School Bullying and Marginalisation: Harmonising Paradigms 9811676755, 9789811676758

Citation preview

Rosalyn H. Shute Phillip T. Slee

School Bullying and Marginalisation Harmonising Paradigms

School Bullying and Marginalisation

Rosalyn H. Shute · Phillip T. Slee

School Bullying and Marginalisation Harmonising Paradigms

Rosalyn H. Shute College of Education, Psychology and Social Work Flinders University of South Australia Adelaide, SA, Australia

Phillip T. Slee College of Education, Psychology and Social Work Flinders University of South Australia Adelaide, SA, Australia

ISBN 978-981-16-7675-8 ISBN 978-981-16-7676-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

To our grandchildren, Ffion, Trystan and Bonnie Matilda. New beginnings.

Preface

As we were writing this book, Dan Olweus died. This Swedish-born researcher’s seminal work in Norway prompted forty years of research into school peer bullying that created awareness, in many countries, of the harms it inflicts on young people. Programs to address it have been devised, and although some have been relatively successful, bullying often proves quite resistant to prevention and intervention efforts. Our most recent book as co-editors addressed questions around how anti-bullying and other wellbeing programs for schools can become more effectively implemented. But even as educators and policy-makers have taken on board definitions of bullying put forward by researchers over past decades, we have a degree of discomfort. Although scientific journals demand tight definitions, when politicians suggest adopting them into legislation aimed at controlling bullying, we advise against it. And in society more generally, terms such as bullying and harassment are understood and used in different ways by different people, and those people may be struggling to work together to help prevent or solve children’s interpersonal difficulties and related psychological problems. If a behaviour does not meet an established definition, but is nevertheless causing distress, what are we to do? Where do aggression, sexual harassment, victimisation, teasing and banter fit in? Or racism, misogyny and violence? And don’t children, like adults, have the right to choose their own friends? In the midst of our efforts to promote positive peer relations between young people, in the interest of their wellbeing, it is depressing, at times, to observe some politicians, radio ‘shock jocks’, comedians, celebrities and football fans behaving towards others in exactly the ways we tell children are wrong. Are we fighting against the tide of human nature? We believe understanding of bullying will be enhanced by bringing together ideas from multiple disciplines such as evolutionary science, anthropology, philosophy, education, sociology, women’s studies, public health and psychology. Human rights and morality are issues that recur throughout the book, and systems thinking (complexity) is a unifying force. Research on bullying in the Olweus tradition, dominated by psychology, has been dubbed paradigm 1 by a more recent band of Nordic scholars, many with backgrounds in fields such as sociology and philosophy, who have encouraged a vii

viii

Preface

move to paradigm 2. This calls for a shift of focus from individuals involved in bullying towards a consideration of group processes of marginalisation as central. We have found their reflections inspirational, leading us to look for ways to unify concepts from both paradigms and resulting in the Integrated Bullying Framework that we put forward in this book. En route to building this framework, we go back to first principles concerning human relationships. The introductory chapter examines different views about what bullying is and how it should be researched, while the subsequent chapters are organised into four parts. Part I, Broadening our Theoretical Perspectives on Bullying, comprises four chapters. Chapter 2 takes an evolutionary perspective on the formation and functioning of human groups and overviews how the mind develops in social and cultural context. This leads to a consideration of the place of competition and cooperation in human societies, and the role of the self in the evolution of social behaviour (Chap. 3). Next, we examine the paradigm 2 critique of the established tradition of bullying research, which moves us from an individualised to a group-based perspective that is based on marginalisation and that embraces bullying and other forms of unkindness (Chap. 4). This leads us to ask whether there is still a place for individual and family factors as causative for bullying and to address the matter of functionality in individuals’ behaviour (Chap. 5). Part II, Processes of Marginalisation, begins with the crucial role of identity and related psychological processes in marginalising others, including in school bullying specifically (Chap. 6). In Chap. 7, we focus on some social behaviours such as gossiping that help us to manage our group belonging. Chapter 8 shifts us to the position of those who experience marginalisation, to examine its harmful effects, adding perspectives from social psychological and neuropsychological theories and research. This is followed by a discussion of how the marginalised respond by using a range of coping strategies, and we consider whether resilience is a helpful concept (Chap. 9). Part III, New Understandings to Guide Action, opens with a discussion in Chap. 10 of factors that have made bullying a current global concern and the lessons that can be drawn from some recent international efforts to identify ways of making bullying programs more effective; we also present an Australian case study to exemplify how some of those factors have come into play in a changing landscape regarding bullying over the past thirty years. In Chap. 11, we reflect on bullying as being a moral issue. Chapter 12 introduces systemic perspectives, laying the groundwork for our Integrated Bullying Framework in Chap. 13; this brings together insights from a broad range of literatures to offer a new, comprehensive and dynamic understanding of social marginalisation and bullying that is inclusive of forms of unkindness that fall outside traditional definitions of bullying, such as sexual harassment and racism. Part IV, Taking Action: Towards Complexity, comprises three chapters that put forward ideas for practice. Chapters 14 and 15 focus on ways in which complex systems thinking can be applied to the development of bullying research, policy, practice and program evaluation, while the final chapter puts forward some further creative ideas for practice in a number of areas: bias-based bullying, policy,

Preface

ix

morality-based methods, the use of the arts in interventions and teacher education about bullying. This has not been an easy exercise for us, as authors. This was not just because the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with health and family issues to create a very challenging context for collaborating on the book. It was also because at times we brought to the (virtual) table differences in understandings and philosophy that, at times, made us wonder whether it would be better to write two separate (singleauthored!) books. This is despite the fact that we both come from the discipline of psychology and have a history together of effective collaboration as authors and editors. However, the conundrums we faced lie at the very heart of issues that need to be worked through by anyone entertaining the prospect of taking new approaches to bullying and collaborating with researchers from other disciplines. So we persisted, working through our differences, and this book is the result. We sincerely thank Grace Ma and her colleagues at Springer Nature for helping to bring this project to fruition and two anonymous reviewers for their encouraging and helpful comments. We hope the book will be of value to anyone interested in the wellbeing of young people, whether academic researchers, policy-makers, educators, legislators, university students or the interested general reader. We have adopted a readable style that assumes little background knowledge and have used an unobtrusive referencing style, but the book is firmly based on the academic literature. It is well referenced but does not purport to provide a comprehensive overview of research on bullying. Our aim, rather, is to inject new thinking into the field. With tens of thousands of publications to draw upon, we have necessarily been highly selective, providing examples only that illustrate the concepts under consideration, and we have inevitably omitted many valuable contributions to the field. Most studies cited are from peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books and reports, but we are very aware that many readers will not want to access that degree of detail. We have therefore also included links to some articles by scholars that are aimed at a general readership, as well as to illustrative news items and even the odd blog, video and podcast; our apologies for any that disappear from access in future. Being Australian citizens (and Rosalyn being British born), instances from our home countries are well represented, but research and examples from around the world are featured. We use the terms boys, girls and students (known as ‘pupils’ in some countries) to include children and adolescents attending schools. We generally refer in broad terms to preschool and primary schools (approximate ages 4–10) and secondary schools (the latter including establishments variously known as middle schools, high schools, colleges or academies that cater for young people up to the age of about 18). We use Australian spelling, which is similar to British, and have provided a glossary of colloquial expressions to assist readers for whom English is not their first language. We aim for a friendly feel by referring to ourselves as authors by our first names and by providing some personal stories of our own, as well as many examples from others. We trust that we have therefore avoided the production of a book of the sort

x

Preface

that social psychologist Michael Billig has critiqued as focusing so much on theory that it becomes a ‘human-free zone’.1 In writing this book, our overarching aim has been to put forward ideas that may ultimately contribute positively to the wellbeing of young people. Rosalyn has particularly appreciated the opportunity to explore theoretical novelty and integration, following many years of relevant teaching, research and practice in the fields of child development, peer victimisation, clinical child psychology and girls’ wellbeing. Phillip, a trained teacher as well as an academic, has a passion for the translation of research into policy and practice; he has drawn upon his extensive experience in bullying research and in devising and evaluating programs promoting peaceful schools and in advising governments. We have both been stretched by looking into research methods based on the concepts of complex adaptive systems theory. We hope our united ideas will help to carry the field forward. Adelaide, SA, Australia August 2021

1

Rosalyn H. Shute Phillip T. Slee [email protected]

Billig, M. (2020). Marie Jahoda—the ultimate example. The Psychologist, November 2020, pp. 42– 48, p. 42.

