 Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. # Rounds to zero. Figure 4. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly only, bullied indirectly only, or being bullied directly or indirectly at school: 2001.

BULLYING AND VICTIM OUTCOMES/BEHAVIORS Psychological research suggests that passive victims of bullying are anxious and insecure (Olweus 1999; Wilton, Craig, and Pepler 2000; and Dodge et al.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

59

1990). Passive victims often react to provocation by crying, withdrawing, or becoming quiet. This signals that they will not react or retaliate if they are attacked or insulted. Another type of victim, the “provocative” victim, is characterized by both anxious and aggressive reaction patterns (Olweus 1999). Provocative victims are likely to counter attack and have difficulty relating emotionally, whereas passive victims often avoid and acquiesce to their attackers (Wilton, Craig, and Pepler 2000). In fact, some research has shown that socially “rejected” boys are more likely to follow an act of aggression with another act of aggression than are boys who did not experience social rejection (Dodge et al. 1990). The purpose of this section is to investigate whether students who report only direct bullying respond with different defensive mechanisms or reactive behaviors than students who are bullied only indirectly or those who are bullied in both ways. While the SCS is a cross-sectional survey that does not allow the reader to know which event occurred first, the data do show that students who are victims of different types of bullying at school more often experience or engage in a variety of behaviors different from those of students not bullied. These behaviors include fear of attack; avoidance behaviors such as truancy from school; skipping classes, or not participating in extra-curricular activities; weapon carrying; involvement in physical fights; and varied academic performance. These data cannot address the question of whether bullying has an impact on these behaviors and outcomes, whether these behaviors elicit bullying from others, or whether some other combination of factors influences both bullying and these other behaviors Fear is one by-product of threats and violence, and those students who are bullied at school may be afraid to attend school (Ericson 2001; Berthhold and Hoover 2000). The 2001 SCS findings are consistent with this research. Bullied students were more likely than nonbullied students to report being “sometimes or most of the time” afraid of an attack at school (18 percent vs. 3 percent), on the way to and from school (11 percent vs. 2 percent), and away from school (12 percent vs. 3 percent) (appendix B, table 4). Bullied students who were targeted both directly and indirectly were the most likely group of bullied students to sometimes or most of the time be afraid of an attack at school compared students who were bullied only directly and only indirectly (31 percent, 14 percent and 11 percent, respectively). Similar results were found for fear on the way to and from school, with 17 percent of students who were bullied both directly and indirectly reporting fear sometimes or most of the time, compared to 10 percent of students who were bullied only directly and 7 percent who were bullied only indirectly. As discussed above, bullying can coincide with fear. Student reaction to this fear may lead to avoidance behavior or truancy. Specifically, students may act

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

60

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

upon their feelings of fear and actually start avoiding places in school or be truant from school, classes, or extracurricular activities. Bullied students were more likely than nonbullied students to report avoidance behavior, such as avoiding the shortest route to school (6 percent of bullied students vs. 2 percent of nonbullied students), the entrance to the school (4 percent vs. 1 percent), hallways or stairs (7 percent vs. 1 percent), and the school cafeteria (6 percent vs. 1 percent) (appendix B, table 5). They were also more likely than nonbullied students to avoid restrooms (7 percent vs. 2 percent), the parking lot (5 percent vs. 1 percent), and other places inside the school building (5 percent vs. 1 percent) or on school grounds (6 percent vs. 1 percent). The SCS data also show that victims of both forms of bullying were more likely than victims of only direct and indirect bullying to avoid the shortest route to school (9 percent vs. 3 and 5 percent, respectively), the entrance to the school (7 percent vs. 3 and 2 percent), the school cafeteria (10 percent vs. 5 and 3 percent), and school restrooms (10 percent vs. 6 and 5 percent). Taken to an extreme, this avoidance behavior may lead to truancy. Students who are bullied are at higher risk for truancy and subsequent dropout (Carney and Merrell 2001). In the 2001 SCS, bullied students were more likely than nonbullied students to skip school entirely because they thought someone might attack or harm them (4 percent vs. 1 percent) (figure 5 and appendix B, table 5). Bullied students were more likely to skip classes than were nonbullied students (3 percent vs. 0.2 percent). Bullied students were also more likely to skip extracurricular activities compared to nonbullied students (4 percent vs. 1 percent). Truancy was more likely to occur among students who were victims of direct bullying than among victims of indirect bullying. Specifically, 4 percent of students who were directly bullied skipped school compared to 1 percent of students who were indirectly bullied. Students who were victims of both types of bullying were more likely to skip school (7 percent), class (7 percent), and extracurricular activities (6 percent) than were students who were only indirectly bullied (1 percent, 1 percent, and 2 percent, respectively), and were also more likely than students who were only directly bullied to skip class (3 percent).

Student Reports of Bullying

61

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. 1 Categories are mutually exclusive. # Rounds to zero.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 5. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported skipping school, class, or extracurricular activities during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly only, bullied indirectly only, or being bullied directly and indirectly at school: 2001.

Research suggests that being victimized by bullying may be an antecedent to aggressive behavior (Nansel et al. 2003, Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1998). As discussed above, bullied students may resort to aggression in retaliation or be more inclined to respond to negative behaviors with antisocial responses. In the 2001 SCS, about 2 percent of all students ages 12 through 18 reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife, or some other weapon) to school for protection, and 5 percent reported being involved in a physical fight (figure 7 and appendix B, table 6). While the 2001 SCS cannot be used to establish causality, results show that more bullied students carried a weapon to school for protection (4 percent) in the 6 months prior to the survey than did nonbullied students (1 percent). Consistent with this finding, Carney and Merrell (2001) also report that victims of bullying

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

62

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

are more likely than their nonbullied counterparts to bring weapons to school in order to protect themselves. No measurable differences were detected in the 2001 SCS in student reports of weapon carrying among victims of only direct, only indirect, and both forms of bullying. Bullied students were also more likely to be involved in physical fights at school. About 15 percent of bullied students reported being involved in a physical fight, compared to 4 percent of nonbullied students (figure 6 and appendix B, table 6). Bullied students were more likely than nonbullied students (4 percent) to engage in fights regardless of whether they were bullied only directly (15 percent) or only indirectly (10 percent). Victims of indirect bullying only were less likely to engage in fights than were victims of both forms of bullying (10 percent vs. 21 percent). Lawrence (1998) suggests that victims of bullying may become aggressive toward other students. In this case, regardless of the type of bullying— whether physical or social—bullied students may tend to react through physical confrontation. Academic achievement is a focal concern for educators and schools across the nation. Past research demonstrates that students who are targeted by bullies often have difficulty concentrating on their schoolwork, resulting in academic achievement that is marginal to poor (Batsche and Knoff 1994). Farrington (1993) also suggests that the psychological consequences of bullying can include lack of concentration on schoolwork. The SCS 2001 allows for the examination of bullying behavior and self-reports of academic grades. A few patterns emerged in the data, first, bullied students were less likely to report getting mostly A’s than students who did not report or experience bullying at school (27 percent of bullied students vs. 34 percent of non bullied students) (appendix B, table 7). However, bullied students were more likely to report receiving A's and B's than D's and F's (27 percent and 41 percent vs. 8 percent, respectively). Second, of those students who reported lower grades, bullied students were more likely to report receiving mostly D's and F's than their non-bullied counterparts (8 percent vs. 3 percent). Victims of both forms of bullying were more likely to report getting D's and F's than those who were bullied directly or indirectly (12 percent, 7 percent, and 6 percent, respectively).

Student Reports of Bullying

63

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Students included as carrying weapons reported carrying a gun, knife or other weapon to school in the 6 months prior to the survey. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. 1 Categories are mutually exclusive.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 6. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported carrying a weapon for protection or being involved in a physical fight at school during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly only, indirectly only, or being bullied directly and indirectly at school: 2001.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The analyses in this study employ specific subtypes of bullying which may be useful when looking at bullying interactions. This study shows that 14 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported they had been bullied at school in the previous 6 months. Three percent reported being the victims of direct or physical bullying only, 7 percent reported being the victims of indirect, or social bullying, and 5 percent reported being the victims of both types of bullying. This study also

64

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

shows that the specific subtypes of bullying are often related to different individual-level and school-level characteristics. Bullied students are generally younger students of either sex, and are more often White than Black. No measurable differences were detected when comparing the prevalence of bullying by students’ household income or urbanicity.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. 1 Categories are mutually exclusive. Figure 7. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported receiving different academic grades during the school year, by reports of being bullied directly only, indirectly only, or being bullied directly and indirectly at school: 2001.

Bullied students report that their schools are more likely to have gangs and less likely to have supervision in the form of police officers, security guards, or school staff in the hallways. Finally, student reports of attending public or private schools are not associated with student reports of bullying.

Student Reports of Bullying

65

The findings also suggest that students who are victims of bullying at school more often are victimized in other ways. When compared to nonbullied students, bullied students are more likely to fear attack at school, on the way to and from school, and away from school. Bullied students engage in a variety of avoidance behaviors and are more likely to be truant from school, classes, or extracurricular activities than their nonbullied peers. A highlight of this study is the finding that victims of bullying are more likely to exhibit negative outcome behaviors, such as weapon carrying or being involved in physical fights, compared to students who are not bullied. In fact, more students who were bullied reported carrying a weapon to school for protection (4 percent), compared to nonbullied students (1 percent). In addition, more bullied students were involved in a physical fight than were nonbullied students (15 percent vs. 4 percent). One prior research investigation suggests that victims of bullying are more likely to engage in violent behaviors (Nansel et al. 2003), and those findings are confirmed in this national analysis. Of final import to educators, parents, and practitioners, the findings show that bullied students were less likely to report receiving A’s than nonbullied students, but were more likely to report receiving A’s and B’s than D’s and F’s. When focusing on poorly performing students, bullied students were more likely to report getting mostly D’s or F’s than their nonbullied counterparts.

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL NOTES

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Survey The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the NCVS were used to provide estimates in this report. The NCVS, administered for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Census Bureau, is the nation’s primary source of information on crime victimization and the victims of crime. Initiated in 1972 and redesigned in 1992, the NCVS collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft experienced by Americans and their households each year. The survey measures crimes reported as well as those not reported to police. The 2001 NCVS sample consists of about 53,730 households selected using a stratified, multistage cluster design. In the first stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of counties or groups of counties, were selected. In the second stage, smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts (EDs), were selected from each

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

66

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

sampled PSU. Finally, from selected EDs, clusters of four households, called segments, were selected for interview. At each stage, the selection was done proportionate to population size in order to create a self-weighting sample. The final sample was augmented to account for housing units constructed after the 1990 Decennial Census. Within each sampled household, Census Bureau personnel interviewed all household members ages 12 and older to determine whether they had been victimized according to the measured crimes during the 6 months preceding the interview. About 79,360 persons ages 12 and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed 7 times at 6-month intervals. Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the SCS survey was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. The survey was designed to assist policymakers as well as academic researchers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels in making informed decisions concerning crime in schools. The SCS asks students a number of key questions about their experiences with and perceptions of crime and violence that occurred inside their school, on school grounds, on a school bus, or on the way to or from school. Additional questions not included in the NCVS were also added to the SCS, such as the presence of weapons and street gangs in school, whether students were bullied or rejected at school, attitudinal questions relating to fear of victimization and avoidance behavior at school, preventive measures used by the school, participation in afterschool activities, perceptions of school rules, the presence of hate-related words and graffiti in school, as well as the availability of drugs and alcohol in school. In all SCS survey years, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month period from January through June in all households selected for the NCVS. Within these households, the eligible respondents for the SCS were those household members ages 12 through 18 who had attended school at any time during the 6 months preceding the interview, and were enrolled in grades 6 through 12 in a school that would help them advance toward a high school diploma. Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental questions in the SCS only after completing their entire NCVS interview. In 2001, the definition for “at school” pertaining to victimizations included those that occurred on school property, going to and from school, or while attending school. The NCVS variables appended to the SCS data file asking where the incident happened and what the victim was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened at school.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

67

The NCVS “type of crime” variable appended to the SCS data file was used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as violent or property victimization. Any victimization is a combination of violent victimization and property. If the student reported an incident of either violent or property victimization or both, he or she is counted in the any victimization measure. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes—rape, sexual assault, and aggravated assault —and simple assault. See the Glossary for more detailed information about the construction of these and other variables. Readers should note that several limitations inherent to victimization surveys, such as the NCVS SCS, might impact estimates of bullying (Cantor and Lynch 2000). First, the SCS includes unbounded interviews, or interviews that include victimizations that exceed the 6-month reference period asked of SCS respondents. This may artificially increase reports of victimization since respondents may recall events outside of the given reference period. For example, a respondent may mistakenly report an event that happened 1 year ago and not within the requested past 6 months. Second, the SCS does not use a classification scheme for determining bullying events. That is, the larger NCVS uses sets of characteristics to classify events as criminal whereas the SCS often relies on the respondent to self-determine a condition. For example, respondents are asked if they are bullied and allowed to determine if they fall into the bullying category based on the definition provided, rather than asked about characteristics of the situation and allowing the analyst to determine if the respondent has been bullied. This allows for the victim to use his own interpretation or conceptions to define a situation, when the same situation may not have been labeled bullying by a bystander or the offender. Third, victim surveys emphasize crime events as incidents at one point in time. Reality tells us that victims can often live in a state of victimization where they are threatened or victimized regularly. While the NCVS does allow for these series to be flagged for criminal victimizations, reports of bullying behaviors are not collected in this way. Finally, respondent recall of bullying events may be inaccurate. People may forget the event entirely or recall the characteristics of the event inaccurately. This would lead to an underestimation of victimization.

Unit and Item Response Rates Unit response rates indicate how many sampled units have completed interviews. Because interviews with students could only be completed after households had responded to the NCVS, the unit completion rate for the SCS

68

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

reflects both the household interview completion rate and the student interview completion rate. A total of 8,374 students participated in the SCS 2001. The household completion rate was 93 percent, and the student completion rate was 77 percent. Thus, the overall SCS response rate (calculated by multiplying the household completion rate by the student completion rate) was 72 percent in 2001. The rate at which the respondents provide a valid response to a given item is referred to as its item response rate. Item response rates for items used in this report were generally high. Most items were answered by over 95 percent of all eligible respondents. The only exception was the household income question, which was answered by approximately 84 percent of all households in 2001 and approximately 86 percent of all households in the 1999 administration of the survey. Income and income-related questions typically have relatively low response rates compared to other items due to their sensitive nature. No explicit imputation procedure was used to correct for item nonresponse. However, restricting the analysis to those responses that were provided and ignoring the missing responses is an implicit form of imputation. The assumption is that the missing responses are completely random, and represent a subsample of the full sample. Weights were developed to compensate for differential probabilities of selection and nonresponse. The weighted data permit inferences about the 12- to 18-year-old student population enrolled in schools in 2001. The weight used with the 2001 SCS datafile is V297 (SCS person weight).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Survey Standard Errors As a result of the complex sampling design of the SCS and the NCVS, the resulting statistics are more variable than they would have been had they been based on data from a simple random sample of the same size. Several procedures and statistical software packages are available for calculating precise estimates of sampling errors for complex samples. The analyses carried out in this report used the Taylor Series procedure to calculate standard errors and was done through the AM statistical software package that is available for free downloading at http://am.air.org. The sample of students selected for each SCS is just one of many possible samples that could have been selected. It is possible that estimates from a given SCS student sample may differ from estimates that would have been produced from other student samples. This type of variability is called sampling error, or the

Student Reports of Bullying

69

standard error, because it arises from using a sample of students rather than all students. The standard error is a measure of the variability of a parameter estimate. It indicates how much variation there is in the population of possible estimates of a parameter for a given sample size. The probability that a complete census count would differ from the sample estimate by less than 1 standard error is about 68 percent. The chance that the difference would be less than 1.65 standard errors is about 90 percent, and that the difference would be less than 1.96 standard errors, about 95 percent. Standard errors for the percentage estimates are presented in the appendix tables. Standard errors are typically developed assuming that the sample is drawn purely at random. The sample for the SCS was not a simple random sample, however. Calculation of the standard errors requires procedures that are markedly different from the ones used when the data are from a simple random sample. To estimate the statistics and standard errors, this report used the Taylor series.