Contents

1

What is Bullying, Anyway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scientific Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards a New Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I

1 3 4 7 8 12

Broadening our Theoretical Perspectives on Bullying

2

The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Social Brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Developing Social Brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building a Social Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Connectedness and Wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 20 22 23 26 28 29

3

Competition, Cooperation and the Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competition and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution, Self and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 39 41 42

4

Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objections to Paradigm 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradigm 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Japanese Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indirect Aggression as Marginalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct Aggression as Marginalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sexual Harassment as Marginalisation (and an Example of Bias-Based Bullying) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 48 51 52 53 55 57

xi

xii

5

Contents

Popularity Contests and Marginalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 62 63

Individual and Family Factors—Do They Still Have a Role in Bullying? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual and Family Factors: The Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individuals and Groups: Not Either-Or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual Factors and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 69 70 73 74 75 76

Part II

Processes of Marginalisation

6

The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Identity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullying Research Based on Social Identity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 82 88 89 92 93

7

Gossip, Reputations and Laughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Gossip and Reputation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Deception, Self-deception and Moral Disengagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Bullying is No Laughing Matter (or Is It?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

8

Being Marginalised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stigma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Homo Sacer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullying as a Stressor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109 110 112 113 114 116 117 119 120

9

Coping and Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping Strategies and Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marginalising Others as Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping-Based Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 125 129 130 131 132 134 135

Contents

xiii

Part III New Understandings to Guide Action 10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gandhi’s Philosophy of Non-violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highlights from the UNICEF and OECD Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors in Effective National Responses: UNESCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustrating the UNESCO Key Factors: An Australian Case Study . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141 142 143 145 146 148 154 155

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leading the ‘Good Life’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theories of Moral Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feminist Theory and the Morality of Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Perspectives on Bullying and Morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Help or Not to Help? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moral Disengagement: How Can Good People Do Bad Things? . . . . . . . Empathy as a Moral Emotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosocial Behaviour and Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 160 162 163 166 168 170 173 174 176 178

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradigm 2 Approaches to Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Systems Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Open Systems Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schools as Ecological Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complex Systems Modelling of Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dixon’s Application of Systems Thinking to School Bullying . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 184 185 185 187 189 191 193 195 197 198

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework . . . . . . . . The Integrated Bullying Framework: A Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Broad Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marginalisation Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullying and Complexity: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

203 204 207 207 211 217 218 219 221 222

xiv

Contents

Part IV Taking Action: Towards Complexity 14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Makes an Effective Program? Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schools and Bullying as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Wellbeing in a CAS Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A CAS Approach to Leadership for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAS-Based General Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rosas’ CAS Approach to Health-Promoting Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principles for Action (Søndergaard and the IBF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229 230 235 238 239 240 242 242 244 245 246 246

15 Practising in the Social Jungle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complex Systems Research Designs and Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agent-Based (Computerised) Modelling (ABM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equation-Based Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vortical Postmodern Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixed Methods and CAS Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intervention Methods Based on CAS Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Support Group Method (SGM): A Peer Group-Based Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multi-systemic Therapy (MST): Intervention with a Focus on the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School-Based Mental Health Services: A Family Systems Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An ‘Anthropologist’ in the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two CAS-Informed Case Studies of Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case-Study 1: A School-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case-Study 2: A Gendered Violence Intervention in a School . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251 251 251 252 253 254 254 256

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addressing Bias-Based Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prejudice Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addressing Gendered Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unconscious Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptualising Bullying in Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morality-Based Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

267 267 267 270 273 274 276

256 259 259 260 261 261 262 263 264

Contents

Webber’s Moral Philosophy Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-affirmation in Bullying Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Sociocultural Perspective on Shared Affective Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . The Arts as a Route to Addressing School Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

276 277 279 280 286 288 288

Glossary of Colloquial Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

About the Authors

Rosalyn H. Shute has a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Psychology from the University of London and a Ph.D. from the University of Wales, and is Chartered Psychologist in the UK, where she held a number of academic posts before migrating to Australia thirty years ago. She holds Adjunct Professorship in the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University in South Australia, where she was a member of the academic staff (faculty) for thirteen years, coordinating postgraduate programs in clinical and educational psychology, as well as providing hospital-based paediatric psychology services. She was then Professor and Director of Psychology at the University of Ballarat (now Federation University) for several years. She has published widely in areas related to the wellbeing of young people, particularly psychosocial aspects of chronic illness, vision care, peer helping and school peer victimisation. She and Phillip Slee have co-authored and co-edited numbers of books together, including Mental Health and Wellbeing through Schools (Routledge, 2016) and Child Development: Theories and Critical Perspectives (Routledge, 2015). Her work often aims to unite modern and postmodern perspectives, as in her 2018 book Clinical Psychology and Adolescent Girls in a Postfeminist Era (Routledge). Most recently, she was invited to write the chapter on school-based mindfulness programs for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Phillip T. Slee (B.Ed., Ph.D.) is Professor in Human Development in the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, and is also a trained teacher and registered psychologist. He has published extensively in the field of child development, bullying, school violence and stress, and has produced educational resources in the form of videos and resource packages. He has presented his work nationally and internationally in workshops and lectures. Presently, he is undertaking a number of international research projects on the topic of school violence with researchers from Japan, Korea and China.

xvii

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 13.1 Fig. 14.1

Girls’ indirect aggression (from Owens et al. [26]) . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of morality and moral emotions. (Adapted from Grey and Wegner [61]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic representation of the Integrated Bullying Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft Systems Methodology, adapted from Checkland and Scholes [61] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 172 208 243

xix

Chapter 1

What is Bullying, Anyway?

Amy ‘Dolly’ Everett was a little girl from the country whose smiling face was familiar from advertisements for the famous Australian Akubra hat. A few years later, aged fourteen, she took her own life, after being subjected to unbearable bullying. Did this news shock the cyberbullies into empathy for their victims and understanding of the devastating impact that their behaviour can have? Just a few days later, a father reported the latest anonymous Snapchat message that his own daughter had received: ‘Why don’t you just go cut your wrist until you bleed out. You’ll do everyone a favour. Go do what Dolly did it should’ve been you not her’ [1]. Teenage friends, not just enemies, sometimes tell one another that they wish they would ‘drown’ or ‘die in a car crash’ but see it as a joke. This was reported in a major international study carried out across eleven countries [2], co-ordinated by our colleague Grace Skrzypiec. She and her co-researchers observed that some students appear not to know the difference between ‘bullying’ and ‘banter’ [3]. Grace’s team had carefully designed their questionnaire so that it would be possible to assess whether the behaviours the students reported would meet a ‘standard’ definition of bullying, based on the seminal Scandinavian work of Dan Olweus (1931–2020) [4]. The criteria are that bullying is: • • • • •

aggression that is repeated intentional harmful by a person or group with greater power than the victim.

Whether such a definition should be provided to study participants is debated, and the researchers elected not to do so in that study. As Grace and Mirella Wyra point out, even given a specific definition, most people have their own ideas about what bullying is and are unlikely to easily shift their mindset [5]—something previously observed by researcher into disability and difference, Roz Dixon [6]. The definition of bullying that underpinned Grace and her co-researchers’ study is broadly accepted,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_1

1

2

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

with variations [7], and has served well for several decades [4]. A succinct version is ‘the repeated delivery of aversive stimuli to weaker, less powerful persons’ [8]. It has helped to foster common understanding within a body of research into an important social issue that was hitherto unacknowledged, raising the public profile of the problem and encouraging the development of prevention and intervention programs. The definition is nevertheless recognised as presenting difficulties. Grace and Mirella ask what we should do if the troublesome behaviour lacks one criterion. For example, maybe it was a one-off incident, but hurtful all the same. Do we then dismiss it because it is ‘not bullying’? Another vexed question concerns the level of cognitive development needed in order to aggress with intention to harm. Furthermore, as discussed in a roundtable to which Phillip and Grace contributed, how can intentionality be determined? One outcome of the roundtable was a suggestion that a helpful concept might be the legal one of what ‘the reasonable person’ would believe [9]. Young people themselves who have learned the Olweus definition may scribble ‘corrections’ on questionnaires provided by researchers seeking to broaden the subject matter or, conversely, complain that the researchers’ questions omit some issues that they deem relevant [10]. If they are regarded as unreliable reporters of their own experiences, and provided with adult-defined definitions of bullying, then the full range and depth of their knowledge will remain untapped [11]. We have tried to ensure that the voices of young people are heard in the following pages. Grace and Mirella suggest, and we agree with them, that it is time for a rethink. Rosalyn has for some time been encouraging colleagues to cross the theoretical boundaries of the bullying, aggression and sexual harassment literatures [12, 13], while Phillip, after many years of developing anti-bullying programs for schools, has concluded that what it all boils down to, in the end, is the quality of human relationships. One brief definition accepts this: ‘a systematic abuse of power in a relationship formed at school’ [9]. Those from Spanish-speaking cultures have no word for bullying, but speak of convivencia, or ‘living together’ in a network of relationships, in a harmonious fashion [14]. We do not spend much time in this book reciting numerous facts and figures about bullying: that has been more than adequately covered in many other publications. Furthermore, such figures may exclude other types of unkindness that have much in common with bullying and, indeed, may be considered to constitute bullying in some circumstances. Suffice it to say that bullying and allied phenomena in schools are commonplace around the world, with ‘traditional’ (offline) bullying more prevalent than cyberbullying, although the two are related [15, 16]. The question of why the bullying phenomenon is now a global concern is something we touch on in a later chapter. We hope this book will offer food for thought about how we think about bullying and how we might do things differently, and more effectively, to promote the wellbeing of all young people. As philosopher Michel Foucault said in his Berkeley lecture in 1983:

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

3

The history of thought is the analysis of the way an unproblematic field of experience becomes a problem, raises discussions and debate, incites new reactions and induces crisis in the previously silent behavior, habits, practices and institutions. It is the history of the way people become anxious, for example about madness, about crime, about themselves or about truth. [17]

Scientific Thinking We authors both have a background in psychology, a discipline that has been at the forefront of bullying research and that keenly adheres to the traditions of western scientific thought. This is generally traced back to Thales of Miletus (approximately 624-545 BCE), the first philosopher in the Greek tradition, who turned away from mythology as an explanation for natural phenomena [18]. While his theories may have been erroneous in many respects (he believed that the earth was flat and floating on a vast body of water), his efforts meant that ideas could now be proposed and tested. Another major turning point was the book The Advancement of Learning, by English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon (1561–1626) [19]. He separated science from theology and emphasised induction (as opposed to deduction) to develop laws which could then be tested by being applied in various circumstances (‘British empiricism’, as contrasted with the rationalist, or reasoning, approach of French philosopher René Descartes, 1596–1650). Changes in the development of the ‘scientific method’ arose during the seventeenth century, drawing forth protocols for systematic experimentation as a newly emergent paradigm for advancing knowledge and understanding. Accompanying a gradual acceptance of the new paradigm by the general scientific community were developments in the understanding of the role that scientists played in the process, in the privileging of evidence to support theorising and placing an emphasis on experiment and/or observation to generate data (this would become known as positivism). A superlative example is the painstaking work of Englishman Charles Darwin (1809–1882) at his family home in the Kent village of Down, following his return from five years of discovery aboard HMS Beagle. Although struggling with the theological implications, he drew together his scientific theory based upon carefully planned experiments and rigorous field evaluations. Although Darwin claimed to use Baconian inductive reasoning (to avoid any accusations of having biased, preconceived ideas), he in fact gave a pre-eminent role to theory-testing [20]. In a delightful book, Darwin’s Garden, Michael Boulter wrote that, ‘Darwin believed that scientific inquiry could unlock secrets of evolutionary biology. He, supreme of his generation, was determined to stick to the path leading to some reasoned scientifically testable explanations of life on earth’ [21]. Simply put, the scientific method is a procedure that has characterised natural science for the past four hundred years, consisting of systematic observation, measurement and experiment, and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses. Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are both used in a cyclical fashion [22]. The discipline of psychology was established in the late nineteenth

4

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

century, and most who work within the field today have inherited this scientific worldview, with a strong emphasis on positivism, objectivity and quantification of data. Indeed, there is now a strong movement in the direction of biological/neurological explanations for psychological phenomena as psychology strives to be accepted as a science, preferably a ‘hard’ one, as such sciences are granted greater status in society [23, 24]. However, Peter Allen has argued strongly that it is inappropriate for social sciences to attempt to emulate a scientific ‘hardness’ based on repeatability, as humans (and, indeed other organisms) co-evolve and learn in relation to each other and their environments, so that repeatability cannot be taken for granted [25]. Nevertheless, a pattern of failure to replicate findings has recently been judged as a ‘crisis’ for psychology, to be addressed by tighter application of the scientific method [26]. Some have similarly said that when anti-bullying programs prove ineffective, the answer is to implement and evaluate them with greater scientific rigour. While some psychology researchers are motivated by a desire to address social justice causes (of which bullying may be considered one), others believe that any ‘political’ involvement by scientists themselves is a risk to objectivity [27]. Some have argued for methodological pluralism, and for teaching psychology students about the history of the discipline and alternative epistemologies, but this is not widely done. There is a field of ‘critical psychology’, as exemplified by the work of Erica Burman [28], but it has remained rather niche and the discipline in general is not very self-reflective, we believe [29]. We see the influence of the positivist scientific paradigm reflected in diverse fields of social science research and evaluation, including in the area of school bullying. Research into this phenomenon has focused, in the main, on producing a complexity of empirical findings, with relatively little effort expended on theoretical integration [30]. Furthermore, a new enthusiasm for evidence-based approaches to public policy around the turn of the millennium gave a fresh lease of life and purposefulness to ‘preoccupations with measurement, traditional worries regarding reliability and validity, and other concerns captured within quantitative methodology’ [31]. This strong focus on the generation of quantitative ‘hard data’ which are ‘out there’ just awaiting discovery, to investigate phenomena, renders qualitative research approaches as second best. Qualitative designs are seen as unable to yield reliable, factual data, and as not matching up to the experimental approach [32]. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is deemed the gold standard quantitative methodology for evaluating prevention and intervention programs, with fallback positions filled by quasi-experimental designs. We will have cause to return to this issue.

Paradigms In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn introduced the notion of the ‘paradigm shift’, a term that has become widely used in public discourse and no doubt been the subject of much over-claiming [33]. A line of reasoning underpinning mainstream western scientific thinking, based

Paradigms

5

on both empiricist and rationalist philosophical traditions, is that science advances in a steady cumulative fashion as new knowledge and insight are gained by means of applying the scientific method. Kuhn introduced the idea that such periods of ‘normal science’ are interrupted by periods of ‘revolutionary science’, in which communities of authorities in a particular field are pushed into uncertainty, as captured by Foucault’s later description of the history of thought in general. Kuhn proposed that when anomalies are identified by a community of researchers that they are unable to solve through normal, gradual puzzle-solving, then a crisis arises that is resolved by a change in worldview. In 2006, Ian Sanderson commented that, ‘The contemporary pace and character of technological and social change has generated a climate of uncertainty in which traditional ways of thinking about social systems and processes of social change have been fundamentally challenged’ [34]. He was picking up on the writings of Gregoire Nicolis and Ilya Prigogine who, in 1989, had called attention to an emerging view of the world as one of instabilities and fluctuations that give rise to the richness of forms that exist in nature [35]. Views of the world, including the social world, in terms of complex systems were thus seriously challenging the linear thinking of science, even as public policy was demanding more ‘hard data’. Bullying research has been dominated by psychology and western scientific thought for many decades, but researchers from other disciplines are gaining a more prominent role and claiming the need for a new paradigm that embraces complexity and non-linearity. This is occurring at a time when there is something akin to a crisis regarding anti-bullying interventions. Meta-analytic reviews have drawn attention to a range of results, from modest reductions in bullying and being victimised in the order of 20–35%, to small but non-significant positive changes, to negative (harmful) impacts [36, 37]. Questions have therefore been raised about the morality of the entire anti-bullying enterprise [38]. Young people themselves also have a crucial part to play in changing our entrenched views about bullying and cyberbullying. Jette Kofoed and Elisabeth Staksrud have argued that it is incumbent on researchers to listen to young people’s own voices and change our terminologies and definitions accordingly [10]. Our purpose in this book is to give serious consideration to both the familiar paradigm 1 approach and suggestions that it is time to move on to a new paradigm. This proposal has been promoted by researchers in fields such as sociology, who take a very different philosophical position from that underpinning psychological science. Postmodernism views knowledge as not ‘out there’ to be discovered, but as constructed by human thought, and thus influenced by history, politics and culture. It concerns perspective rather than truth. Claims to scientific objectivity are seen as naïve, while scientists, by contrast, are disturbed by the loss of certainty and stability that constructivist views entail. However, constructivism is not completely alien to the field of psychology, with George Kelly’s influential 1955 book putting forward the idea that individuals develop changeable ‘personal constructs’ through which they make meaning of the world [39]. Kelly’s theory has been described as straddling the modern–postmodern divide and pointing out that ‘people—even scientists––are always engaging the world from a point of view’ [40]. The different