Statistical Tests

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Comparisons that have been drawn in the text of this report have been tested for statistical significance to ensure that the differences are larger than those that might be expected due to sampling variation. The statistical comparisons in this report were based on the t statistic. Whether the statistical test is considered significant or not is determined by calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of means or proportions and comparing this value to published tables of values, called critical values (cv). The alpha level is an a priori statement of the probability that a difference exists in fact rather than by chance. The t statistic between estimates from various subgroups presented in the tables can be computed by using the following formula:

where x1 and x2 are the estimates to be compared (e.g., the means of sample members in two groups) and SE1 and SE2 are their corresponding standard errors. While many descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using a t statistic, some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable with three or more levels involved a test for a linear trend across all categories, rather than a

70

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

series of tests between pairs of categories. In this report, when differences among percentages were examined relative to a variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the independent variable. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a significance level of 0.05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship between the two variables.

Glossary—Definitions of Variables Used

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Each row (student and school characteristics) and column variable used in the analyses for this report is described below. All variables are constructed from the 2001 SCS data file. The data file contains all variables collected by the SCS as well as select variables collected in the 2001 NCVS-1 Basic Screen Questionnaire and the NCVS-2 Crime Incident Report that have been appended to the SCS. The data are available for download from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research via NCES’ Crime and Safety Surveys portal web site located at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime/surveys.asp. Prior to analysis, the 2001 SCS data file was filtered to include only students who were ages 12 through 18 (using v212 [RESPONDENT AGE]), were enrolled in primary or secondary education programs (using v217 [GRADE LEVEL IN SCHOOL]), were enrolled in school in the past 6 months (using v215 [DID YOU ATTEND SCHOOL DURING THE LAST 6 MONTHS?]), and were not homeschooled during that time (using v3958 [HOME SCHOOLED DURING LAST 6 MONTHS?]). Students who did not fulfill these characteristics were deleted from the analysis. The final unweighted sample size was 8,374.

Student Characteristics SEX (v140): This variable was taken directly from v140 for the sex of the respondent: Male or Female. This variable was collected in the NCVS-1 Basic Screen Questionnaire and appended to the SCS data file. RACE/ETHNICITY (v145 and v146): This variable was taken directly from v145 for the race of the respondent and v146 for the Hispanic origin of the respondent. If the respondent identified themselves as Hispanic in v146, they were categorized as Hispanic, regardless of their response to v145. Non-Hispanics in

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

71

v145 were classified as White, Black, or Other. Those individuals included in the “Other” category identified themselves as Asians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (including Alaska Native). The resulting categories were: 1) White, nonHispanic; 2) Black, non-Hispanic; 4) Hispanic; and 5) Other. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. Variables v145 and v156 were collected in the NCVS-1 Basic Screen Questionnaire and appended to the SCS data file. GRADE (v217): This variable was taken directly from v217. Response options included “Fifth and under”, “Sixth” through “Twelfth” grades, “Other”, and “College/GED/Post-graduate/Other non-eligible” All respondents not in grades six through twelve were excluded from the analysis. This variable was collected in item 2a of the SCS instrument (located in appendix D). HOUSEHOLD INCOME (v22): This variable was taken directly from v22 for the household income of the respondent and collapsed into the following categories: 1) Less than $7,500; 2) $7,500–14,999; 3) $15,000–24,999; 4) $25,000–34,999; 5) $35,000–49,999; 6) $50,000–74,999; and 7) $75,000 or more. This variable was collected in the NCVS-1 Basic Screen Questionnaire and appended to the SCS data file. PLACE OF RESIDENCE (v119): This variable was taken directly from v119 for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Status of the respondent’s household as defined by the 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Categories include: Central city of an (S)MSA (Urban) ; In (S)MSA but not in central city (Suburban); and Not (S)MSA (Rural). This variable was appended to the SCS data file by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. BULLIED (v272 and v3971): This variable was constructed using v272 and v3971. If respondents’ answered affirmatively to either v272 and v3971 they were categorized as “Bullied.” v272 asks, “During the last 6 months, have you been bullied at school? That is, has anyone picked on you a lot or tried to make you do things you didn’t want to do like give them money?” v3971 asks, “During the last 6 months, have you often felt rejected by other students at school? For example, have you ever felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” Variables v272 and v3971 were collected in items 19 and 20a of the SCS instrument. BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY (v272 and v3971): This variable was constructed using v272 and v3971. If respondents’ answered affirmatively to both v272 and v3971 they were categorized as “Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly.” Variables v272 and v3971 were collected in items 19 and 20a of the SCS instrument.

72

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

DIRECTLY ONLY (v272): This variable was constructed using v272. If respondents’ answered affirmatively to v272 they were categorized as “Bullied Directly.” This variable was collected in item 19 of the SCS instrument. INDIRECTLY ONLY (v3971): This variable was constructed using v3971. If respondents’ answered affirmatively to v3971 they were categorized as “Bullied Indirectly.” This variable was collected in item 20a of the SCS instrument.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

School Characteristics SCHOOL TYPE (v221): This variable was taken directly from v221 that asks the type of school for each student: Pubic or Private. This variable was collected in item 7a of the SCS instrument. GANG PRESENCE (v263): This variable is taken directly from v263 that asks students whether there are street gangs present at their school. Instructions for defining street gangs were as follows: “You may know these as street gangs, fighting gangs, crews, or something else. Gangs may use common names, signs, symbols, or colors. For this survey, we are interested in all gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity.” Response options included “Yes”, “No”, and “Don’t Know.” This variable was collected in item 30 of the SCS instrument. PRESENCE OF SECURITY OFFICERS OR ASSIGNED POLICE (v233): This variable was taken directly from v233 that asked students whether there are security guards and/or assigned police officers present at their school to ensure the safety of students. Response options included “Yes”, “No”, and “Don’t Know.” This variable was collected in item 14a of the SCS instrument. HALLWAY SUPERVISION BY SCHOOL STAFF (v234): This variable was taken directly from v234 that asked students whether there is hallway supervision by other school staff or other adults to ensure the safety of students. Response options included “Yes”, “No”, and “Don’t Know.” This variable was collected in item 14b the SCS instrument. Column Variables VICTIMIZATION (v819, v1341, v1863, v2385, v2907, v3429, and v3951): Each SCS respondent represents a student who may have reported at least one and as many as 7 incident(s) of victimization on the NCVS-1. For each incident of victimization reported, a Crime Incident Report NCVS-2 was completed. These (up to 7) Crime Incident Reports were appended to the SCS data file for each respondent who reported at least one incidence of victimization. The victimization categories used in this report for each of these incidents of victimization were determined using the Type of Crime (TOC) code reported in the Crime Incident

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

73

Reports for each incident. The TOC codes used to determine the type of victimization were taken directly from variables v819 (first incident), v1341 (second incident), v1863 (third incident), v2385 (fourth incident), v2907 (fifth incident), v3429 (sixth incident), and v3951 (seventh incident). Each TOC variable contains several types of crime that have been categorized into “serious violent,” “violent,” “property,” and “any” for the purposes of this report. “Serious violent crime” includes: completed and attempted rapes, all sexual attacks, all completed and attempted robberies, all aggravated assaults, all verbal threats and threats with weapons, sexual assault without injury and unwanted sexual contact without force. “Violent crime” includes: serious violent crimes listed above, simple assault with injury, assault without a weapon and without injury, and verbal threat of assault. “Property crime” includes: purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, completed and attempted motor vehicle theft, and completed thefts valuing less than $10 or greater. “Any crime” includes one or more reports of any of the crimes listed above. Each of these measure the prevalence of victimization, that is, if a respondent reported one or more incidents in one of these types of victimizations, they were included as a victim only once under the specified category. AFRAID OF ATTACK AT SCHOOL, ON THE WAY TO OR FROM SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL (v284, v285, and v286): These variables were taken directly from v284, v285 and v286 that asked students if they were afraid someone would attack or threaten to attack them at school, on the way to or from school, and away from school, respectively. Response options were collapsed into the following categories: “Never,” “Almost Never,” and “Sometimes/Most of the time.” These variables were collected in items 24, 25, and 26 of the SCS instrument. AVOIDING CERTAIN AREAS OF THE SCHOOL AND SKIPPING SCHOOL, CLASS OR EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES (v273, v274, v275, v276, v277, v278, v279, v280, v281, v282, and v283): Student reports of avoiding certain areas in school were taken directly from the following variables: v273 (avoided shortest route to school), v274 (avoided entrance to school), v275 (avoided hallways or stairs), v276 (avoided school cafeteria), v277 (avoided restrooms), v278 (avoided other places in school building), v279 (avoided parking lot), v280 (avoided other places on school grounds), v281 (avoided extracurricular activities), v282 (avoided class), and v283 (stayed home from school). Response options included “Yes” or “No.” These variables were collected in items 23a, 23b, 23c, and 23d of the SCS instrument. CARRIED A WEAPON (v287, v288, and v289): This variable was constructed from three separate variables that asked the student if they had carried

74

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

a gun (v287) or knife (v288) intended as a weapon or any other weapon (v289) to school or on to school grounds during the last 6 months. If a respondent answered “Yes” to any of these items, they were included in the derived variable. These variables were collected in items 27a, 27b, and 27c of the SCS instrument. INVOLVED IN A PHYISICAL FIGHT (v3969): This variable was taken directly from v3969 that asked students whether they had been involved in one or more physical fights at school in the last 6 months. Response options included “Yes” and “No”. This variable was collected in item 18a of the SCS instrument. SELF-REPORTS OF GRADES (v3982): This variable was taken directly from v3982 that asked students what grades they mostly received across all subjects in the past school year. Response options included “A’s,” “B’s,” “C’s,” “D’s,” “F’s,” and “School does not give grades/no alphabetic grade equivalent.” This variable was collected in item 34 of the SCS instrument. For further information. NCES has collected and published data on school crime and safety through a number of publications. Readers who are interested in further information about these studies and downloading available data files, including the SCS data file used in this article, should contact Kathryn Chandler at [email protected] or visit the Crime and Safety Surveys web site at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime/.

APPENDIX B: ESTIMATE TABLES

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 2001 Student characteristics Number of students Total 24,315,000 Student sex Male 12,591,000 Female 11,724,000 2 Student race/ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 15,784,000 Black, non-Hispanic 3,793,000 Hispanic 3,446,000 Other, non-Hispanic 1,063,000 Student grade

14.4

Both Directly Directly Indirectly Only1 and Indirectly1 Only1 4.5 3.4 6.5

15.0 13.7

5.0 3.9

3.6 3.1

6.4 6.7

15.4 12.3 13.0 10.8

4.9 3.2 4.3 3.7

3.5 2.6 2.9 3.3

6.9 6.6 4.2 5.3

Total

Student Reports of Bullying

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Sixth 2,113,000 Seventh 3,848,000 Eighth 3,947,000 Ninth 4,093,000 Tenth 3,774,000 Eleventh 3,581,000 Twelfth 2,960,000 Student household income Less than $7,500 836,000 $7,500–14,999 993,000 $15,000–24,999 2,524,000 $25,000–34,999 2,874,000 $35,000–49,999 4,074,000 $50,000–74,999 4,279,000 $75,000 or more 4,861,000 Student place of residence Urban 6,574,000 Suburban 12,812,000 Rural 4,929,000

75

24.3 21.6 16.0 13.9 10.4 9.5 7.4

9.3 8.0 5.3 3.9 2.1 3.1 1.0

4.8 5.0 3.9 4.6 2.5 1.2 1.4

10.1 8.6 6.8 5.3 5.8 5.2 4.9

15.0 13.3 17.5 15.0 14.8 13.2 12.9

3.8 4.9 5.9 5.4 4.7 4.2 3.5

4.0 3.1 4.2 4.1 2.8 2.5 2.6

7.1 5.4 7.3 5.5 7.4 6.5 6.8

13.2 14.9 14.7

4.1 4.5 5.0

2.7 3.6 3.7

6.4 6.8 6.0

1 Categories are mutually exclusive. Directly Only, Indirectly Only, and Both Directly and Indirectly are distinct categories. Students appearing in one category do not appear in other categories. 2 Other includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (including Alaska Natives). Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. Note: “At school“ was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001.

76

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Table 2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school during the previous 6 months, by selected school characteristics: 2001 School characteristics

Number of students

Bullied Total

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Total School type Public Private Gang presence Yes No Presence of security officers or assigned police Yes No Hallway supervision by school staff Yes No

Directly only1

Indirectly only1

3.4

6.5

24,315,000

14.4

Both directly and indirectly 4.5

22,176,000 2,098,000

14.4 14.0

4.6 4.5

3.4 2.7

6.5 6.7

4,896,000 15,993,000

21.1 13.0

8.1 3.7

4.9 3.1

8.1 6.2

15,475,000 8,840,000

13.3 16.2

3.8 5.7

3.4 3.4

6.1 7.1

21,479,000 2,836,000

13.9 17.9

4.4 5.6

3.3 3.7

6.2 8.5

1 Categories are mutually exclusive. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school“ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data.

Student Reports of Bullying

77

Table 3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001

Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly2 Directly Only2 Indirectly Only2

Number of students

Victimization Any Serious Violent1

Violent

Property

24,315,000 20,680,000 3,494,000 1,095,000 816,000 1,583,000

5.5 4.2 13.0 17.4 18.3 7.3

1.8 0.8 7.3 10.9 10.8 2.9

4.2 3.6 7.6 9.9 9.2 5.3

0.4 0.3 1.5 3.7 0.7 0.3

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1 Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. 2Categories are mutually exclusive. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Any crimes include violent crimes and theft. “At school“ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12– 18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 4. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported fearing attack during the previous 6 months at school, on the way to and from school, and away from school, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Victim behaviors

Number of Afraid of attack at school students Never Almost Sometimes Never /Most of the Time 24,315,000 80.7 13.9 4.7 20,680,000 85.2 11.9 2.5 3,494,000 55.9 26.1 17.9

Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly1 1,095,000 Directly Only1 816,000 Indirectly 1,583,000 Only1 1

42.0 52.5 67.3

26.4 33.4 22.0

31.2 14.1 10.6

Afraid of attack on the way to or from school Never Almost Sometimes/ Never Most of the Time 87.5 8.2 3.6 90.1 7.2 2.4 74.4 14.7 10.7

Afraid of attack away from school1 Never Almost Sometimes/ Never Most of the Time 80.9 13.7 4.6 83.9 12.3 3.4 65.3 22.3 12.2

64.1 76.0 80.6

60.1 62.8 70.2

18.3 13.7 12.7

16.9 10.3 6.6

23.8 26.8 18.9

15.5 10.4 11.0

Categories are mutually exclusive.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school“ was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 5. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding certain areas of school and skipping school, class, or extracurricular activities during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Victim behaviors

Number of Avoide Avoided students d entrance shortest to school route

Total 24,315,000 2.5 1.2 Not Bullied 20,680,000 1.9 0.8 Bullied 3,494,000 5.9 3.6 Both Directly and 1,095,000 9.3 6.6 Indirectly1 Directly 816,000 3.4 2.7 Only1 Indirectly 1,583,000 4.9 2.0 Only1 1 Categories are mutually exclusive.

Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided hallway school restroom other s cafeteria s places in or stairs school building 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.8 7.1 5.8 6.9 5.3

Avoided Avoided parking other lot places on school grounds 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.1 5.0 5.5

1.1 0.7 3.8

0.6 0.2 3.0

1.1 0.6 3.8

12.2

9.8

10.4

9.4

7.5

9.4

7.2

6.5

6.0

7.5

5.0

6.2

4.8

4.7

5.3

4.3

2.5

4.2

3.4

3.4

4.8

2.8

3.4

2.8

1.3

0.8

2.1

Skipped Skipped Skipped school class extracurricular activities

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school“ was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data.

80

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Table 6. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported carrying a weapon for protection or being involved in a physical fight at school during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Victim behaviors

Number of students

Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly1 Directly Only1 Indirectly Only1

24,315,000 20,680,000 3,494,000 1,095,000 816,000 1,583,000

Carried a weapon 1.8 1.4 3.7 4.4 3.3 3.4

Involved in a physical fight 5.2 3.6 14.6 21.1 15.0 9.8

1

Categories are mutually exclusive. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: Students included as carrying weapons reported carrying a gun, knife or other weapon to school in the 6 months prior to the survey. “At school“ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data.

Table 7. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported receiving different academic grades during the school year, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Number of students Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly1 Directly Only1 Indirectly Only1 1

24,315,000 20,680,000 3,494,000 1,095,000

Self-reports of grades Mostly Mostly B’s A’s 32.6 40.8 33.7 41.0 26.6 40.6 21.2 38.6

816,000 1,583,000

26.5 30.3

39.4 42.5

Mostly C’s 20.8 20.4 23.7 26.7

Mostly D’s and F’s 3.9 3.2 8.3 12.1

26.7 20.1

7.1 6.3

Categories are mutually exclusive. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001.

Student Reports of Bullying

81

Note: “At school“ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?“ This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?“ This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000. Detail may not sum to totals due to missing data.

APPENDIX C: STANDARD ERROR TABLES Table S1. Standard errors Table 1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 2001

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Characteristics

Bullied Total

Total 0.54 Student sex Male 0.72 Female 0.62 Student Bullied Student race/ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 0.63 Black, non-Hispanic 1.32 Hispanic 1.16 Other, non-Hispanic 1.72 Student grade Sixth 1.59 Seventh 1.33 Eighth 1.12 Ninth 1.02 Tenth 0.90 Eleventh 0.80 Twelfth 0.99 Student household income Less than $7,500 2.29 $7,500–14,999 2.33 $15,000–24,999 1.73 $25,000–34,999 1.29

Both Directly and Indirectly 0.23

Directly Only 0.22

Indirectly Only 0.37

0.35 0.32

0.36 0.28

0.45 0.43

0.31 0.54 0.68 0.86

0.27 0.60 0.42 0.84

0.45 0.86 0.70 1.08

0.98 0.75 0.60 0.55 0.42 0.53 0.32

0.90 0.58 0.53 0.71 0.45 0.28 0.43

1.23 1.01 0.73 0.65 0.78 0.70 0.83

1.13 1.20 1.00 0.74

1.12 1.08 0.76 0.77

1.73 1.61 1.13 0.74

82

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

$35,000–49,999 1.11 $50,000–74,999 0.94 $75,000 or more 0.91 Student place of residence Urban 0.82 Suburban 0.65 Rural 1.63

0.55 0.56 0.50

0.49 0.41 0.39

0.84 0.68 0.63

0.44 0.32 0.57

0.37 0.26 0.69

0.54 0.45 1.01

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000.

Table S2. Standard errors for Table 2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school during the previous 6 months, by selected school characteristics: 2001

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

School Characteristics

Bullied Total

Both Directly and Indirectly

Total 0.54 0.23 School type Public 0.56 0.89 Private 1.18 0.23 Gang presence Yes 1.13 0.70 No 0.57 0.26 Presence of security officers or assigned police Yes 0.60 0.27 No 0.86 0.45 Hallway supervision by school staff Yes 0.53 0.23 No 1.31 0.82

Directly Only Indirectly Only 0.22

0.37

0.23 0.68

0.39 0.87

0.52 0.28

0.73 0.42

0.30 0.33

0.41 0.64

0.23 0.57

0.36 1.01

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as

Student Reports of Bullying

83

indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000.

Table S3. Standard Errors for Table 3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001

Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly Directly Only Indirectly Only

Victimization Any Serious Violent

Violent

Property

0.31 0.27 1.13 2.19

0.08 0.06 0.41 1.20

0.19 0.10 0.94 2.03

0.24 0.24 0.78 1.63

2.47 1.26

0.46 0.23

2.01 0.89

1.64 1.09

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Any crimes include violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12– 18 is 24,315,000.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table S4. Standard errors for Table 4. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported fearing attack during the previous 6 months at school, on the way to and from school, and away from school, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Victim behaviors

Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly Directly Only Indirectly Only

Afraid of attack at school Never

Almost Never

0.62 0.53 1.84 2.77

0.55 0.48 1.82 2.39

Afraid of attack on the way to or from school Sometimes/ Never Almos Sometimes/ Most of t Most of the Time Never the Time 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.24 0.23 0.44 0.38 0.23 1.35 1.30 1.15 0.94 2.63 2.61 2.13 2.09

3.53 2.69

3.55 2.57

2.28 1.56

2.83 1.76

2.39 1.51

1.83 1.00

Afraid of attack away from school Never Almost Never 0.60 0.62 1.52 2.34

0.52 0.53 1.34 2.19

Sometimes/ Most of the Time 0.28 0.26 1.08 1.90

3.57 2.10

3.70 1.63

2.02 1.65

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table S5. Standard errors for Table 5. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding certain areas of school and skipping school, class, or extra-curricular activities during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Victim behaviors

Avoided shortest route

Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly Directly Only Indirectly Only

0.20 0.17 0.82

Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided entrance hallways school Rest other to school or stairs cafeteria rooms places in school building 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.56 0.81 0.75 0.74 0.71

1.61 1.11 1.17

1.28 1.05 0.57

1.80 1.63 0.82

1.78 1.35 0.82

1.59 1.38 0.98

1.64 1.27 0.76

Avoided parking lot

Skipped school

Skipped Skipped class extracurricular activities

0.14 0.12 0.57

Avoided other places on school grounds 0.15 0.12 0.70

0.13 0.11 0.66

0.09 0.06 0.53

0.12 0.10 0.48

1.31 1.28 0.75

1.56 1.47 0.68

1.59 1.00 0.60

1.42 0.84 0.46

1.18 1.00 0.66

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” was defined as in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000.

86

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Table S6. Standard errors for Table 6. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported carrying a weapon for protection or being involved in a physical fight at school during the previous 6 months, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Victim behaviors Total Not Bullied Bullied Both Directly and Indirectly Directly Only Indirectly Only

Carried a weapon 0.19 0.18 0.69 1.08 1.18 0.96

Involved in a physical fight 0.26 0.22 1.12 2.06 2.38 1.44

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: Students included as carrying weapons reported carrying a gun, knife or other weapon to school in the 6 months prior to the survey. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table S7. Standard errors for Table 7. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported receiving different academic grades during the school year, by reports of being bullied directly and/or indirectly at school: 2001 Self-reports of grades Mostly A’s Mostly B’s Mostly C’s Mostly D’s and F’s Total 0.69 0.64 0.55 0.26 Not Bullied 0.72 0.68 0.59 0.24 Bullied 1.35 1.50 1.41 0.93 Both Directly and Indirectly 2.35 2.66 2.53 1.66 Directly Only 3.36 2.95 3.18 1.53 Indirectly Only 2.19 2.39 1.82 1.35 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001. Note: “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Youth ages 12 through 18 were first asked if “they had been bullied at school. That is, had anyone picked on them a lot or tried to make them do things they did not want to do (e.g., give them money)?” This is referred to as direct bullying. They were also asked, “Have you felt rejected because other students have made fun of you, called you names, or excluded you from activities?” This is referred to as indirect bullying. Total bullied includes youth who reported they were bullied directly or indirectly. Population size for students ages 12–18 is 24,315,000.

Student Reports of Bullying

87

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX D: 2001 SCHOOL CRIME SUPPLEMENT TO THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

88 Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger .

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying 89

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

90 Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying 91

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

92 Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying 93

94

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey would not be possible without the continued support for data collection given by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools under the sponsorship of Bill Modzeleski. Staff from the National Center for Education Statistics provided valuable comments and suggestions on drafts of this study, including Jeffrey Owings, Tai Phan, Marilyn Seastrom, Marilyn Binkley, and Carl Schmitt. In addition, Ann Ricciuti of the Institute for Education Sciences gathered and mediated comments from two anonymous external reviewers that greatly improved this article. The authors would like to acknowledge Mike Planty, Sally Ruddy, Amanda Miller, Margaret Noonan, and Martin Hahn of the American Institutes for Research, Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI), for their comments and guidance. Finally, the authors are grateful to Elina Hartwell, also from ESSI, for the artful production and layout of this study.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Addington, L.A., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., and DeVoe, J.F. (2002). Are America’s Schools Safe? Students Speak Out: 1999 School Crime Supplement (NCES 2002–331). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Banks, R. (1997). Bullying in Schools. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. U.S. Department of Education, ERIC: Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Bastian, L. and Taylor, B. (1991). School Crime 1991 (NCJ 131645). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Batsche, G. M. and Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their Victims: Understanding a Pervasive Problem in the Schools. School Psychology Review, 23: 165-174. Berthhold, K. and Hoover, J. (2000). Correlates of Bullying and Victimization Among Intermediate Students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 21: 65–79.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Student Reports of Bullying

95

Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., Neckerman, H.G., Ferguson, L.L., and Gariepy, J. (1989). Growth and Aggression: 1. Childhood to Early Adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25: 320-330. Cantor, D. and Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization. In David Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Carney, A. and Merrell, K. (2001). Bullying in Schools: Perspectives on Understanding and Preventing an International Problem. School Psychology International, 21: 364–382. Cillessen, A.H.N., and Mayeux, L. (2004). From Censure to Reinforcement: Developmental Changes in the Association Between Aggression and Social Status. Child Development, 75: 147–163. Crick, N.R., and Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational Aggression, Gender, and Social-psychological Adjustment. Child Development, 66: 710–722. DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A.K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2004. NCES 2005– 002/NCJ 205290. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: 2004. Dodge, K., Coie, J., Pettit, G.S., and Price, J. (1990). Peer Status and Aggression in Boys Groups: Developmental and Contextual Analyses. Child Development,61: 1289–1309. Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Bullying. OJJDP Fact Sheet #27. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Elliott, D.S. (1994). Youth Violence: An Overview. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Bullying. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds). Crime and Justice, Vol. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hawkins, D.L., Pepler, D.J., and Craig, W.M. (2001). Naturalistic Observations of Peer Interventions in Bullying. Social Development, 19: 512-527. Haynie, D.L., Nansel, T.R., Eitel, P., Crump, A.D., Saylor, K., Yu, K.,and Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, Victims, and Bully/Victims: Distinct Groups of At-Risk Youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21: 29–49. Lawrence R. (1998). School Crime and Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Juvenile Aggression at Home and at School. In Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds.),

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

96

Jill F. DeVoe and Sarah Kaffenberger

Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective (pp. 94–126). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., and Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying Behaviors Among U.S. Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285: 2094–2100. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Haynie, D., Ruan, J. and Scheidt, P. (2003). Relationships Between Bullying and Violence Among US Youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157: 348–353. Olweus, D. (1999). Bullying in Sweden. In Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J. Olweus, D., Catalanao, R., and Slee, P. (Eds). The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. New York: Routledge. Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/Victim Problems in School: Knowledge Base and an Effective Intervention Program. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18: 170– 190. Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Olweus, D., (1991). Bully/Victim Problems Among School Children: Some Basic Facts and Effects of a School-based Intervention Program. In Pepler, D. and Rubin, K. (Eds.) The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, (pp. 411–438). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and Temperamental Determinants of Aggressive Behavior in Adolescent Boys: A Causal Analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16: 644–660. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools. Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press (Wiley). Pellegrini, A., and Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in Early Adolescent Boys: Affiliative and Aggressive Dimensions and Possible Functions. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 47: 142–63. Pellegrini, A., and Long, J. (2002). A Longitudinal Study of Bullying, Dominance, and Victimization During the Transition from Primary School Through Secondary School. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280. Smith, P., Dowie, H., Olafsson, R., and Liefooghe, A. (2002). Definitions of Bullying: A Comparison of Terms Used, and Age and Gender Differences, in a Fourteen-Country International Comparison. Child Development, 73: 1119– 1133.