6

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

worldviews of scientists and postmodern thinkers are difficult to reconcile and can lead to bitter argument. For example, in 2007 the eminent Italian population geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza wrote that postmodernists are ‘enemies of science’ [41], deriding the influential French philosopher Jacques Derrida for sitting on a bronze statue of a horse to create a photograph opportunity, when both men were receiving honorary doctorates from Cambridge University; he also managed to create some doubt over whether the degree was deserved. Another example, heard at a sociological presentation on bullying, was the traditional bullying researcher who said, ‘At least we put forward hypotheses’. As we have written elsewhere [42], there have been some philosophical efforts to cross the boundaries of science and postmodernism, and although as authors we come from the discipline of psychology, we urge that minds be kept open to the insights offered by alternative viewpoints. What can we learn from these two approaches, and can they even be brought together to move the field forward? In seeking to reconcile the two worldviews, we may have some philosophical assistance by considering complexity theory, specifically the notion of ‘grey systems’, as recently discussed by Ehsan Javanmardi and colleagues. They suggest that grey systems theory can be regarded as a postmodern theory, with its origins in classical Chinese philosophy that views the world as a complex of interrelationships and feedback cycles [43]. These authors also draw upon the highly influential 1970s theory of Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan that proposed the existence of four sociological paradigms with different philosophical foundations, varying along two dimensions: objectivity versus subjectivity, and stability (which they called ‘regulation’) versus radical change, thus forming four quadrants. The two quadrants of particular interest to us here are the opposing ones of subjectivity/radical change and objectivity/stability. The subjectivity/change quadrant is classified as radical humanist and is where postmodernism lies. The Javanmardi team therefore places grey systems theory there, as a form of postmodernism, in emphasising change, pluralism and diversity. The diametrically opposite quadrant (‘functionalism’) is characterised by objectivism and stability, is rooted in positivism and sees knowledge as discoverable. Much of psychological science would be placed here, with some psychologists specifically arguing that psychological research is about discovering what ‘is’, not what ‘ought to be’. However, some strands of social psychology, at least, arose from a radical humanist tradition [43], and the field of critical psychology would also be placed in the subjectivity/radical change quadrant. As we observed previously, there are different views within the discipline about the role of psychology in social justice. Academics from various social science disciplines do not necessarily have a strong sense of how their own paradigm relates to others, but may take its approaches for granted and defend them as morally correct in the face of alternatives, sometimes, it has been said, with almost religious fervour [44]. The four paradigms were originally seen as irreconcilable, but that has been questioned more recently [44], including by grey systems theorists. In placing grey systems theory into the radical humanist paradigm, Javanmardi and colleagues see it as high on subjectivity and with change and conflict ubiquitous. All systems, they say, can be seen as ‘grey’ since human knowledge about their inputs,

Paradigms

7

outputs and internal structure is necessarily incomplete (though we can note that knowledge of some types is relatively greater) [45]. Understanding may be changed by more information, they suggest, but a system can never be fully understood, and this is compatible with the postmodern standpoint that there is no absolute truth. Postmodernism, they propose, offers science the novel possibility of being open to ambiguity and disorder. People will differ in their views about the nature of knowledge and how it is to be gained, and tolerance and open-mindedness are therefore called for, with multiple solutions to problems possible, offering flexibility. We can relate this to Kelly’s concept of the ‘range of convenience’, whereby our personal constructs, or theories for viewing the world, are more suited to some contexts than others and can be adapted in the light of experience. According to the Javanmardi paper, both quantitative and qualitative methods can assist in gaining information in order to optimise solutions, and knowledge is always open to criticism, change, improvement and rejection. Grey systems theory, as postmodern, can embrace all four Burrell and Morgan paradigms for gaining knowledge as different, but without any one having a claim to provide the ‘correct’ answer to a problem. Although classical, positivist science can be seen as the polar opposite of radical humanism, it is not dismissed by grey systems theory, but is seen as one way in which useful, functional knowledge can be obtained. This suggests that our efforts to bring together knowledge gained from two different bullying paradigms are not necessarily a fool’s errand. Before leaving this section, we should comment on Burrell and Morgan’s use of the term ‘functionalism’ to describe the objectivism/stability paradigm. This was a reference to mid-twentieth century systems-based sociological theories about the maintenance of social stability and order. These are now largely considered defunct [46], in part because of their very lack of attention to societal conflict and change, although it is to the particulars of such theories, not to systemic theorising itself, that such criticism is appropriately directed [47]. We consider functionalism to be a very useful concept and will have more to say about it, and about systems thinking, in later chapters.

Children’s Rights Alongside the increasing profile of school bullying in recent decades, there has been a greater recognition of children’s human rights, with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child now ratified by all countries except the USA [48]. Taking a ‘rights’ perspective to school bullying has not gone unchallenged [38], and there are sometimes claims that such human rights instruments represent western values and interests, but a strong case can be made that they are universal [49]. Children’s rights include security of the person and freedom from inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment. There has been a shift of ethos in many schools in various countries, over a relatively short space of time, from authoritarian regimes that readily dished out corporal punishment, to those that address bullying and that

8

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

care for students’ psychological wellbeing (this is often mandated by governments or education authorities). Phillip knows what it is like, as an Australian primary school student, to be regularly on the receiving end of a teacher’s cricket bat (shoving a protective textbook down his pants earned him an extra whack). Rosalyn’s husband too (rather proudly) received ‘the slipper’ on his backside nine times as a primary school student in the UK in the 1950s; a decade later, as a stand-in music teacher in a secondary school, he was appalled by the brutal spectacle of a boy being caned. This was also a common experience in those days for boys in the ‘posh’ British public schools, who would be given ‘six of the best’ for misdemeanours. By the time Rosalyn’s children were in a Welsh primary school in the 1980s, one of their teachers was suspended for simply pulling a misbehaving child by the ear (corporal punishment was banned in British state schools in 1987, but not in all private schools until 2003) [50]. Yet in the USA around the same time, it was possible for a sports teacher to orchestrate boys in humiliating a naked boy into doing press-ups for accidentally taking an extra towel after swim class: the chant each time his face rose from the disgusting shower-room floor was ‘1 Faggot … 2 Faggot … 3 Faggot …’ [51]. Those of the Baha’i faith who have fled persecution in present-day Iran report that teachers vilify and encourage the bullying of Baha’i students [52]. Until quite recent times, it was also not unusual for teachers in Japan to hit and kick students, not as formal punishment, but as random acts of violence that even resulted in an occasional student death [53]. The country was finally shocked into action by the suicide of a student whose peer bullying, including the staging of a mock funeral for him, was aided and abetted by teachers [54]. With growing recognition of children’s rights, the culture of schools in many countries has changed. As the harmfulness of bullying has become understood, many school-based prevention and intervention programs have now been designed and evaluated around the world although, as just noted, their success has been very modest [55]. We will expand on the question of children’s rights in Chap. 10.

Towards a New Paradigm The dominant view of bullying, in terms of individual bullies and victims and their psychological characteristics, has been increasingly complemented by more complex understandings. Ecological perspectives are now commonly taken that include consideration of the part that teachers and the broader community play in maintaining or reducing school bullying. For example, a teacher’s own social and emotional competences play a crucial role in their interactions with students, and a decrease in teacher apathy (as judged by students) significantly lowers the odds of a child engaging in bullying [56, 57]. In the mid-1980s (as summarised by Yuichi Toda), Yohji Morita and Kenji Kiyonaga characterised ijime (Japanese-style school bullying) in terms of a relationship problem involving various participants [54]. Christina Salmivalli’s later Finnish research similarly identified various roles played by students in peer group bullying, such as bystanders and supporters of

Towards a New Paradigm

9

bullies or victims, and her work has had a strong impact in terms of considering how bystanders can be brought into play in interventions [58]. However, understanding of why bullying happens has continued to be largely based on the characteristics of individuals [59]. The following alternative definition of bullying was proposed some years ago by psychiatrist Stuart Twemlow and colleagues, though it has not been widely adopted: … the repeated exposure of an individual or group to negative interactions (social aggression) by one or more dominant persons. The person(s) enjoys the discomfort and shame of the victim as if in a sadomasochistic ritual enacted for the perverse public enjoyment of an audience of bystanders who do nothing and may vicariously be aroused as bullies or victims. [60]

This psychoanalytically inspired version includes the original elements (though intentionality is only implicit) and adds bystanders to the mix. It also captures the sheer emotionality of bullying, including the shame of victims, though ‘discomfort’ is perhaps too mild a term to capture a teenager’s distress on receiving anonymous death messages. This definition seems to steer our understanding of bullying in a more human (or, perhaps, inhumane) direction. Some of the work beyond psychology has also prompted us to broaden our perspectives. For example, we were very inspired by sociologist Neil Duncan’s research in UK schools in the 1990s [61]. It was qualitative, in depth and close to the action, and helped create an understanding of the meaning of bullying behaviours to young people, in keeping them in their strictly gendered social places. Duncan coined the useful term ‘sexual bullying’ that has helped to create paths across disciplinary boundaries and differently flavoured forms of unkindness. Duncan’s later edited book with Ian Rivers was compiled in this spirit [62]. They pointed out the existence of two schools of thought about bullying that do not necessarily recognise themselves as such: the individual and collectivist models. In their 2014 book, Danish researchers Robin May Schott (a philosopher) and Dorte Marie Søndergaard (a social psychologist) went further in rethinking bullying, in terms of ontology (what bullying is) and epistemology (the concepts necessary to create knowledge about it) [63]. They remind us that a definition can have real-life consequences, for example, when policy-makers decide to use it for codification, such as in developing accreditation schemes for anti-bullying programs: what is, and is not, legitimated? Further, as Nina Hein has said, ‘Written definitions of bullying seem to be employed as a tool to sort out who can and who cannot be recognised and acknowledged as a ‘proper’ victim of bullying’ [64]. Schott and Søndergaard’s new approach necessitates a move from a heavy reliance on the quantitative research methods that characterise the field of psychology, towards qualitative methods, such as those adopted by Duncan and Hein. They regard the traditional, individual-focused way of conceptualising bullying as paradigm 1 and suggest that it is time to move on to paradigm 2 (Duncan and Rivers’ ‘collectivist model’), about which we will have much more to say in due course. For now, we can note that while they see the advantages of definitions, Schott and Søndergaard are

10

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

also concerned about the artificial constraints these can place on advancing understanding of phenomena. Somewhat cautiously, they put forward the following lengthy definition: Bullying is an intensification of the processes of marginalisation that occur in the context of dynamics of inclusion/exclusion, which shape groups. Bullying happens when physical, social or symbolic exclusion becomes extreme, regardless of whether such exclusion is experienced and/or intended. One of the central mechanisms of bullying is social exclusion anxiety, which may be alleviated by the production of contempt. This contempt for someone or something may be expressed by behaviour that, for example, humiliates, trivialises or makes a person feel invisible, involves harm to person or property, abuses social-media profiles or disseminates humiliating messages via technological communication. Although some members of the social group may experience these marginalising processes as positive, robbing an individual(s) of the social recognition that is necessary for dignity can be a form of psychic torture for those who are targeted. [65]

Now, that is not an explanation that could be provided in a questionnaire! It moves us further along the definitional path, from initially thinking of bullying primarily in terms of the behaviour of perpetrators, through recognition of bullies’ enjoyment and victim shame and discomfort, to a complex, dynamic social understanding in which the outcome for victims can sometimes be equated to torture. Suicide does not then seem like an outlandish response, even if an uncommon and tragic one. This complex view also helps us to understand, though not excuse, school shooters in the USA who feel the need for revenge against individuals or groups they perceive as having excluded them [65]. Sometimes, bullying processes can take a lethal turn. Reading the paradigm 2 definition for the first time immediately took us back a quarter of a century, to a Ph.D. we supervised together, by Larry Owens. It was not on bullying (traditionally defined), although the media often reported it as such, but it included the first Australian study of indirect aggression between teenage girls [66], that is, aggression such as spreading nasty rumours about someone or edging them slyly out of a peer group, rather than abusing them physically or verbally. Rosalyn went out on a limb, in the context of an utterly quantitative university psychology department, to support Owens’ earnest wish to undertake a mixed-method Ph.D., which he believed would offer greater insight into girls’ interpersonal relationships. His qualitative work outlined the dynamic social processes operating around aggression in girls’ groups, including the concept of social exclusion anxiety that Schott and Søndergaard have raised more recently in their definition of bullying, although he didn’t use that term. As one of Owens’ participants said, regarding making nasty comments about other girls: ‘You just say it because you don’t want to be left out. You don’t want to disagree with the group’ [66]. Our publications with Owens were highly cited and even made an impact in the quantitatively dominated world of aggression research, although we still sensed that his findings were mainly valued as producing new ideas testable by ‘proper’ (quantitative!) research. Maybe a decade later, Rosalyn attended a seminar in her department by a social psychologist from the USA, Kip Williams, on the subject of ostracism and was stunned: the diagram he presented to illustrate the social processes he had uncovered, gleaned largely from computer-based quantitative laboratory studies with adults, was

Towards a New Paradigm

11

a close match for Owens’ analysis of his interviews with teenage girls. Yet, we believe their interpretations were developed quite independently. More recently, we discovered Schott and Søndergaard’s work, just cited, including their cautious definition of bullying in terms of marginalisation. Searching further afield, in preparing this book, we found that Irish psychologist Stephen Minton, in his 2016 book, had also adopted the idea of marginalisation as central to bullying and a range of other types of abuse including genocide, although Schott and Søndergaard’s work appeared unknown to him at the time (though the Nordic influence is otherwise heavy) [67]. Dixon, too, had placed marginalisation at the centre of bullying in her 2011 book (with an introduction by Peter Smith), based on research in a British school that enrolled both hearing and hearing-impaired students [6]. Although not reflected very strongly in the mainstream bullying literature, there seems to be a compelling tide flowing here, and we have become convinced by the argument that the understanding of bullying will be enhanced by taking a wider perspective than is traditional. We believe there is value in eroding the silos that contain bullying, aggression, harassment, homophobia and other forms of unkindness, to examine their commonalities as complex and dynamic social processes concerned with marginalisation. Bullying presents philosophical, legal, social, moral and practical issues with which many societies are currently grappling, and we make some proposals in this book about how the field can be moved forward. We would like to close this introductory chapter by saying a little more about our use of the word ‘unkindness’ to cover a broader range of circumstances than those generally considered to be bullying. The word does carry some moral weight and suggests a lack of consideration for the wellbeing of another party. This may be mild or more severe, and at some point, the word will be insufficiently strong (as when Britain’s Prince Andrew referred to his late friend from the USA, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as having behaved ‘in a manner unbecoming’) [68]. For those interested in the bigger-picture issues of colonisation, war and genocide in relation to marginalisation and bullying, we recommend Minton’s book [67]. In the present context, the word ‘unkindness’ will generally suffice (and by contrast, ‘kindness’ will also be discussed as an emerging topic of psychological research) [69]. Unkindness may be intentional and even enjoyed by the perpetrator(s), it may be a thoughtless lack of regard, or those who are unkind may deceive themselves about the harm of their actions and suspend their empathy for victims, as was clearly the case for the girl who sent that abusive Snapchat message just after Dolly Everett’s suicide, advising another girl to follow suit. We consider bullying as functional for the perpetrators, but how do we then balance the rights of different participants in bullying and related scenarios? We will turn to all these issues in due course. In the next chapter, we lay the groundwork for understanding the social processes involved in bullying and other unkindness by going back to basics: making the case that humans have evolved as social animals and that social connectedness is central to children’s development and their wellbeing throughout life. Bullying, harassment, racism and so forth pose a risk to social connectedness for victims, and such marginalisation is thus a threat to the essence of what it is to be human.