Student Reports of Bullying

97

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Underwood, M.K., Galen, B.R., and Paquette, J.A. (2001). Top Ten Challenges for Understanding Gender and Aggression in Children: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Social Development, 10: 248-266. Wilton, M.M., Craig, W., and Pepler, D. (2000). Emotional Regulation and Display in Classroom Victims of Bullying: Characteristic Expressions of Affect, Coping Styles and Relevant Contextual Factors. Social Development, 9: 226–245

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In: Bullying in Schools Editor: David N. Rickler

ISBN 978-1-60692-208-8 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

EMERGING ASPECTS IN UNDERSTANDING BULLYING IN SCHOOLS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND INTERVENTION Eleni Andreou, Anastasia Vlachou, and Eleni Didaskalou

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece Bullying is a form of physical, verbal or social aggression that consists of repeated use of force against peers over extended periods of time. It includes name-calling, threatening, teasing, hitting and exclusion (Olweus, 1993). For the victims, continuous bullying is a hurtful traumatic experience with many shortterm, as well as long-term negative consequences (Houbre, et al., 2006). Bullying in schools has been recognised as a complex international problem resulting in a considerable amount of educational and psychological literature and research with the ultimate goal to inform the development of effective intervention policies. Most anti-bullying interventions provide activities to heighten students’ concern for victims, put clear class rules in place to react to bully-victim incidents and implement skills training or peer mediation programmes to improve students’ intervention behaviour (Andreou et al, 2005). Despite the considerable efforts placed in the planning and implementation of anti-bullying programmes, the success of such programmes has not been selfevident. Sometimes the interventions are effective in some schools while in others the situation seems to get worse. School differences aside, studies suggest that there might be subgroups, which benefit more from the interventions than others

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

100

Eleni Andreou, Anastasia Vlachou, and Eleni Didaskalou

in terms of lasting effects. Primary school-age children and boys seem to gain better long-term effects than secondary school pupils and girls (Whitney and Smith, 1994; Tulloch, 1998), though contrary evidence also exists (Salmivalli, 2001). Given the complexity of the issue, a number of researchers have tried to explore the variables that are likely to affect the effectiveness of intervention policies with a particular emphasis on the underlying cognitive determinants of aggression. Several diverse yet complementary conceptual models have indicated the impact of social cognitions on overt aggressive behaviours. Aggressioninstigating social cognitions are considered to mediate the impact of proximal environmental cues (e.g. provocations) on aggression, to lead to gains in aggressive habits over time, and to support the significant intra-and interindividual temporal stability underpinning aggressive behaviour (Egan, et al., 1998). Within this context, children’s gender and age have been reported to constitute additional variables that either encourage or invalidate aggressioninstigating cognitions. As far as gender is concerned, although for boys, most of the social cognitions expected to promote aggression over time did so, only few associations between cognition and aggressive development were observed for girls. These discrepancies are likely to be related to the different types of victimization that boys and girls seem to experience. Whereas for boys victimization tends to be overt and physical and to communicate unambiguous defeat, for girls, victimization more often means being the target of ‘relational aggression’ (Crick et al., 2002). Girls’ victimization, is less likely than boys’ to occur contingently on defensive or fighting responses and consequently may be less likely to function as punishment of aggressions. Additionally, whereas boys’ victimization experiences may serve to nullify aggression-encouraging cognitions, girls’ victimization experiences may serve to energize them (Egan, et al., 1998). Thus, the impact that boys’ and girls’ divergent experiences of victimization exercise on the cognitions underlying overt behaviour emerges as a crucial factor that has certainly to be taken into consideration in the process of understanding and tackling bully-victim incidents. The results are less conclusive as far as age is concerned. A serious bulk of research has indicated that age impacts considerably on the formulation of their underlying beliefs and attitudes towards aggression and victimization in peer interactions. It has been reported that as children grow older, they increase in both aggression and belief in the legitimacy of aggression as well as in victimization (Egan, et al., 1998). Another set of studies, however, has revealed no age effects in bully/victim incidents, in self-efficacy measures as well as in attitudes towards

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Emerging Aspects in Understanding Bullying in Schools

101

bullying and victimization (Andreou, 2000; Hoover et al., 1992; Slee, 1993), suggesting that the impact of age in bully/victim incidents still remains to be further explored. Also, the precise role children adopt in bullying incidents seems to have a determinant effect on their individual aggression-encouraging cognitions scores (Sutton, et al., 1999). Defenders of the victims have been found to have confidence in their ability to assert themselves whereas bullies’ and assistants’ behaviour is associated with low self-efficacy for assertion. In conjunction to selfefficacy measures, different types of Machiavellianism are likely to be evident in the different groups. For instance, a more behaviourally manipulative style might be expected in children who bully whereas a more pessimistic lack of trust may manifest itself mostly on an attitudinal level among those who are victimised. However, the traditional classification of children into either bullies or victims and the consequent dichotomy that is evident in relevant research are simplistic and do not provide a useful conceptual framework for investigating the nature of bullying, since recent work has identified some children as both bullies and victims (see, Andreou et al., 2005). Children who are both bullies and victims are distinguishable from either victims or bullies in terms of social acceptance, Machiavellianism, self-esteem and problem-solving ability. Since low social acceptance leads to reduced availability of friends, the friends that are available may form a powerful network, which may reinforce the already existing predisposition. Given that the relationship between children classified as both bullies and victims and the peer group may be a risk to the genesis and maintenance of bully-victims problems, prospect research needs to contribute further to the understanding of this issue by placing greater emphasis on the investigation of those variables that distinguish this particular group of children from the rest. The different roles that pupils adopt in bullying incidents are mainly constructed by and defined within the peer interactions context. Even though the available information on peers’ pro-social behaviour and the outcomes of peer intervention is still too limited to draw firm conclusions, it is indisputable that peer interactions play a vital role in school bully-victim problems (Salmivalli, 2001). Research on the interaction between bullies and peers, (Stevens, et al., 2000), indicates, that they affect one another in different ways. In particular, bullies are described in socio-metric studies as rejected, controversial and of average popularity as well as exercising a wide social impact on the peer group. They have strong positive attitudes towards the use of aggression in peerinteractions and often misunderstand peers’ intentions, indicating that other students provoke them. However, only a minority of children who bully others

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

102

Eleni Andreou, Anastasia Vlachou, and Eleni Didaskalou

lack pro-social skills indicating that bullying in most cases is not a defensive, legitimised response to an anger-provoking situation, but it rather intends to gain social outcomes such as dominance or status among peers and is related more to the proactive forms of aggression. By joining in bullying or forming audience, other children’s reactions contribute to the expected social outcomes and consequently reinforce bullying behaviour. In light of the above, Sutton and Keogh (2000) argue for a complimentary approach to the delineation of bullying as a phenomenon that should be viewed as part of the individual’s general framework of attitudes in interpersonal relationships. In this way, a child who shares attitudes supportive of bullying may be expected to also hold competitive and manipulative attitudes. This observation has surprisingly received little attention in empirical work, despite the important implications such a focus has for interventions. On the whole, it is significant to focus on the attitudes and behaviour of the peer group itself. Although most students are generally aware of bully-victim problems and agree something should be done, few actually react against peer aggression. The evidence of the study carried out by Stevens, et al., (2000) revealed anxiety among peers that they might lose social influence and be bullied themselves as well as lack of ability to handle bully-victim problems in an effective way, addressing the special attention that should be placed to students’ perceived efficacy in dealing effectively with bully-victim problems in order to develop a more protective social environment. Drawing from the social cognitive principles of behavioural change, prospect research should focus upon students’ attitudes, group norms and perceived efficacy to deal with bullying more effectively. As far as educational praxis is concerned, it could be argued that schools could tackle bullying more effectively by taking a step back and employing a wider perspective on the problem. A specific focus on the behaviour of children who bully and those who are victimized may be justified in certain cases, but a more positive constructive approach may be to include more work in reducing the possibility of peer rejection and marginalization; a social phenomenon that reinforces the creation of both bullies and victims. That means, that there is an urgent need to (a) re-examine the dominant values and beliefs which inform the organization of schools as well as the organization of views of relationships within and outside of schools and (b) investigate, in addition to the individual, the socio-cultural and educational expectations and practices that may promote bullying attitudes, cognitions and behaviours. From this perspective, the principles and practices entailed in efforts to promote more inclusive schooling communities may be of great value in promoting more supportive interpersonal

Emerging Aspects in Understanding Bullying in Schools

103

relationships by reducing the academic and social mechanisms that isolate and marginalize specific groups of children. Within a more inclusive context positive attitudes may result in more willingness either to react against peer aggression or to support victims of bullying who traditionally feel alone at school to a greater extent than other students and are often rejected by peers (Salmivalli, 2001). Finally, it should be noted that bullying should not be viewed exclusively as a problem for schools and schoolchildren. The problem of producing a pro-social ethos in which individuals prefer not to bully each other and not to approve or ignore bulling behaviour needs to be addressed in every context in which people regularly interact. The principles of respect and consideration for others appear to be as relevant in the workplace and in the home as among children in school.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in 8 to 12 year-old Greek school children. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49-56. Andreou, E., Vlachou, A. & Didaskalou, E. (2005). The roles of self-efficacy, peer interactions and attitudes in bully-victim incidents: Implications for intervention policy-practices. School Psychology International, 26, 545-562. Crick, N.R., Grotpeter, J.K. & Bigbee, M.A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73, 1134-1142. Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C. and Perry, D. G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in aggression over time, Developmental Psychology 34, 996-1006. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R. and Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: perceptions of adolescent victims in the mid-western USA, School Psychology International, 1,: 5-16. Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I. & Hergott, E. (2006). Bullying among students and its consequences on health. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXI, 183-208. Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Salmivalli, C. (2001). Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: who considered it useful, who benefited?, Educational Research 43, 263-278. Slee, P. T (1993). Bullying: a preliminary investigation of its nature and the effects of social cognition, Early Child Development and Care, 87, 47-57.

104

Eleni Andreou, Anastasia Vlachou, and Eleni Didaskalou

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. and Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: an evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195-210. Sutton, J. and Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443-456. Sutton, J., Smith, P.K. & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435-450. Tulloch, M. (1998). Australian schoolchildren’s perceptions of television representations of bullying and victimization’, in P. Slee and K. Rigby (eds.) Children’s peer relations, pp. 215-226. London: Routledge. Whitney, I. and Smith P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bully/victim problems in junior/middle and secondary schools, Educational Research, 35, 3-25.

In: Bullying in Schools Editor: David N. Rickler

ISBN 978-1-60692-208-8 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTIMS OF BULLYING: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Tanya N. Beran∗ Division of Applied Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT In the present review paper, research and theory on the characteristics of victims of peer aggression (frequently called “bullying”) are critically examined. The psychological characteristics of victims and evidence of victim traits are discussed. Gender differences and age trends of victimization are also examined. To determine the development of childhood victimization, familial factors such as marital conflict, maternal depression and parental behaviors are considered. In addition to family characteristics, peer interactions that are associated with the development of victimization are examined. A summary of methodological difficulties in this area is provided. The paper concludes with some recommendations for future research.

∗

Tanya Beran. Division of Applied Psychology; Education Tower Room 324, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Phone (403) 220-5667. [email protected]

106

Tanya N. Beran

INTRODUCTION

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In the present review paper, research and theory on the characteristics of victims of peer aggression are critically examined. While childhood aggression is a central force in human development, researchers have only recently begun to examine psychological, familial and social characteristics of victims. By contrast, a great deal of effort has been devoted to examining the origins of childhood aggression (e.g., American Psychological Association [APA], 1993; Farrington, 1993). Considering that aggressors and their victims form a dynamic system of interaction, each influencing the other (Pepler, Craig and O’Connell, 1999), a complete understanding of aggression must include a focus on the victim’s experiences. Characteristics of victims, their families, and their peers in the development of childhood victimization are examined in succession. Studies suggesting the existence of a victim style or trait are reviewed first. Subsequently, familial risk factors such as marital conflict, maternal depression, and parental behaviors, as well as the influence of peers on the development and maintenance of victimization are considered. This progression from a psychological to social perspective for understanding victimization reflects the evolution of research in this area. The term “victim” is used in the paper but is intended to describe the experiences of children rather than to ascribe a victim identity to them. Espelage and Swearer (2003) suggest that victimization exists along a continuum rather than as discrete categories. In other words, children can target or be targeted by other children at any time given the circumstances of the situation. Thus, children may switch from a “bully” to a “victim” role. The majority of studies reviewed in this paper identify children as victims according to whether they reported being bullied, so it is important to recognize that these children may also engage in acts of bullying, as well as be a silent bystander.

VICTIMS OF PEER AGGRESSION Early research on peer aggression developed through systematic efforts of a few investigators, including Olweus (Olweus, 1989; 1993; 1994; 1997), Rigby (Rigby, 1993; 1994; 1996), Smith (Smith, Sutton, Myron-Wilson, 1998; Stephenson and Smith, 1987), Pepler (Pepler, Craig, and Roberts, 1998; Pepler, Craig, and Taradash, 2000) and Craig (Craig, 1998; Craig and Pepler, 1997).

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

107

Related research areas such as children’s social competence has focused on aspects of interpersonal problem solving including sociometric status and peer acceptance and has only recently included the measurement of victimization. Research on victims is thus found primarily in the research on “bullying”.

Identification of Victims The phenomenon of bullying was first termed “mobbing” by Heinemann (1972). Olweus, the pioneer researcher in this area, refined the term bullying as he conducted longitudinal research in Sweden in the early 1970’s. Due to two suicides seemingly linked to bullying, the Ministry of Education in Norway in 1983 commissioned Olweus to spearhead a nationwide campaign against bully/victim problems. As a result of these efforts, data on the prevalence of victimization and characteristics of victims have been collected from more than 130,000 Norwegian students. Researchers from around the world have replicated his research using the definition and questionnaires he developed. Olweus (1994) provided the following definition of victims of bullying in schools:

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A student is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students. It is a negative action when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, injury or discomfort upon another (…). There is also an imbalance in strength (an asymmetric power relationship): the student who is exposed to the negative actions has difficulty in defending him/herself and is somewhat helpless against the student (…) (p. 1173).

This classification of victimization has not been challenged or modified since its formulation and has been widely adopted by other researchers (Bjorkqvist and Osterman, 1999; Bryne, 1999; Dueholm, 1999; Mellor, 1999; Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins, 1999; Pepler, Craig, and O’Connell, 1999; Rigby, 1994; Roland, 1989). Schwartz, Dodge, and Coie (1993) provided evidence to support this definition. They reported that victims experience higher rates of bullying than non-victims but similar rates of other forms of aggression (i.e., instrumental and reactive aggression) as non-victims. Therefore, only children who are the recipients of bullying-type aggression are considered to be victims. While research on bullying and peer aggression have merged (i.e., references are made across domains), the former is considered to be a more narrow definition than the

108

Tanya N. Beran

latter (Salmivalli, Lappalainen, and Lagerspetz, 1998). The latter may involve mutual aggression between individuals of equal status, whereas the former involves the aggressor establishing dominance over another, namely the victim, thus maintaining a power differential. Implicit in the definition of bullying is the inclusion of the social interaction with the victim.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Gender Differences Classification of types of aggression experienced by victims was derived through factor analysis (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen, 1992), yielding two main forms: direct aggression (e.g., physical, verbal), and indirect aggression (e.g., gossiping, excluding). Items within these two dimensions are similar to those within similarly derived categories identified as overt and relational aggression, respectively (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995). That girls are subjected to more indirect forms and boys are prone to both types of attack has been substantiated (Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1994; Rigby and Slee, 1991; Roland, 1989; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Male victims are also more likely to report attacks by same-sex aggressors, whereas female victims are as likely to report attacks by boys and girls (Craig and Pepler, 1997; Olweus, 1994). Taken together, these findings reveal some inconsistencies. Girls experience indirect aggression primarily and report aggression from boys as well as girls. Yet boys use primarily direct aggression (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen, 1988; Pakaslahti and Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 1998). It may be that boys use indirect aggression towards girls and use direct aggression towards boys. Also, while boys report experiencing both direct and indirect forms of bullying but from boys only is inconsistent with the finding that boys use direct aggression primarily. This finding may be interpreted to mean that either boys do use some indirect aggression towards each other or are reluctant to acknowledge victimization by girls. A study that analyzes simultaneously the type of aggression as well as the gender of the victim and the aggressor would clarify these subtle differences. Such a study must include multisource data (e.g., both self-report and observations) to provide an accurate representation of true gender differences.

Age Trends Younger students report more instances of direct forms of aggression, whereas older students report more instances of indirect forms of aggression

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

109

(Olweus, 1991). Younger students are found to be targets of aggression significantly more often than older students (e.g., 17% in grade two, 7% in grade six) (Olweus, 1991). The inverse relationship between age and victimization has been corroborated by other researchers (Bentley and Li, 1995; O’Connell et al., 1997). Thus older children seem to attack younger, presumably weaker children. The importance of age is seen within both primary and secondary schools. Students, primarily boys, at each level are most likely to become victims (Olweus, 1994; Rigby and Slee, 1991). Girls seem to mature socially earlier than boys (Coleman, 1980), which may reduce their vulnerability to aggression.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status and Victimization Researchers have examined victimization in relation to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. In Toronto, O’Connell and colleagues (1997) found that while 38% of children reported being bullied, 14% of children reported racial victimization. Junger (1990) found no differences in peer aggression among several ethnic groups in the Netherlands. In the United States, victimization rates were the same for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students (Bastian and Taylor, 1991). In England, however, Asian children reported racist name-calling whereas white children did not (Moran, Smith, Thompson, and Whitney, 1993). Yet reports of enjoying school and frequency of peer aggression were similar between these two groups. These combined results suggest that children of all ethnic groups are equally likely to be victims of aggression. Preliminary results suggest, however, that students in a minority group (i.e., a low proportion of the school’s population) in comparison to a majority group, are more likely to be nominated as victims (Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham, 2001). Social disadvantage has been associated with victimization to a small extent (Loeber, 1990; Mellor, 1990; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Olweus (1978, 1984), however, did not find significant differences on this factor. These mixed results may reflect the heterogeneity of victims (i.e., aggressive versus non-aggressive victims) and require closer examination.