12

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

References 1. Sullivan, R. (2018). Northern Territory father shares daughter’s vile bullying messages after Dolly Everett’s death. News.com.au, 18 January 2018. Accessed on November 4, 2019 at https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/teens/northern-territory-father-shares-daught ers-vile-bullying-messages-after-dolly-everetts-death/news-story/523c9b447f32681ba4c19 e21c0f28920 2. Skrzypiec, G., Wyra, M., & Didaskalou, E. (Eds.). (2019). A global perspective of young adolescents’ peer aggression and well-being: Beyond bullying. Routledge. 3. Skrzypiec, G., & Wyra, M. (2019). ‘I wish you were murdered’: Some students don’t know the difference between bullying and banter. The Conversation, 14 October.2019. Accessed on November 4, at https://theconversation.com/i-wish-you-were-murdered-some-students-dontknow-the-difference-between-bullying-and-banter-124272 4. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Hemisphere Press. 5. Skrzypiec, G., & Wyra, M. (2019). ‘I wish you were murdered’: Some students don’t know the difference between bullying and banter. The Conversation, 14 October 2019. Accessed on November 4, at https://theconversation.com/i-wish-you-were-murdered-some-students-dontknow-the-difference-between-bullying-and-banter-124272 6. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 7. Bachand, C. R. (2017). Bullying in sports: The definition depends on who you ask. The Sport Journal, 22. Accessed on November 29, at https://thesportjournal.org/article/bullying-in-spo rts-the-definition-depends-on-who-you-ask/ 8. Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behaviour. Social Development, 18, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.004 84.x 9. Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research and academic community. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. 10. Kofoed, J., & Staksrud, E. (2019). ‘We always torment different people, so by definition we are no bullies’: The problem of definitions in cyberbullying research. New Media and Society, 21(4), 1006–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818810026 11. O’Brien, N. (2019). Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, article 1984. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2019.01984 12. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 13. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2016). High school girls’ experience of victimization by boys: Where sexual harassment meets aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 25(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1129656 14. Feria, I., Ortega, R., & Del Rey, R. (2011). Convivencia: An educational model of wellbeing in schools. In R. H. Shute, P. T. Slee, R. Murray-Harvey, & K. L. Dix (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives (pp. 191–200). Shannon Research Press. 15. Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 16. OECD. (2019). Bullying. In PISA 2018 Results (Vol. III). What school life means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/cd52fb72-en/index. html?itemId=/content/component/cd52fb72-en 17. Foucault, M., cited in Callewaert, S. (2017). Foucault’s concept of dispositif. Praktiske Grunde. Nordisk tidsskrift for kultur- og samfundsvidenskab, 1–2, 29–52. 18. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thales-of-Miletus

References

13

19. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Bacon-Viscount-Saint-Alban 20. Ayala, F. J. (2009). Darwin and the scientific method. PNAS, 106(Supplement 1), 10033–10039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.01010.1073/pnas.0901404106 21. Boulter, M. (2008). Darwin’s garden: Down house and the origin of species (p. xv). Constable & Robinson. 22. Allen, P. (2018). Complex, evolving social systems: Unending, imperfect learning. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 18–44). Edward Elgar Publishing. 23. Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Is psychology a science? The Conversation, 27 November 2012. Accessed on April 4, 2017 at http://theconversation.com/is-psychology-a-science-10126 24. Wilson, T. D. (2012). Stop bullying the ‘soft’ sciences. Los Angeles Times, 12 July 2012. Accessed on April 4, 2017 at http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-soc ial-sciences-20120712 25. Allen, P. (2018). Complex, evolving social systems: Unending, imperfect learning. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds,), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 18–44). Edward Elgar Publishing. 26. Replication crisis. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/replic ation-crisis 27. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 28. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. Routledge. 29. Young, J. L., & Hegarty, P. (2019). Reasonable men: Sexual harassment and norms of conduct in social psychology. Feminism and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519855746 30. Maunder, R. E., & Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010 31. Shaw, I. (1999). Qualitative evaluation. Sage. 32. Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6(4), 433–454, 436. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209415 33. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. 34. Sanderson, I. (2006). Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and evidence-based policy making. Policy & Politics, 34(115–132), 116. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557306775212188 35. Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity. Freeman. 36. Cohen, J., Espelage, D. L., Twemlow, S., Berkowitz, M. W., & Comer. J. P. (2015). Rethinking effective bully and violence prevention efforts: Promoting healthy school climates, positive youth development, and preventing bully-victim-bystander behavior. International Journal of Violence in Schools, 15, 2–40. Accessed on January 22, 2021 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/281593701 37. Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322–332. 38. Kalman, I. C. (2013). Why psychology is failing to solve the problem of bullying. International Journal on World Peace, XXX(2), 71–97 39. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: Vol 1 and 2. WW Norton. 40. Raskin, J. D. (2001). The modern, the postmodern, and George Kelly’s personal construct theory. American Psychologist, 56(4), 368–369. 41. Stone, L., Lurquin, P. F., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2006). Genes, culture, and human evolution: A synthesis. Wiley-Blackwell, p. xix. 42. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives. Routledge. 43. Javanmardi, E., Liu, S., & Xie, N. (2019). Exploring the philosophical paradigm of grey systems theory as a postmodern theory. Foundations of Science, 5 November 2019. Online. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10699-019-09640-5 44. Coursen, D. (2018). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Heterodox: The blog. Retrieved from https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/sociological-paradigms-and-organi zational-analysis/

14

1 What is Bullying, Anyway?

45. Malaina, A. (2015). Two complexities: The need to link complex thinking and complex adaptive systems science. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 31 March. Edition 1. https://journal. emergentpublications.com/article/two-complexities/ 46. O’Byrne, D. (2011). Introducing sociological theory. Routledge. 47. Alexander, J. C. (2014). Positivism, presupposition and current controversies (Theoretical logic in sociology) (pp. 55–63). Routledge. 48. Save the Children (n.d). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): An international agreement for child rights. Accessed 4.11.2019 at https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/whatwe-do/childrens-rights/united-nations-convention-of-the-rights-of-the-child 49. Shaheed, A., & Richter, R. P. (2018). Is ‘human rights’ a western concept? International Peace Institute Global Observatory, 17 October 2018. Accessed 17.07.2020 at https://theglobalobs ervatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-western-concept/ 50. Farrell, C. (n.d.). Corporal punishment in schools: United Kingdom. World corporal punishment research. Accessed 4.11. 2019 at https://www.corpun.com/counuks.htm 51. Manovski, P. M. (2014). Arts-based research, autoethnography, and music education: Singing through a culture of marginalization (pp. 20–21 and p. 87.). Sense. 52. Shelton, T. (2021). Australia’s Baha’i community pleads for help as arbitrary arrests and home raids escalate in Iran. ABC News, 2 January 2021. Accessed on January 2, 2021 at https://www. abc.net.au/news/2021-01-02/australias-bahai-community-plead-for-help-iran/12977872 53. Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690301894 54. Toda, Y. (2011). Bullying (ijime) and its prevention in Japan: A relationships focus. In R. H. Shute, P. T. Slee, R. Murray-Harvey, & K. L. Dix (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives (pp. 179–190). Shannon Research Press. 55. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 56. Yoder, N. (2014). Self-assessing social and emotional instruction and competencies: A tool for teachers. American Institutes for Research. 57. Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 101–121. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10964-008-9271-1 58. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1% 3c1::AID-AB1%3e3.0.CO;2-T 59. Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., & Gomo, R. (2014). Defining bullying: A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research and academic community. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. 60. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. (2001). A social systems-power dynamic approach for preventing school violence. In M. Shaffi & S. L. Shaffi (Eds.), School violence: Assessment, management, prevention (pp. 273–289). American Psychiatric Press, p. 278. 61. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying. Routledge. 62. Rivers, I., & Duncan, N. (2013). Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender. Routledge. 63. Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Introduction: New approaches to school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 1– 17). Cambridge University Press. 64. Hein, N. (2014). Parental positions in school bullying: The production of powerlessness in home-school cooperation. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 301–329, p. 328). Cambridge University Press.

References

15

65. Schott, R. M. (2014). The life and death of bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 185–206). Cambridge University Press. 66. Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard…” Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982337(2000)26:1%3C67::AID-AB6%3E3.0.CO;2-C 67. Minton, S. J. (2016). Marginalisation and aggression from bullying to genocide. Sense. 68. Guardian editorial (2019). The Guardian view on Prince Andrew: Entitled, obtuse and shamefully silent over Epstein’s victims. The Guardian, 18 November 2019. Accessed on November 21, 2019 at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/17/the-guardian-view-onprince-andrew-entitled-obtuse-and-shamefully-silent-over-epstein-victims 69. DiSalvo, D. (2009). Forget survival of the fittest: It is kindness that counts. Scientific American, 26 February 2009. Accessed on December 16, 2019 at https://www.scientificamerican.com/ article/kindness-emotions-psychology/

Part I

Broadening our Theoretical Perspectives on Bullying

Chapter 2

The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

We open this chapter with a personal story by Rosalyn. My husband and I live on the edge of a high-fire-danger zone in South Australia, and as I was drafting this chapter, we had our first ‘catastrophic’ level fire risk warning even before the summer arrived. In other words, if a fire starts, the authorities are unlikely to be able to control it. We put our bushfire plan into place by relocating to a safer area for the day, loading our most precious possessions into the car. Apart from practical items like passports, we took computer drives with digitised versions of all the family photos, across six generations. I took a painting done by my paternal grandmother (whom my orphaned father barely remembered) and my threadbare old teddy. My husband took some hand-written family trees and several musical instruments, including his violin and the quarter-size cello that was once our daughter’s and that our grandson uses when he visits from the UK. The monetary value of the instruments was not the point: collectively, they enable the family musicians to play as a group.

Bushfire survivors are traumatised by loss of family, friends, neighbours and communities, family photographs and animals to which they were attached. News reports often include their statements that they can replace ‘things’, but not people, nor mementoes of them. The ‘what would you save in a bushfire?’ test illustrates what this chapter aims to establish: that connection with, and a sense of belonging to, significant individuals and groups, is at the core of our being, as humans. Some animals are on their own from birth, such as the stripy Eastern Blue-tongue Lizards that we authors find basking in our sunny Adelaide gardens; they may have the odd tussle over territory and come together for mating, but they are basically solitary animals. Humans, by contrast, are altricial mammals, born dependent on others for our early survival and for providing the context for healthy development and happiness. Our social world requires our constant, effortful attention, as an essential aspect of the ongoing work for continued existence that is a universal task for all living beings but is especially acute for humans [1]. The Social Animal was the title of Elliott Aronson’s famous textbook of social psychology, first published in 1972 and revised many times over the years [2]. Of course, there are many social animals that are not human, from honeybees to chimpanzees, but Aronson’s title captures the point that Homo sapiens is an essentially, and deeply, social creature, to a degree of complexity that some believe sets the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_2

19

20

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

species apart from others. Indeed, Aristotle suggested that anyone who prefers solitude to company must be ‘either a beast or a god’ [3]. We do very poorly in solitary confinement [4], and chronic loneliness damages mental and physical health [5, 6]. In 2020, being isolated presented a considerable challenge for humans around the world as efforts were made to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, with connectedness increasingly taking a virtual form [7].

The Social Brain The human brain supports our physical survival, such as enabling us to see, breathe and run away from danger, but is remarkably developed beyond that. It has been suggested that it has evolved in the way it has because of our need for social survival. A large information processing capacity is essential, it is proposed, to deal with our complex social lives [8]. The high sociality of humans has also been suggested as a cause of our increasing human longevity, which is paralleled by a reduction in variability in length of life. By being highly social, this argument goes, human communities can benefit from the accumulated knowledge of older members, or their assistance in childcare, increasing the survival rate of youngsters [9]. The term ‘the social brain’ was coined by psychiatrist Leslie Brothers in 1990, who suggested that there is a specific network of neural structures that underpins primate social behaviour [10], an idea supported by accumulating neural imaging studies [8]. Her term was adopted by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who discovered that the relative volume of the neocortex (the six-layered most recently evolved part of the brain) in various primate species was correlated with the typical size of the primate group [11]. He hypothesised that neocortical capacity places limits on the number of individuals with whom a primate can maintain stable personal relationships and calculated that for modern humans this maximum number lies between 100 and 250 (a round number of 150––Dunbar’s number––is generally quoted). He cited the size of Neolithic villages and military units in ancient Rome as supportive examples. Dunbar further suggested that spoken language evolved as a means of cementing social relationships in larger groups, being a more efficient replacement for the time-intensive one-to-one physical grooming of primate companions. Evolution has equipped most human infants with the hearing, vocal and neural apparatus to support the development of spoken language; however, that cannot come about without interaction in the early months and years with other humans, whose cultural inheritance determines the form and usage of that language [12]. Dunbar’s theory has been critiqued by Spanish researchers Cristina AcedoCarmona and Antoni Gomila on a number of grounds [13]. For example, parts of the brain other than the neocortex are very important for social life, including the limbic system (associated with emotions) and the temporo-parietal area (associated with memory). Also, Dunbar focuses on direct interpersonal relationships and does not take account of the role of social psychological phenomena such as relations with generic ingroups and outgroups (about which we will have more to say in Chap. 6).

The Social Brain

21

Affiliation, or bonding, with a small supportive circle is central to human evolution (this critique goes) rather than just being part of a broader group in which one has little emotional investment. While we may be able to keep a distant level of relationship with a wide circle of acquaintances, Dunbar’s own research group has more recently found, on the basis of analysis of mobile (cell) phone calls, that the number of close friends is much smaller, around five, with much variety in the number of more ‘middling’ contacts [14]. A more recent statement of the theory by Acedo-Carmona and Gomila is as follows: ‘effective social configuration is structured around small groups of closely attached individuals whose number depends on cognitive and time resources, but which can vary depending on the ecological pressures’ [15]. Further research found the size of the neocortex in various primate species to be correlated not with group size, but with how frequently those animals engage in deception, backing up the idea that the neocortex supports social behaviours that require extensive social knowledge and fast learning [16]. Another recent challenge comes from findings about a group-living bird species, the Vulturine Guineafowl; these large, mainly ground-dwelling birds intermingle non-aggressively within an aggregation of hundreds of individuals, but have small stable preference groups within it [17]. We have much to learn about small bird-brains! While that is the first demonstration of the phenomenon in a bird species, having ‘layers’ of social contacts is not unusual in primates. Within larger social groups, members may at times preserve their energies by cutting down on their more casual encounters to focus on a core group [18]. Conversely, numbers of large-brained social mammals, including Western Lowland Gorillas, occasionally spend time in peaceful interactions with external groups [19]. We can recognise such layers in our own current or past lives. For example, in Rosalyn’s early teens, beyond her family members, she was on friendly terms with her whole school class of about thirty girls, socialising in school with a subset of about a dozen, and going to a youth club, bowling and ice skating at weekends with up to five of these. She also knew ‘of’ many girls in the wider school community, some by name, including prefects, sporting stars, those in the school choir, and those who were often in trouble! Similarly, Phillip, growing up in a small country town in South Australia (with a population of about 190), knew almost all town folk, farmers and their children by name, but was close friends with just four or five of the children. It seems to pay to have a core social group, but to also know who else is around as potential competitors or allies. On encountering a stranger we instantly attempt, on the basis of their appearance, to judge their status, whether they are ‘like us’, and whether they are trustworthy [20]. Gossip plays an important role as a means of keeping abreast of reputations and for self-re-evaluation [21]. Laughter and humour can act as both bonding and exclusionary mechanisms within human groups, and expressions of humour are thought to raise social status as they display a high level of sociopolitical understanding [22]. We will further explore gossip and humour later in the book, both being behaviours that frequently occur in the context of bullying. As US secondary school student Anna Nordseth wrote, ‘What one person might see as just a funny comment or harmless gossip can cause lasting damage to the bullied’ [23].