Prevalence of Peer Aggression Studies on the frequency of childhood victimization have been conducted in several countries but first appeared in Scandinavia (Olweus, 1973). Reports of its prevalence vary widely, perhaps due to a lack of standardization in its definition

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

110

Tanya N. Beran

and time frame. Some researchers, for example, may not include social alienation in their description of aggression (Farrington, 1993; Hoover, Oliver, and Hazler, 1992). Some samples may include children with special needs, who are found to be victimized at a higher rate than non-special needs children (Thompson, Whitney, and Smith, 1994), thus inflating prevalence rates. However, some children’s retrospective reports reference the last few years (Newson and Newson, 1984) and some the last few days (Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, and Charach, 1994). In Scotland, for example, Mellor (1990) reported that 50% of children reported “ever” being victimized, whereas 8% reported experiencing victimization “sometimes or more often”. In addition, most studies do not include randomly selected participants or indicate response rates, thus questioning the validity of the findings. Another reason for large differences in the frequency of aggression is due to the variety of strategies used to measure it, including peer nominations, teacher and parent reports, and self-reports. From teacher ratings and peer nominations, Olweus (1978) reported that 11% of students in selected schools in Norway were identified as victims. In Cleveland, Yates and Smith (1989) found that teachers and students reported 13% of students are targets of aggression. In Nottingham, mothers indicated that 26% of children experienced aggression at school (Newson and Newson, 1984). In Ontario, O’Connell et al. (1997) found that 15% were victims, which is comparable to the prevalence rates reported by Olweus (1978). Researchers have attempted to check consistency among reporting strategies. Agreement among anonymous questionnaires, individual interviews, and teacher and peer nominations, for example, was 95% for victimization (Ahmad and Smith, 1990). O’Moore and Hillery (1991), however, found that reports from teachers tended to underestimate the prevalence of victimization. Results from self-report questionnaires and interviews have been found to yield either similar levels of victimization (Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weis, 1981) or slightly higher levels from the self-report than the interview (Ahmad and Smith, 1990). In addition, Pellegrini and Bartini (2000) found that self-reports were not significantly correlated with observations of victimization and were only moderately correlated with peer nominations. Also, observations of peer aggression do not strongly correlate with peer nominations or teacher reports (Coie and Dodge, 1988). In the research there is a preference for self-report questionnaires by researchers as they permit inexpensive data collection as well as direct comparisons across studies (Farrington, 1993). Some evidence exists for the stability of victimization. Patterson, Littman, and Bricker (1967) found moderate stability over eight months, and Troy and Sroufe (1987) observed that victims continued to interact with the victimizer in

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

111

spite of experiencing aggression. The most impressive evidence was provided by Olweus (1977), who reported a stability coefficient of .72 over a 3-year period for male victims. Boulton and Smith (1994) reported that the percentage of victim nominations of boys was stable over a one-year period but decreased for girls when they entered the next school year. It is possible that once targets of aggression, children, or boys in particular, are at risk of subsequent attacks. Bullying may, thus, be more closely connected to enduring attributes of victims rather than social situations (Salmivalli, et al., 1998). These behavioral, affective and cognitive states are examined in the next section.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PROFILES OF VICTIMS The psychological profile of victims has emerged from a personality perspective (Pepler, Craig, and O’Connell, 1999). Research has demonstrated surprisingly consistent descriptions of victims, characterizing them as weak, helpless and dependent (Boivin and Hymel, 1997; Olweus, 1978; Olweus, 1989; Patterson, et al., 1967; Perry, Williard, and Perry, 1990). These qualities seem to be similar for both boys and girls (Bjorkqvist, Ekman, and Lagerspetz, 1982), although gender differences have not been systematically studied. In terms of behavior characteristics, Olweus (1989) found that victims, particularly boys, are physically weaker and quieter than their aggressors. Contrary to popular assumption, no physical features such as freckles or hair color differentiate victims from non-victims (Olweus, 1991). Frost (1991) stated that victims tend to be unusually compliant. They often react to their peers by crying (Olweus, 1989), and lack the skills and confidence in seeking support for their victimization (Olweus, 1978; Rigby, 1996; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Schwartz et al. (1993) observed that children who exhibit a meek, subservient and inflexible style of play are at risk for victimization in a play group of unfamiliar peers. Besag (1989) described victims as unpopular and passive, and Graham and Juvonen (1998) reported that victimized children are likely to experience rejection by their peers. Children who experience humiliation by their peers are more likely to avoid school, resulting in absenteeism (Reid, 1985) as well as poor concentration on schoolwork (Mellor, 1990). These behaviors may explain reports of lower levels of intelligence and academic achievement (DeRosier, Kupersmidt, and Patterson, 1994). Affective dysfunctions in victims include anxiety, insecurity, and cautiousness (Olweus, 1989). They tend to have low self-esteem (Boulton and

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

112

Tanya N. Beran

Underwood, 1992), which may be partly attributed to self-blame (Graham and Juvonen, 1998). Victims may also describe themselves as detached, critical, serious, shy, and timid (Bryne, 1989), and indicate that they are afraid of going to school (Olweus, 1992). Frequently victimized children also experience loneliness, particularly when they access little social support (Skinner and KochenderferLadd, 2000). In a recent meta-analysis of peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment, Hawker and Boulton (2000) reported effect sizes ranging from .19 to .29 indicating that victims are likely to feel anxious, have low self-esteem, and are especially likely to feel lonely and depressed. Cognitive difficulties are also typically found in victims. They tend to hold a negative view of themselves (Olweus, 1989) and experience social-cognitive deficits (Bernstein and Watson, 1997). In research on submissive children, Deluty (1981, 1985) found they provided mostly passive alternatives to interpersonal dilemmas, and evaluated these responses as more favorable than non-passive responses. In addition, these children may select more cooperative strategies in situations where non-victims are likely to choose competitive strategies, thereby appearing submissive to their peers (Schuster, 2001). At the risk of oversimplifying the characteristics of victims, two subtypes can be identified. In contrast to passive victims, some children who experience aggression are found to use aggression themselves. From 1% (Olweus, 1991) to 6% (Yates and Smith, 1989) of the school population consists of these so-called provocative victims. Whereas passive victims are characterized as weak, cautious, fearful and withdrawn (Olweus, 1979, 1991), the provocative victims demonstrate both anxious and aggressive behaviors (Olweus, 1994). These latter victims are seen as intentionally antagonizing others (Olweus, 1978). They are more active and physically stronger than passive victims (Stephenson and Smith, 1987), and are excitable, easily provoked and often frustrated (Elliott, 1991). Perry et al. (1990) found that peers rated provocative victims as the most likely to show their distress and relinquish their property, and the least likely to retaliate than either nonaggressive or passive victims. These children are rated as the least popular of all other children (Stephenson and Smith, 1987), and are the most rejected of the peer group (Rubin, LeMare, and Lollis, 1990). These students seem to be the most targeted for acts of aggression and are at considerable risk for subsequent social and emotional maladjustment (Parker and Asher, 1987). The process linking victimization to aggression is not yet well understood (Hotaling, Straus, and Lincoln, 1989). It is not known whether children who are repeatedly victimized become perpetrators, or if these children use aggression as a form of self-defense against their attackers. Ohbuchi and Saito (1986) suggested

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

113

that counter-aggression is more likely to occur when individuals felt the initial attack was unjustified. It is possible that passive victims do not fight back because they see the attacks as reasonable. According to the personality and behavior differences between passive and provocative victims, it would seem necessary to identify victims as such. Researchers, however, have not made this distinction consistently (i.e., failing to report whether victims were aggressive themselves), or have studied the passive victims only.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

IMPACT OF PEER AGGRESSION ON VICTIMS While it is widely believed that children suffer at the hands of their aggressors, relatively little research has documented the short-term impact of peer aggression. In a recent study by Sharp, Thompson, and Aurora (2000), victims reported experiencing irritability, panic, and impaired concentration as a result of aggression, and these symptoms were positively correlated with the frequency of experienced aggression. Due to retrospective reporting, it was not possible to determine whether these symptoms existed before or after the onset of victimization. For physical symptoms, victimization has been associated with sleeplessness, headaches, stomachaches, bed wetting, and a variety of health problems (Balding, Regis, Wise, Bish, and Muirden, 1996; Sharp, 1995; Williams, Chambers, Logan, and Robinson, 1996). The direction of causality between victimization and these symptoms has yet to be determined. In addition, Hoover et al. (1992) suggested victimization might covary with the physical maturation process, which may be more closely related to these symptoms than victimization itself. Researchers have provided some evidence of long-term effects of victimization. Adults, for example, were more likely to experience difficulties in trust and intimacy in their current relationships if they had been victims of peer aggression as children (Gilmartin, 1987). Perry and Williard (1989) reported that victims demonstrated difficulties learning coping behaviors to manage peer aggression. These combined results suggest that continuous exposure to aggression may result in a consistent response pattern, thereby establishing a firm victim style. In addition, Olweus (1993) found that although most internalizing characteristics such as social anxiety, introversion and stress level had reached normative levels upon reaching adulthood, depression and low self-esteem were significantly higher in children identified as victims than non-victims in grades 69. These characteristics existed despite the decrease in victimization levels

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

114

Tanya N. Beran

experienced as adults (Olweus, 1993). From this longitudinal study, it appears childhood victimization is associated with long-term depressive reactions that persist into adulthood. Bernstein and Watson (1997) suggested that victims internalize negative selfperceptions that are reinforced by their peers. These critical thoughts persist into adulthood and manifest as depression (Bernstein and Watson, 1997). Evidence for the developmental continuity in victim responses must be considered carefully. Other factors related to victimization may be a more direct cause of long-term distress. Also, these symptoms may have existed in childhood before the onset of victimization. A study by Matsui, Tsuzuki, Kakuyana, and Onglateo (1996) points to this possibility. Long-term effects of peer aggression on Japanese university students occurred only for those who reported high levels of depression prior to victimization. Although Rigby (2001) found that after controlling for baseline levels of physical health, experiences of victimization significantly predicted physical health three years later, reports of psychiatric health (e.g., anxiety) were not predicted by earlier experiences of victimization. Victimization, therefore, may have a direct impact on some types of maladjustment (e.g., physical health) and an indirect impact on other forms of long-term maladjustment (e.g., mental health). The above review suggests that victims share certain attributes that differ from non-victimized children, whether or not these characteristics are directly attributed to the experience of aggression. That victims demonstrate anxious, passive and submissive behaviors is most significant as it provides evidence of a victim style. Moreover, these qualities seem rather stable, persisting over several years. The existence of a victim pattern or trait, however, provides little understanding of the development of victimization. It is unclear whether the socio-emotional characteristics of victims contribute to, or are a result of victimization. In addition, some children with these features may not be targets of aggression (Besag, 1989). Victims with a reciprocated best friend, for example, are targets of aggression less often than victims without a reciprocated best friend (Boulton, Trueman, Chau, Whitehand, and Amatya, 1999). These resilient and protective factors have not been thoroughly studied in the research. By shifting the focus of study from the negative to the positive characteristics of victims, a more complete picture of victim profiles may emerge. In addition, the characteristics of friends who serve a protective role have only just begun to be explored (e.g., Hodges, Malone, and Perry, 1997).

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

115

DEVELOPMENT OF VICTIMIZATION In an attempt to more fully understand the development of victimization, investigators have begun examining relationships within the child’s social context. Some preliminary findings suggest a link between familial characteristics and victimization (Beran and Violato, 2005; Berdondini and Smith, 1996; Lowenstein 1978; Olweus, 1978, 1984; Stephenson and Smith, 1987). Factors within the peer group and school climate may also play a role (Pepler et al., 1999).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Familial Factors Several theories explaining the mechanisms by which families influence their children’s peer relations have been proposed. These theories and their supporting empirical data are further discussed. First, it has been thought that victimization behaviors are learned through family interaction sequences, or modeling, which serve as a training ground for later relationships (Bandura and Walters, 1959; Eron, 1982). Anxious and passive behaviors in children, for example, may be acquired through imitation of such behavior in parents. The hypothesis of direct modeling, however, does not account for the wide range of symptoms often seen in victims of peer aggression. A second hypothesis makes a link between the child’s early attachment status and later peer relationships. Bowlby (1973) stated that absence from the mother resulted in the development of an insecure mother-child bond. Building on Bowlby’s theory, Ainsworth (1973) argued that insecure attachment is more a function of maternal insensitivity, unresponsiveness, or inappropriate responsiveness, rather than maternal absence. Linkages between this emotional insecurity and child behavior problems have been widely documented by Sroufe and his colleagues (Erickson, Sroufe, and Egeland, 1985; LaFreniere and Sroufe, 1985; Suess, Grossman, and Sroufe, 1992). An important proposition to this theory is that children develop internal ‘working models’, or expectations about the self and others that are based on these early interactions with their caregivers (Main, 1991). Insecurely attached children, for example, may develop an understanding of themselves as difficult, or undeserving of positive regard, and come to expect a similar perception from their peers. Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangesldorf, and Sroufe (1989) suggested that these children lack trust and expect hostility, thereby becoming involved in aggression with peers. Hence, an insecure attachment with a caregiver early in a child’s life may interfere with the child’s ability to negotiate later relationships with peers. Indeed Urban,

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

116

Tanya N. Beran

Carlson, Egeland, and Sroufe (1992) found that children with an insecure attachment history formed friendships infrequently. Since children with fewer friends are more likely to be victims (Boulton et al., 1999), by extension, it is likely that children with an insecure attachment history would be victims of peer aggression. Currently, there is little evidence for this proposition. Although Troy and Sroufe (1987) reported victims had an anxious-avoidant or anxious-resistant attachment history, these results were based on a small, non-probability sample. Moreover, Bowers, Smith, and Binney (1994) did not find a significant correlation between attachment history and victimization. The relationship, therefore, between victimization and insecure attachment requires further examination. That victims themselves report little separation from their family (Berdondini and Smith, 1996; Bowers et al., 1992), points to the possibility of dependent and enmeshed family relationships. These characteristics may interfere with their ability to function independently or assertively, leaving them unable to defend themselves in confrontation with an aggressive peer. Indeed, observations of victimized preschoolers revealed their tendency to submit instead of assert themselves to the aggressors (Patterson et al., 1967). A third rationale for the development of childhood victimization behaviors is the influence of parental behaviors. Some researchers have found evidence of a connection between parental behaviors and child outcome (Dishion, 1990; Kline, Johnston, and Tschann, 1991; Pettit, Harrist, Bates, and Dodge, 1991). In the context of victimization, preliminary findings point to this possibility. Passive victims describe their parents as overly anxious, protective and involved (Berdondini and Smith, 1996; Olweus, 1978, 1984). Interviews with parents yield comparable results (Olweus; 1993). While enmeshed parenting behaviors have been examined in relation to child victimization, specific typologies, or parenting dimensions have not been studied systematically. Most socially competent children, for example, have parents who demonstrate both a high degree of warmth as well as moderate degree of control (Putallaz and Heflin, 1990), and both dimensions must be considered simultaneously in relation to victimization. Marital conflict is also a significant factor in the familial profile of victims (Besag, 1989). In a longitudinal study of 200 children in the United States, exposure to marital conflict at age 4-5 years significantly predicted victimization at age 8-9 years (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates, 1997). These victims were nominated by their peers as aggressive, and, therefore, may represent only provocative victims. Exposure to marital conflict may play a specific role in the

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

117

etiology of victimization when children are both aggressors and victims of aggression. While marital conflict itself may have a direct effect on children’s adjustment (Emery, Fincham, and Cummings, 1992; Peterson and Zill, 1986), researchers have found that the quality of parent-child relations predicted a greater proportion of the variance in child adjustment than did interparental conflict (Fauber and Long, 1991). Indeed, Katz and Gottman (1995) found that marital conflict and mother’s intrusiveness each predicted teacher ratings of internalizing behaviors. Though not tested directly, the researchers concluded that the mother’s parenting behaviors serve as a mediator in the relationship between marital conflict and internalizing behavior problems in children. That victimization is more closely associated with parenting behavior than marital conflict requires further study. A final familial link in the developmental pathway of victimization is maternal depression. To date, there is no published research relating depression of a parent to victimization in children. Research has demonstrated that maternal depression is associated with marital conflict (Gotlib, 1992) as well as parenting behaviors such as direct and harsh commands, criticism, unrealistic expectations (Belle, 1982; Kochanska, Kuczynski and Maguire, 1989) and aggressive/intrusive interactions (Cohn and Tronick, 1989; Cohn, Matias, Tronick, Lyons-Ruth and Conell, 1986). Depression may, therefore, mediate the effect of marital conflict on parenting behaviors that are directly associated with children’s victimization behaviors (e.g., Beran & Violato, 2005).

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Parental Attitudes of Children’s Peer Relationships In addition to parental behaviors, their attitudes about social competence may be related to children’s development of social competence (cf. Mills and Rubin, 1993). Parent’s involvement in their children’s social contacts, perceived significance of socializing ability, and optimistic parental interpretation of children’s unskilled social behaviors are all positively associated with the development of social competence in children (Rubin, Mills, and Rose-Krasnor, 1989). These parental ideas have yet to be examined in relation to the development of victimization. Given that victims of peer aggression lack social skills (Olweus, 1978; Rigby, 1996; Whitney and Smith, 1993), it can be hypothesized that parents of victims are likely to be uninvolved in organizing play activities with friends, assign little importance to social skill acquisition, and see social skill difficulties as due to factors internal to the child (e.g., “just can’t make friends”).

118

Tanya N. Beran

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Peer Influences In spite of the early recognition of the peer group’s influence on aggression, as reflected in the term “mobbing” originally used by Heinemann (1972), much research has focused primarily on individual characteristics of victims. Victimization, however, often occurs within the context of a group of peers (Craig and Pepler, 1995), and individual risk factors may be demonstrated only within a specific social context (Hodges et al., 1997). A social learning perspective has been used to explain the peer dynamics that may correlate with or exacerbate victimization. That is, the power imbalance that develops between the aggressor and the victim may occur through a process of modeling and rewarding. Since modeling is more likely to occur when the model is admired (cf. Bandura, 1973), and peers are more respectful and friendly towards the aggressors than the victims, non-aggressive peers are likely to imitate aggressive behavior directed at the victim (Craig and Pepler, 1995). As a result, the victim’s role becomes well established through reinforcement by many peers. Aggressors may be encouraged in their attacks against victims by their peers and by the victims themselves. O’Connell, Pepler, and Craig (1999) found that peers physically or verbally joined in the aggression 21% of the time and watched 54% of the time, thus providing active and passive reinforcement of aggression, respectively. In comparison, peers intervened to help the victim in 25% of the episodes (O’Connell et al., 1999). Perry et al. (1990) found that peers perceived victims as likely to reward their attackers with tangible resources and signs of distress, and as unlikely to punish their attackers with retaliation. Victims may, thus, inadvertently reinforce their aggressors’ behaviors. Alternatively, these perceptions may reflect cognitive distortions held by peers. Indeed, peers perceive less potential harm towards victims than non-victims (Perry et al., 1990). Also, peers are more likely to assign more negative attributions to victims’ failures than to non-victims’ failures (Schuster, 2001). These cognitive distortions seem to play a critical role in instigating, maintaining, and exacerbating bullying behavior (Craig and Pepler, 1995). Schwartz et al. (1993) proposed a peer response model of the development of chronic victimization. They demonstrated that during the initial stages of contrived playgroups, victims exhibit a high rate of submissive behaviors to nonaggressive and aggressive persuasion attempts from peers. This passive behavior reinforces peer coercion, further escalating aggressive behaviors towards victims. In the latter stages of play, victims spend more time in parallel play and less time in cooperative play than in the earlier stages, seemingly as a response to victimization by peers. In this way, victims of peer aggression are produced.

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

119

In summary, it appears that the child who is exposed to familial risk factors such as marital conflict, maternal depression and unsupportive parenting behaviors and attitudes, develops a heightened vulnerability in the form of defenselessness to aggression from peers. Presumably, there is a cumulative effect where the likelihood of victimization increases as the number of risk factors increases. This child’s submission to aggressive as well as non-aggressive assertions by peers then reinforces and intensifies peer aggression, thereby increasing the likelihood of future attacks.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH While there appears to be no systematic variation in victimization according to socio-economic status or ethnicity, it is not yet clear whether boys or girls are more susceptible to aggression. The interaction between the type of aggression and the gender of aggressors and victims requires formal analyses and is worthy as a primary research question rather than as secondary analyses. There has been some difficulty in identifying the prevalence of peer aggression, due to varying definitions of relevant constructs, non-representative samples, and varying research methods. The various reports obtained from selfreport, peer-nominations and teacher questionnaires, suggest that where feasible, more than one source of data should be utilized. These multiple indicators can be cross validated through the use of statistical analyses such as latent variable path analysis, to generate a construct that more accurately represents the phenomenon of victimization, as well as create a more precise determination of its relation to other factors. Research from a personality perspective has uncovered numerous behavioral, affective and cognitive characteristics of both passive and provocative victims. That provocative victims are the least popular in their peer group and at highest risk for long-term dysfunction, demonstrates the importance of identifying these subtypes and studying them separately. A variety of psychological and physical difficulties have been associated with the experience of aggression from peers, yet their direction of influence has not been determined. Evidence from Matsui et al. (1996) demonstrated the presence of these symptoms before the onset of victimization, suggesting that pre-existing factors in victims, rather than the victimization itself, may be more closely associated with long-term maladjustment. The long-term distress reported by victims as well as the presence of unique organismic factors and the stability of victimization (i.e., up to at least three years)

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

120

Tanya N. Beran

advance the notion of a “victim style”. This stability is quite remarkable given changes in children’s development, and regular transitions of teachers and classmates. Circumstances of environmental variation such as moving to a new school or the arrival of a new classmate require detailed analyses. The importance of personality factors must be weighed against the magnitude of these situational factors. This research problem has been central to psychological research in general with seemingly no final resolution (Bem, 1983; Epstein, 1983; Mischel, 1983). Whether characteristics of victims have transsituational and transtemporal stability has yet to be closely examined. The role of family, peer and school factors has been explored as possible determinants of childhood victimization. Within the domain of family relationships, modeling, attachment theory and parenting dimensions have been used to explain the acquisition of victimization characteristics and behaviors. More specifically, marital conflict, maternal depression and adverse parenting behaviors and attitudes have been associated with the development of childhood victimization. In future research, these factors should be considered in combination to determine proximal and distal familial risk factors of childhood victimization. This process of socialization may lead to a cross-setting transfer of social style. The familial risk factors may first prime a child for vulnerability to anxiety and insecurity. The risk of being victimized then increases when peers’ perceptions of inherent weaknesses inhibit them from stopping the bullying. In this way, the peer system supports the parent-child system (Hartup, 1980). Gradually, “the two social worlds of the child seem actually to interact as a complementary synergism” (Hartup, 1980, p. 287). This developmental pathway to victimization requires validation and further specification. Factors such as the victim’s attributional biases such as whether they feel they “deserve” the harassment, for example, may mediate the transfer of victimization behaviors between the family and peer domain. In addition, it has yet to be established whether overly dependent familial relations precede, follow, or co-exist with children’s victim status. Current knowledge of childhood victimization is rather uncertain due to low correlations among measures of victimization. While it has been suggested that self-reports and peer perceptions may represent differing constructs such as personal experiences and social reputation, respectively (Juvonen et al., 2001), the low consistency between self and peer reports is particularly surprising given victimization seems to occur in the presence of peers. This raises questions about the nature of the phenomenon itself. Why is it that some children feel victimized whereas their peers do not necessarily concur? Answers to this question first

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

121

require a reliable determination of which is higher: peer nomination or self-report scores. Specific hypotheses can then be generated. Perhaps victims are overlysensitive to aggressive overtures from peers, thus inflating their estimates. Or, it is possible that peers are unaware of the emotional impact of aggression, thus reducing their sensitivity to reporting. The converse is also plausible. Victims may minimize the impact of aggression, whereas peers may over-estimate the influence of the aggressor. Exploration of these research questions will bring us to a greater understanding of victimization.

CONCLUSION Our most ambitious claim to understanding victimization includes the psychological characteristics of children who are targeted; our weakest understanding is of the existence of the phenomenon itself. That its very existence depends on the aggressive actions of others contributes to the difficulty in predicting its occurrence. Nevertheless, some children demonstrate a heightened vulnerability to persistent aggression. Our ability to understand this vulnerability will be advanced through continuing efforts to assess individual, familial, and peer influences, separately and in combination.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Ahmad, Y. S., and Smith, P. K. (1990). Behavioral measures review: Bullying in schools. Newsletter of the Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 26-27. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. M. Caldwell and H. N. Ricutti (Eds.), Review of child development research: Vol. 3 (pp. 1-94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and youth: Psychology’s response: Vol. 1. Summary of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth. Washington, CD: Author. Balding, J., Regis, D., Wise, A., Bish, D., and Muirden, J. (1996). Bully off: Young people that fear going to school. Exeter: School Health Education Unit, University of Exeter. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

122

Tanya N. Beran

Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald. Bastian, L. D., and Taylor, B. M. (1991). School crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Belle, D. (1982). Lives in stress: Women and depression. Beverly Hills: Sage. Bem, D. J. (1983). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies of behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-520. Bentley, K. M., and Li, A. (1995). Bully and victim problems in elementary schools and students’ beliefs about aggression. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 153-165. Beran, T., and Violato, C. (2005). Ratings of teacher instruction: How much do student and course characteristics really matter? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(6), 593-601. Berdondini, L., and Smith, P. K. (1996). Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in bully/victim problems at school: An Italian replication. Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 99-102. Bernstein, J., and Watson, M. W. (1997). Children who are targets of bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 483-498. Besag, V. E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. Milton Keknes: Open University Press. Bjorkqvist, K, Ekman, K, and Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 307-313. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., and Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127. Bjorkqvist, K., and Osterman, K. (1999). Finland. In P. K. Smith et al. (Eds.) The nature of school bullying. New York: Routledge. Boivin, M., and Hymel, S. (1997). Peer expectations and social self-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135-145. Boulton, M. J., and Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 315-329. Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., and Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 461466.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

123

Boulton, M. J., and Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems and middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87. Bowers, L., Smith, P., and Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims, and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 215-232. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: II, Separation. New York: Basic Books. Bryne, B. (1989). A study of the incidence and nature of bullies and whipping boys (victims) in Dublin city post primary for boys. Unpublished master’s thesis, Trinity College, Dublin. Bryne, B.. (1999). Ireland. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 112-127). New York: Routledge. Cohn, J. F., Matias, R.,Tronick, E. Z., Lyons-Ruth, K., and Conell, D. (1986). Face-to-face interactions, spontaneous and structured, of mothers with depressive symptoms. In T. Field and E. Z. Tronick (Eds.), Maternal depression and child development (New Directions for Child Development No. 34, pp. 31-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohn, J. F., and Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Specificity of infants’ response to mothers’ affective behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 242-248. Coie, J. D., and Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 58, 815-829. Coleman, J. C. (1980). The nature of adolescence. London: Methuen. Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among aggression types, depression and anxiety in bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130. Craig, W., and Pepler, D. J. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: A naturalistic study. Exceptionality Education in Canada, 4, 81-95. Craig, W., and Pepler, D. J. (1997). Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In C. A. Eddau and F. Petermann (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Epidemiology, diagnostics and treatment (pp. 97-139). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers. Crick, N. R., and Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722. Deluty, R. H. (1981). Alternative-thinking ability of aggressive, assertive and submissive children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 309-312.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

124

Tanya N. Beran

Deluty, R. H. (1985). Cognitive mediation of aggressive, assertive, and submissive behavior in children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 355-369. DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., and Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children’s academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799-1813. Dishion, T. J. (1990). The family ecology of boys’ peer relations in middle childhood. Child Development, 61, 874-892. Dueholm, N. (1999). Denmark. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 49-55). New York: Routledge. Elliott, M. (1991) Bullies, victims, signs, solutions. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Bullying: A practical guide to coping for schools (pp. 8-14). Harlow: Longman. Emery, R. E., Fincham, F. D., and Cummings, E. M. (1992). Parenting in context: A reply to Fauber and Long. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 909-912. Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 360-392. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., and Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment theory and research. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 50 (Vol. 1 and 2, Serial No. 209). Eron, L. D. (1982). Parent-child interaction, television violence, and aggression of children. American Psychologist, 37, 197-211. Espelage, D. L., and Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: Vol. 17 (pp. 381-458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fauber, R., and Long, N. (1991). Children in context: The role of the family in child psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 813820. Field, T. (1984). Early interactions between infants and their postpartum depressed mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 527-532. Frost, L. (1991). A primary school approach: What can be done about the bully? In M. Elliott (Ed.), Bullying: A practical guide to coping for schools. Harlow: Longman.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

125

Gilmartin, B. G. (1987). Peer group antecedents of severe love-shyess in males. Journal of Personality, 55, 467-489. Gotlib, I. H. (1992). Interpersonal and cognitive aspects of depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 149-154. Graham, S., and Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587-599. Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., and Hawkins, J. D. (1999). United States. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 279-295). New York: Routledge. Hartup, W. (1980). Peer relations and family relations: Two social worlds. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Scientific foundations of developmental psychiatry (pp. 220292). London: Heinemann. Hawker, D. S. J., and Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441-455. Heinemann, P. P. (1972). Mobbning-gruppvald bland barn och vuxna. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., and Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., and Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 1032-1039. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., and Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5-16. Hotaling, G. T., Straus, M. A., and Lincoln, A. J. (1989). Intrafamily violence and crime and violence outside the family. In L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (Eds.), Family violence (pp. 315-375). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Junger, M. (1990). Intergroup bullying and racial harassment in the Netherlands. Sociology and Social Research, 74, 65-72. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., and Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105-124). NY: Guilford. Katz, L. F., and Gottman, J. M. (1995). Marital interaction and child outcomes: A longitudinal study of mediating and moderating processes. In D. Cicchetti, S. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology: Vol.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

126

Tanya N. Beran

6. Emotion, cognition and representation (pp. 301-342). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Kline, M., Johnston, J. R., and Tschann, J. M. (1991). The long shadow of marital conflict: A model of children’s postdivorce adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 297-309. Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., and Maguire, M. (1989). Impact of diagnosed depression and self-reported mood on mothers’ control strategies: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 441-456. LaFreniere, P., and Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Profiles of peer competence in the preschool. Interrelations between measures, influence of social ecology, and relation to attachment history. Developmental Psychology, 21, 56-69. Lagerspatz, K. M. J., Bjorkqvist, K., and Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12- year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414. Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1-41. Lowenstein, L. (1978). Who is the bully? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 31, 147-149. Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive models, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) model of attachment: Findings and directions for future research. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson, and P. Harris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127-159). London: Tavistock/Routledge. Matsui, T., Tsuzuki, Y. Y., Kakuyama, T., and Onglatco, M. L. (1996). Long term outcomes of early victimization by peers among Japanese male university students: Model of a vicious cycle. Psychological Reports, 79, 711-720. Mellor, A. (1990). Bullying in Scottish secondary schools. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Mellor, A. (1999). Scotland. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 279-295). New York: Routledge. Mills, R. S. L., and Rubin, K. H. (1993). Parental ideas as influences on children’s social competence. In S. Duck (Ed.), Learning about relationships (pp. 98117). London: Sage. Mischel, W. (1983). Alternatives to the pursuit of the predictability and consistency of persons: Stable data that yields unstable interpretations. Journal of Personality, 51, 578-604. Moran, S., Smith, P.K., Thompson, D., and Whitney, I. (1993). Ethnic differences in experiences of bullying: Asian and white children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 431-440.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

127

Newson, J., and Newson, E. (1984). Parent’s perspectives on children’s behavior at school. In N. Frude and H. Gault (Eds.), Disruptive behavior in schools (p. 99-116). Chichester: Wiley. O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., and Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 437452. O’Connell, P., Sedighdilami, F., Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., Connolly, J., Atlas, R., Smith, C., and Charach, A. (1997). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among Canadian Elementary and Middle School children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 834). Ohbuchi, K., and Saito, M. (1986). Power imbalance, its legitimacy, and aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 12(1), 33-40. Olweus, D. (1973). Hackkycklingar och oversittare. Forskning om skolmobbning. Stockhold: Almqvist and Wicksell. Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two short-term longitudinal studies of ratings. Child Development, 48, 1301-1313. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere (Wiley). Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852-875. Olweus, D. (1984). Aggressors and their victims: Bullying at school. In N. Frude and H. Gault (Eds.), Disruptive behavior in schools (pp. 57-76) New York: Wiley. Olweus, D. (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: Definitions and measurement. In M. Klein (Ed.), Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 187-201). Dodrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D. Pepler and K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 441488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon, and V. L. Quincy (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp. 100-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin and J. B. Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

128

Tanya N. Beran

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171-1190. Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495-510. O’Moore, A., and Hillery, B. (1991). What do teachers need to know? In M. Elliott (Ed.) Bullying: A practical guide to coping for schools (pp.56-69). Harlow: Longman. Pakaslahti, L., Keltikangas- Jarvinen, L. (1998). Types of aggressive behavior among aggressive preferred, aggressive non-preferred, non-aggressive preferred and non-aggressive non-preferred 14-year-old adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 821-828. Parker, J. G., and Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389. Patterson, G. R., Littman, R. A., and Bricker, W. (1967). Assertive behaviour in children: A step toward a theory of aggression. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 32, (Serial No. 113). Pellegrini, A. D., and Bartini, M. (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 360-366. Pepler, D., Craig, W., and O’Connell, P. (1999). Understanding bullying from a dynamic systems perspective. In A. Slater, D. Muir, et al. (Eds.), The Blackwell reader in development psychology (pp. 440-451). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell. Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., and Roberts, W.R. (1995). Social skills training and aggression in the peer group. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 213-228). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., and Taradash, A. (2000). Dating experiences of bullies in early adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5, 299-310. Pepler, D., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., and Charach, A. (1994). Bullying: A community problem. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95110. Perry, D., and Williard, J. C. (1989). Victims of peer abuse. Paper presented at the meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MI. Perry, D., Williard, J. and Perry, L. (1990). Peers’ perceptions of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61, 1310-1325.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

129

Peterson, J. L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295-307. Pettit, G. S., Harrist, A. W., Bates, J. E., and Dodge, K. A. (1991). Family interaction, social cognition and children’s subsequent relations with peers at kindergarten. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 383-402. Putallaz, M., and Heflin, A. (1990). Parent-child interaction. In S. R. Asher and J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 189-216). New York, NY: Cambridge. Reid, W. H. (1985). The antisocial personality: A review. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 36, 831-837. Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., and Sroufe, L.A. (1989). Early antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary schools. Journal of Personality, 57, 257-281. Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501-513. Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent school children involved in bully/victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools and what to do about it. Melbourne: ACER. Rigby, K., and Slee, P. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 615-627. Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 310-331). NY: Guilford. Roland, E. (1989). Bullying: The Scandinavian research tradition. In D. P. Tattum and D. A. Lane, Bullying in schools (pp. 21-32). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Rubin, K. H., LeMare, L. J., and Lollis, S. (1990). Social withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to peer rejection. In S. R. Asher and J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp.217-249). New York, NY: Cambridge. Rubin, K. H, Mills, R. S. L., Rose-Krasnor, L. (1989). Maternal beliefs and children's competence. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Social competence in developmental perspective. NATO Advanced Science Institutes series. Series D: Behavioural and social sciences, Vol. 51 (pp. 313-331). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

130

Tanya N. Beran

Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., and Lagerspetz, K. M. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205-218. Schuster, B. (2001). Rejection and victimization by peers: Social perception and social behavior mechanisms. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 290309). NY: Guilford Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., and Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755-1772. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., and Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, 665675. Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal well-being and educational progress of secondary aged students. Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 81-88. Sharp, S., Thompson, D., and Arora, T. (2000). How Long Before it Hurts? School Psychology International, 21, 37-46. Skinner, K., and Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2000, March). Coping strategies of victimized children. In A. Nishina and J. Juvonen (Chairs), Harassment across diverse contexts. Symposium conducted at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Chicago. Smith, P. K., Sutton, J., and Myron-Wilson, R. (1998, April). Bullying: Perspectives from social cognition and attachment theory. Poster presented at SRCD Conference, Washington, DC. Stephenson, P., and Smith, D. (1987). Anatomy of a playground bully. Education, 170, 11-15. Suess, G., Grossman, K., and Sroufe, L. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother and father on quality adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individual organization of self. International Journal of Behaviour Development, 15, 43-65. Thompson, D., Whitney, I., and Smith, P. K. (1994). Bullying of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 9(3), 103-106. Troy, M., and Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 166-172. Urban, J., Carlson, E., Egeland, B., and Sroufe, A. (1992). Patterns of individual adaptation across childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 445-460.

Characteristics of Victims of Bullying

131

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Whitney, I., and Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25. Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., and Robinson, D. (1996). Association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. British Medical Journal, 313, 17-19. Yates, C., and Smith, P. K. (1989). Bullying in two English comprehensive schools. In E. Munthe and E. Roland (Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective (pp. 22-34). Great Britain: David Fulton Publishers.

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INDEX

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A academic, viii, 44, 46, 49, 50, 59, 62, 64, 66, 81, 87, 103, 111, 124 academic performance, 49, 59 academic success, 49 acceptance, 107, 122, 127 access, 4, 18, 112 achievement, 62, 111 acts of aggression, 112 adaptation, 130 adjustment, 112, 117, 123, 124, 126, 128 administration, 48, 50, 68 administrators, vii, 4, 5, 14, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31 adolescence, 123, 128 adolescent boys, 127 adolescents, 125, 128 adult, 12, 14, 26, 31 adulthood, 113, 114 adults, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 34, 72, 114 affect, 49 age, ix, 7, 10, 11, 16, 25, 29, 30, 32, 47, 48, 52, 100, 105, 109, 116, 123 age-related, 52 aggression, viii, ix, 10, 13, 22, 32, 47, 59, 61, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129

aggressive behavior, 13, 47, 49, 61, 112, 118, 128 aggressiveness, 126 aid, 2 air, 68 Alaska, 71, 75 Alaska Natives, 75 alcohol, 66 alienation, 110 alpha, 69 alternatives, 112 American Indians, 71, 75 American Psychological Association (APA), 106, 121 Amsterdam, 123 analysts, 4 anger, 30, 102 ANOVA, 70 antecedents, 125, 129 antisocial, 61 antisocial behavior, 5, 23, 33, 34, 126, 127 antisocial personality, 129 anxiety, 16, 17, 102, 111, 113, 114, 120, 123 appendix, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 69, 71 arrest, 32 Asian, 109, 126 assault, 6, 9, 17, 45, 56, 58, 65, 67, 73, 77, 84 assaults, 17, 18, 56, 73 assessment, 2 assignment, vii, 1

134

Index

associations, 52 athletes, 6 Atlas, 127 attachment, 115, 116, 120, 121, 124, 126, 130 attachment theory, 120, 124, 130 attacker, 5 attacks, 6, 56, 73, 108, 111, 113, 118, 119 attention, vii, 43, 102 attitudes, 100, 101, 102, 103, 117, 119, 120, 129 Aurora, 113 Australia, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 26, 37 authority, 31 availability, 66, 101 avoidance, viii, 44, 46, 49, 59, 60, 65, 66 avoidance behavior, viii, 44, 46, 59, 60, 65, 66 avoidant, 116 awareness, 5, 33

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

B batteries, 18 behavior, viii, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 44, 47, 48, 49, 52, 60, 61, 62, 66, 111, 113, 115, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 behavioral problems, 32 behaviours, 100, 102 beliefs, 100, 102, 122, 129 Black students, 45, 52 blame, 112, 125 boys, ix, 10, 11, 13, 25, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, 100, 108, 109, 111, 119, 122, 123, 124, 127, 130 Britain, 131 British, 97 bullies, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 52, 53, 62, 101, 102, 123, 128 bullying, vii, viii, ix, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,

85, 86, 87, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 Bureau of the Census, 71 burglary, 39, 40, 65 buses, 14

C Canada, 3, 5, 11, 35, 105, 123 caregivers, 115 category b, 56, 67 category d, 44, 54, 55, 75 causal inference, viii, 44, 50, 55 causality, viii, 44, 50, 61, 113 Census, 65, 66, 71 Census Bureau, 65, 66 central city, 71 Chicago, 96 child development, 121, 123, 124 childhood, vii, ix, 43, 47, 105, 106, 109, 114, 116, 120, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130 childhood aggression, 106, 127 children, ix, 8, 11, 12, 16, 25, 32, 33, 34, 47, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 citizens, 3 class size, 11 classes, 11, 17, 25, 29, 30, 59, 60, 65 classification, 49, 56, 67, 101, 107 classified, 71 classroom, 14, 18, 25, 30, 33 classroom management, 14, 25, 30 classroom teachers, 18 classrooms, 14, 30 cluster, 65 clusters, 66 codes, 73 coercion, 118 cognition, 100, 103, 104, 126, 129, 130 cognitive, 100, 102, 103, 111, 112, 118, 119, 125 cognitive deficit, 112

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index cognitive deficits, 112 collaboration, 19 college students, 14 colleges, 18 Colorado, 23, 37, 96 colors, 72 Columbia University, 35 communities, 32, 102 community, 2, 3, 26, 28, 32, 33, 42, 47, 128 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), 1, 3, 4, 42 competence, 107, 117, 122, 126, 129 competition, 104 complexity, 2, 100 components, 6, 28, 70 comprehension, 26 concentration, 62, 111, 113 conceptual model, 100 conceptualizations, 48 confidence, 9, 25, 101, 111 conflict, ix, 25, 31, 105, 106, 116, 117, 119, 120, 126 conflict resolution, 25, 31 confrontation, 62, 116 Congestion, 40 construction, 56, 67 context, 47 continuity, 114 control, viii, 13, 17, 35, 44, 50, 55, 116, 126 coping, 98, 113, 124, 128, 130 coping strategies, 17 correlation, 13, 116 correlations, 120 courts, 18 crime, vii, 1, 3, 4, 8, 14, 35, 42, 48, 49, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 122, 125, 127 crimes, 7, 8, 9, 18, 45, 48, 58, 65, 66, 67, 73, 77, 84 criminal behavior, 6 criminality, 6 critical value, 69 criticism, 117 cross-sectional, viii, 44, 50, 59, 125 crying, 14, 59, 111 cues, 100

135

cultural differences, 10 CVS, 48, 65

D data collection, 56, 95, 110 data set, 53 decisions, 66 defense, 18, 112 deficits, 112 definition, 8, 47, 56, 66, 67, 107, 109 delinquency, 125, 126, 127 Denmark, 124 Department of Education, 6, 8, 38, 95 Department of Justice, 1, 42, 51, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63, 64, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 95, 96, 122 depressed, 34, 112, 124 depression, ix, 16, 32, 105, 106, 113, 114, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126 depressive symptoms, 123 destruction, 6, 17 detention, 7 devaluation, 18 dichotomy, 48, 101 diffusion, 9 discipline, 23 discomfort, 107 disorder, vii, 1, 3, 42 displacement, 12 distortions, 118 distress, 16, 103, 112, 114, 118, 119 domain, 120 domestic violence, 9 dominance, 52, 102, 108 download, 70 drinking, 33 drug dealing, 5 drugs, 66 dynamic systems, 128

E ears, 10, 11, 17

136

Index

ecology, 124, 126 economic status, 119 education, 6, 8, 36, 38, 66, 70, 95, 96, 103, 105, 107, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 130 educators, vii, 43, 46, 49, 62, 65 ego, 122 elementary school, 5, 10, 11, 16, 23, 122, 129 emergence, 130 emotional, 11, 25, 112, 115, 121 emotions, 17 empathy, 12, 13 employment, 53 energy, 21 England, 8, 11, 16, 18, 23, 36, 103, 109 enrollment, 31 environment, 11, 32, 102 equipment, 22 ERIC, 95, 127 ethnic groups, 109 ethnicity, 48, 52, 82, 109, 119 etiology, 117 Europe, 5, 11, 35 European Commission, 19, 35 evidence, ix, 70, 105, 107, 110, 113, 114, 116 evolution, 106 exaggeration, 50 exclusion, viii, 10, 22, 43, 44, 47, 51, 99 excuse, 25, 30 exercise, 4, 100 experimental design, 50 exposure, 113, 116

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

F factor analysis, 108 familial, ix, 105, 106, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121 family, ix, 52, 105, 115, 116, 120, 123, 124, 125 family relationships, 116, 120, 123 fear, viii, 3, 29, 44, 46, 49, 59, 65, 66, 121 feedback, 4 feelings, 60, 103 females, 126 Finland, 122

focusing, 14, 57, 65 food, 14 friends, 101, 114, 116, 117 friendship, 122 frustration, 14

G gangs, 45, 53, 64, 66, 72 gender, 10, 47, 100, 108, 111, 119, 123 gender differences, 108, 111 girls, ix, 10, 11, 16, 44, 47, 50, 51, 100, 108, 111, 119, 122 going to school, 112, 121 gossip, 10, 15 government, 3 grades, viii, 11, 13, 32, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 62, 64, 66, 71, 74, 81, 87, 113 graffiti, 66 Great Britain, 131 Greece, 99 group therapy, 26, 31 group variance, 70 groups, 3, 49, 65, 69, 101, 103, 109, 130 guidance, 20, 32, 95 guidance counselors, 32 guidelines, 22 guns, 18

H handling, vii, 1, 19, 25 hands, 113 harassment, viii, 6, 8, 25, 43, 120, 125, 129, 130 harm, vii, 1, 5, 14, 15, 16, 30, 60, 118 harmful, viii, 43, 48 harmful effects, 5 Harvard, 35 hate, 8, 18, 66 hate crime, 8, 18 health, 8, 16, 103, 113, 114, 131 health problems, 113 hearing, 18

Index height, 15 heterogeneity, 109 high school, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 23, 26, 66 high-level, 25 high-risk, 124 hip, 107 Hispanic, 11, 45, 51, 52, 70, 74, 75, 82, 109 Hispanic origin, 70, 75 Hispanics, 70 homogeneity, 52 hostility, 115 hot spots, 21, 22 house, 40 household, 48, 53, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 75, 82 household income, 48, 53, 64, 68, 71, 75, 82 households, 48, 65, 66, 67, 68 housing, 66 human development, 106 humiliation, 111 hygiene, 15 hypothesis, 115

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

I id, 8, 100 ideas, 117, 126 identification, 21 identity, 106 imagination, 17 imitation, 115 implementation, viii, 28, 99 impulsive, 13, 34 in situ, 112 incidence, 72, 123, 127 incidents, 14 inclusion, 108 income, 48, 52, 64, 68, 71, 75, 82 independent variable, 70 Indians, 71, 75 indicators, 52, 119 Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 36, 96 individual characteristics, 118 individual students, 14 infants, 123, 124 inferences, viii, 44, 50, 55, 68

137

influence, 106, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 126 inhibition, 127 initiation, 6 injuries, 8 injury, 73, 107 inmates, 7 insecurity, 17, 111, 115, 120 insight, 13 insomnia, 16 instruction, 30, 122 instruments, 18 intelligence, 12, 111 intentions, 101 interaction, 48, 101, 106, 108, 115, 119, 124, 125, 129 interactions, ix, 13, 63, 100, 101, 103, 105, 115, 117, 123, 124 interest, viii, 44, 50 intergenerational, 12 internalizing, 113, 117 Internet, 14, 15, 40 interparental conflict, 117 interpersonal relationships, 102, 103 interpretation, 49, 56, 67, 117 intervention, viii, 5, 12, 13, 14, 22, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 127, 128 interview, 44, 48, 66, 68, 110 interviews, 49, 67, 110 intimacy, 113 intimidation, 6, 17 introversion, 113 investment, 21 Ireland, 37, 123 irritability, 113 isolation, viii, 6, 10, 17, 22, 43, 47 Israel, 37

J January, 48, 66 Japan, 5, 8, 18 Japanese, 114, 126 judge, 35 jurisdiction, 2 jurisdictions, 9

138

Index

justice, 124 juvenile detention facilities, 7

K Kentucky, 8, 23 kindergarten, 129 knowledge, 120

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

L language, 15 large-scale, 8 law, 35 laws, 2, 3 lead, 16, 50, 59, 60, 67, 100, 120 learning, 11, 25, 113, 118, 121 life cycle, 126 life span, 127 lifestyles, 8 likelihood, 15, 119 limitations, viii, 44, 50, 67 Lincoln, 112, 125 linear, 69 links, 122 literature, 48, 57 location, 10, 24, 30 London, 12, 36, 37, 104, 123, 125, 126 loneliness, 112 longitudinal studies, 127 longitudinal study, 114, 116, 125, 126 long-term, viii, ix, 19, 99, 100, 113, 114, 119, 127, 128 Los Angeles, 14, 15, 35 love, 13, 125

M Machiavellianism, 101, 104 mainstream, 130 maintenance, 101, 106 majority group, 109 males, 125, 127 management, 14, 25, 30

manipulation, 104 marginalization, 102 marital conflict, ix, 105, 106, 116, 117, 119, 120, 126 markets, 5 maternal, ix, 105, 106, 115, 117, 119, 120 maturation process, 113 measurement, 107, 127 measures, 8, 20, 48, 53, 65, 66, 100, 101, 120, 121, 126 mediation, viii, 25, 31, 99, 124 mental health, 114 mental states, 13 messages, 14, 23 meta-analysis, 112 metacognitive, 126 metric, 101 middle schools, 5 Ministry of Education, 107 minority, 101, 109 modeling, 115, 118, 120 models, 70, 100, 115, 126 momentum, 23 money, 6, 17, 44, 48, 51, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63, 64, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 monitoring, 54, 126 mood, 126 mothers, 110, 123, 124, 126 motivation, 47 motor vehicle theft, 65, 73 mutual aggression, 108

N narcotics, 35 nation, 48, 62, 65 national, 35, 48, 65, 66, 127 National Center for Education Statistics(NCES), 43, 66, 70, 74, 95, 96 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 43, 44, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 95 NATO, 129

Index needs, 110, 130 negative consequences, viii, 99 Netherlands, 3, 18, 36, 109, 123, 125, 127, 129 network, 101 New York, 35, 36, 37, 96, 97, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 New Zealand, 3, 5 nonverbal, 48 normal, vii, 43 norms, 102 Norway, 5, 6, 18, 22, 107, 110

O obligation, 18 observations, 19, 108, 110, 116 offenders, 13, 21 Office of Justice Programs (OJJDP), 95, 96 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 96 online, 4, 14 organization, 102, 130 organizations, 3 orientation, 6

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

P Pacific Islanders, 71, 75 paper, ix, 37, 105, 106, 128 parameter, 69 parent-child, 13, 117, 120, 129 parenting, 116, 117, 119, 120 parents, vii, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 43, 46, 65, 115, 116, 117, 129 partnerships, 3 passive, 17, 34, 58, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 129 path analysis, 119 pathways, 129 peer, viii, ix, 3, 14, 25, 31, 47, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,

139

120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 peer group, 101, 102, 112, 115, 118, 119, 125, 128 peer influence, 121 peer rejection, 102, 124, 129 peer relationship, 115 peers, viii, 6, 11, 13, 15, 18, 25, 31, 46, 47, 52, 65, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 126, 127, 129, 130 penalties, 25 perception, 115, 130 perceptions, 48, 66, 103, 104, 114, 118, 120, 122, 125, 128, 129 performance, 49, 59 permit, 68, 110 personal, 120, 128, 130 personality, 104, 111, 113, 119, 120, 129 personality factors, 120 perspective, 106, 111, 118, 119, 128, 129, 131 persuasion, 118 philosophy, 3 phone, 14 physical aggression, 10, 22, 32, 47 physical health, 114 planning, viii, 99 play, 5, 15, 31, 34, 101, 111, 115, 116, 117, 118, 130 police, vii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 21, 23, 35, 42, 45, 48, 53, 64, 65, 72, 76, 83 policymakers, 66 poor, 13, 18, 32, 34, 62, 111 population, 7, 66, 68, 69, 109, 112 population size, 66 positive attitudes, 101, 103 positive regard, 115 postpartum, 124 posture, 15 power, 6, 15, 25, 31, 47, 107, 108, 118, 122 power relations, 107 praxis, 102 predictability, 126 prediction, 124 pre-existing, 119

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

140

Index

preference, 110 preschool, 126, 130 preschoolers, 116, 130 pressure, vii, 4 prevention, vii, 1, 14, 42, 127, 129 preventive, 66 primary school, 124, 131 private, 3, 44, 45, 53, 64 proactive, 102 probability, 69, 116 problem behaviors, 46 problem solving, 3, 101, 107 problem-solver, 3 procedures, 68, 69 production, 95 program, 32, 33, 127, 128 programming, 29 promote, 100, 102 property, 5, 6, 17, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 112 property owner, 5 proposition, 115, 116 protection, 46, 61, 63, 65, 81, 87 protective factors, 114 protective role, 114 provocation, 59 proximal, 100, 120 psychological, 47, 62, 96 psychologist, 15 psychology, 128 psychopathology, 123 psychotherapy, 124 PTA, 33 public, 3, 35, 44, 45, 53, 64 public safety, 3, 35 public schools, 53 punishment, 13, 100, 128 pupils, ix, 100, 101

Q questioning, 110 questionnaire, 48 questionnaires, 18, 107, 110, 119

R race, 11, 45, 48, 52, 70, 74, 82 random, 68, 69 range, 5, 18, 22, 48, 115 rape, 45, 56, 58, 65, 67, 77, 84 ratings, 110, 117, 127 reading, viii, 12, 44, 50, 55 recall, 49, 50, 67 recognition, 118 reduction, 22 regular, 33, 120 reinforcement, 118 reinforcers, 10 rejection, 44, 47, 51, 59, 102, 111, 124, 129 relationship, 13, 14, 17, 47, 52, 70, 101, 107, 109, 116, 117, 123, 124, 130 relationships, viii, 10, 44, 47, 50, 55, 102, 104, 113, 115, 116, 120, 123, 126, 129 religion, 11 replication, 122 representative samples, 119 reputation, 120 research, viii, ix, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 25, 26, 47, 49, 50, 52, 58, 59, 62, 65, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129 researchers, vii, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 25, 28, 43, 47, 52, 66, 100, 106, 107, 109, 110, 116, 117 residential, 53 resistance, 23 resolution, 25, 31, 47, 120 resources, 28, 33, 118 responsiveness, 115 retaliate, 59 retaliation, 9, 61, 118 risk, 24, 29, 30, 31, 56, 60, 101, 106, 111, 112, 118, 119, 120, 124, 125, 126, 128 risk factors, 106, 118, 119, 120, 126 risks, 25, 30 robberies, 73 robbery, 38, 39, 40, 45, 56, 58, 65, 77, 84 rural, 53

Index

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

S safety, vii, 3, 4, 5, 9, 72, 74 sample, 7, 48, 53, 57, 65, 68, 69, 70, 116, 124 sampling, 65, 68, 69, 128 sampling error, 68 sanctions, 33 Scandinavia, 3, 8, 11, 22, 109 scheduling, 29 school, vii, viii, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 school climate, 115 school community, 47 schooling, 102 scores, 14, 101, 121 SCS, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 search, 122 secondary education, 70 secondary schools, 23, 104, 109, 126, 131 secret, 9 Secret Service, 5, 38 security, vii, viii, 4, 44, 45, 50, 53, 55, 64, 72, 76, 83 self, 49, 50, 56, 62, 66, 67, 81, 87, 96, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 130 self-efficacy, 100, 101, 103 self-esteem, 16, 18, 26, 31, 32, 34, 101, 111, 113 self-perceptions, 114, 122 self-report, 13, 49, 50, 62, 108, 110, 119, 120, 126, 127 self-reports, 13, 49, 62, 110, 120 sensitivity, 121

141

separation, 116 series, 1, 2, 4, 20, 28, 42, 50, 67, 69, 70, 129 sex, 48, 64, 70, 74, 82, 108 sexual abuse, 6 sexual assault, 9, 45, 56, 58, 65, 67, 73, 77, 84 sexual contact, 73 sexual harassment, 6 sexual orientation, 6 shame, 9 shares, 7, 102 short-term, viii, 99, 113, 127 shy, 112 shyness, 127 sign, 31 signals, 59 significance level, 70 signs, 22, 25, 30, 34, 72, 118, 124 singular, 126 sites, 18 skill acquisition, 117 skills, viii, 13, 25, 30, 99, 102, 111, 117, 128 skills training, viii, 99, 128 skin, 15 sleep, 34 social, viii, 43, 44, 47, 51, 52, 59, 62, 63 social acceptance, 101 social anxiety, 113 social behavior, 33, 101, 117, 123, 130 social cognition, 100, 103, 129, 130 social competence, 107, 117, 126 social context, 115, 118 social development, 47 social environment, 102 social exclusion, 22, 44, 47, 51 social influence, 102 social isolation, viii, 10, 43, 47 social learning, 118, 121 social relationships, 10, 47 social sciences, 129 social situations, 111 social skills, 13, 102, 117 social status, 123 social structure, 52 social support, 112 socialization, 120, 130

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

142 socially, 49, 59 socioeconomic, 13, 52, 109 socioeconomic status, 52, 109 socio-emotional, 114 software, 68 solutions, 3, 124 South Carolina, 7 spectrum, 46 speech, 15 stability, 100, 110, 119 staffing, 24, 30 stages, 47, 118 standard error, 52, 68, 69, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87 standardization, 109 standards, 35 statistics, 68, 69, 70 stomach, 34 strategies, 3, 5, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 33, 110, 112, 126, 130 strength, 6, 15, 107 stress, 47, 113, 122 stress level, 113 student behavior, 49 student characteristics, viii, 44, 74, 82 students, vii, viii, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 99, 101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 122, 126, 130 subgroups, ix, 69, 99 suburban, 53 suicidal, 18 suicide, 16, 18 supervision, 14, 22, 33, 45, 53, 54, 55, 64, 72, 76, 83 supervisors, 14, 23, 24, 29 supplemental, 66 survey design, viii, 44, 50 suspensions, 26 Sweden, 97, 107 switching, 17 symbols, 72

Index sympathy, 34 symptoms, 18, 113, 114, 115, 119, 123, 131 systems, 128

T tactics, 3 tangible resources, 118 targets, 13, 17, 48, 109, 110, 111, 114, 122 Taylor series, 69 teacher instruction, 122 teachers, 7, 8, 9, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 110, 120, 128 teaching, 30 teenagers, 14 television, 104, 124 temporal, 100 theft, 6, 17, 23, 34, 45, 57, 58, 65, 73, 77, 84 theory, ix, 105, 106, 115, 120, 124, 128, 130 therapy, 26, 31 thinking, 9, 123 threat, 73 threatened, 49, 67 threatening, viii, 53, 99 threats, 8, 18, 59, 73 time, viii, 8, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 43, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 67, 70, 73, 99, 100, 103, 106, 107, 110, 118, 122 time frame, 8, 110 tolerance, 26, 31 tradition, 129 training, viii, 4, 25, 26, 30, 99, 115, 128 traits, ix, 105 transfer, 120 transition, 26, 47, 52 transitions, 120 trend, 69 truancy, 23, 59, 60 trust, 101, 113, 115

U underreported, vii, 5 United Kingdom, 3, 10

Index United States, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18, 22, 35, 36, 52, 109, 116, 125 universities, 18 university students, 114, 126 urban, 48, 53, 64 urbanicity, 48, 53, 64

V

Copyright © 2008. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

validation, 120 validity, 110 values, 69, 70, 102 vandalism, 23, 34 variability, 68, 69 variable, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 119 variables, viii, 44, 47, 48, 50, 56, 66, 67, 70, 73, 100, 101 variance, 70, 117 variation, 69, 119, 120 victim profiles, 114 victimization, viii, ix, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 72, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130 victims, viii, ix, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 99, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,

143

111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130 violence, vii, 4, 9, 13, 32, 33, 59, 66, 124, 125, 127 violent, 45, 56, 57, 58, 65, 67, 72, 73, 77, 84 violent behavior, 65 violent crime, 45, 56, 58, 67, 73, 77, 84 violent crimes, 45, 58, 67, 73, 77, 84 vulnerability, 5, 12, 109, 119, 120, 121

W Washington, 95, 96, 97 watches, 17 wealth, 42 weapons, 8, 46, 62, 63, 66, 73, 81, 87 web, 4, 14, 42, 70, 74 well-being, viii, 43, 46, 130 wetting, 113 White House, 35 withdrawal, 127, 129 witnesses, 8, 9, 20, 22, 26 words, 66, 106 workers, 32 workplace, 103 worry, 9

Y yield, 110, 116 young adults, 6