22

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

The Developing Social Brain For reasons that are debated, childbirth is a maternally painful and sometimes precarious process in which help from birth attendants is typically required [24]. Females of our closest living relatives in the animal world, bonobos, also receive support from other females in giving birth, raising the suggestion that human birth attendance may have deep evolutionary origins in the gregariousness and cooperativeness of unrelated females [25]. As we will later discuss, the evolution of cooperative behaviour between non-kin may indeed be very important for understanding group behaviours and processes of inclusion and exclusion [26]. However, any implication that there are evolved male and female differences in human psychological traits needs to be treated very cautiously, given the work of scholars including Cordelia Fine [27], Daphna Joel [28] and Gina Rippon [29, 30]. They dispel as mythical the belief that humans have evolved ‘male brains’ and ‘female brains’ that underpin sex differences in psychological traits (including those relevant for bullying, such as empathy and competitiveness), as well as the common belief that aggression in adolescent boys is caused by a surge in testosterone. Rather, there is a strong case for socialisation as a powerful element for promoting gendered behaviour [31]. While humans obviously have an evolved genetic inheritance, it is now clear that genes do not dictate the course of development in a predetermined manner (and, indeed, the nature of genes themselves is subject to biological and philosophical debate) [32, 33]. The longitudinal Canadian research programme of Richard Tremblay and colleagues on chronic physical aggression provides an example of current understandings of developmental processes: the effects of relevant genes on aggression, and the associated neural development, are dependent on the child’s environment [34]. This aligns with Annette Karmiloff-Smith’s evidence for ‘neuroconstructivism’ as being the process through which the brain develops [35]. On this view, the brain may have a bias towards organisation in certain directions, but it develops epigenetically, through ongoing interactions between genes, the body more generally, and the environment, in an ongoing and self-organising manner. In the process, genes in all or parts of the body may be switched on or off, or moderated in their effects, by environmental factors. These epigenetic changes can be passed on to the next generation, without altering DNA sequences. These processes are consistent with the Dynamic Systems Theory of development put forward in the 1990s by US psychologists Esther Thelen and Linda Smith, who catalogued the twists and turns and regressions that a fine-grained study of development reveals [36]. Their research is concordant with a view that the brain is much more plastic than previously recognised. It has even proved possible, in newborn ferrets, to switch over the nervous pathways that join the eyes and the ears with the brain, and demonstrate that they later see (although not quite as clearly) with what is normally the auditory cortex [37]. This plasticity means that those born with sensory or motor deficits can often find alternative routes to a social life, such as hearing-impaired children who learn sign language, and their brains then become organised in atypical ways [38]. This understanding of developmental processes as dynamic, rather than

The Developing Social Brain

23

a simple matter of maturation, encourages the implementation of early intervention to promote healthy development. For example, Tremblay is a strong advocate for intervention from early pregnancy to address environmental issues that maintain the intergenerational transmission of chronic, problematic physical aggression. While there are limits to plasticity, ongoing life experiences continue to be reflected in brain structure and functioning [39]. For example, recent research by Ryan Muetzel and colleagues suggests that brain morphology may be changed when a child is subjected to frequent bullying [40]. They found a part of the brain that is often associated with face processing to be thicker in 8-year-old targets of bullying compared with uninvolved children, while there were no such differences in either perpetrators of bullying or those who were involved in both bullying roles (‘bullyvictims’). This may be because those who are often subjected to victimisation (and do not fight back) need to be vigilant about identifying whether their assailants are around. From puberty, humans, like many other mammals, engage more in certain behaviours (such as exploration and risky behaviours) that represent a move towards greater engagement with the wider world, especially the peer group, with concomitant changes in neural structure and functioning [39]. For example, there are changes to parts of the brain associated with ‘valuing’ and with rewards––and the rewards which adolescents especially value are those associated with peer approval. Adolescents also show greater neural sensitivity to emotional stimuli, such as happy or threatening faces, compared with adults. The popularised suggestion that the adolescent brain is ‘immature’ and needs to ‘mature’ to solve social problems such as recklessness and thrill-seeking, has been counteracted by the suggestion that it is, in fact, especially flexible in the task of adapting to new social contexts [39].

Building a Social Mind The social world into which a child is born is of crucial importance in these developmental processes. Humans’ uniquely lengthy childhood allows for a long period of learning and brain development [41]. As social animals, it matters existentially that we learn who is who. Is that person a family member, friend, foe or simply irrelevant? Muetzel’s bullied young participants are a case in point. Faces are the major source of this social information, as our main individual distinguishing feature (Facebook did not get that name for nothing). A newborn seems to have an in-built preference for face-like stimuli and, despite a poorly-developed visual system, begins the learning process while breast-feeding, which places the baby in an ideal place for face-to-face interaction with its mother. Most humans develop early a strong capacity for facial discrimination [42], but this process can go wrong early in life or through later brain damage, and those with prosopagnosia, or an inability to recognise faces, have a very hard time in managing their social lives, as alternative recognition methods, such as by voices and clothing, are less reliable and more effortful [43]. Our own unique facial appearance plays a part in influencing many aspects of our social lives, from attracting potential partners to determining how likely we are to be

24

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

arrested and sentenced (attractive women are treated more leniently) [44]. Research, including by Rosalyn’s former Ph.D. students Pam Carroll and Rachel Roberts, has shown that those with facial differences have social challenges such as coping with the curious stares of strangers on the street but that, surprisingly, such children are no more teased by their peers than are the rest of their schoolmates; it seems that even with a typical facial configuration, other kids can easily find something about your appearance worthy of negative comment [45, 46]. This is no joke considering that teasing about appearance is a contributory factor to the development of adolescent eating disorders, with the death rate for anorexia nervosa almost six times that of the general population [47]. As well as defining us as individuals, our faces are important communication devices. The triggering of our own mirror neurons when observing another person’s facial expressions is arguably the initial stage in helping us to decipher their emotional states [8]. Humans’ mobile eyebrows seem to be more about signalling than keeping the rain out of our eyes (eyebrows that stayed in one position would do that just as well). The ‘eyebrow flash’, for example, though impolite as a greeting in Japan, is used by some cultures as a friendly greeting and in others to indicate ‘yes’ [48]. Sunglasses can boost our ‘coolness’ by increasing our inscrutability. The use of Botox to delay the formation of facial lines that some consider unacceptably ageing can create an uncanny sense, in conversations, that something is not quite right about that person’s reactions. Un-Botoxed, minor differences in the wrinkling of lines near the eyes indicate whether our smile is genuine or not. Flashes of microexpression convey information about our feelings that may be picked up by others, especially women and, worryingly, psychopaths [49]. Contempt, an emotion that is highlighted in our later discussions, is expressed by a brief asymmetrical mouth movement and may have its evolutionary origin in the snarl, a warning baring of teeth displayed by some mammals [50]. Eye-rolling is another nonverbal indicator of contempt [51]. Children born with Moebius syndrome, a condition that prevents them from moving the muscles of their faces, have great challenges in communicating with others and often experience social rejection and develop a relatively small social network [52]. Possibly related to this is the finding that marginalising someone whose face is judged as lacking warmth and competence is regarded as more morally acceptable than marginalising someone who looks warm and competent [53]. As well as coming to understand faces, infants have many other social lessons to learn. Through ingenious studies, babies have been proven more socially competent than often assumed [54]. For example, by around ten months, they demonstrate an understanding of dominance and submissiveness, showing surprise when a large animated block, with eyes and a mouth, ‘politely’ gives way to a small one [55]. Babies also prefer a puppet that helps, over one that hinders, another character [56] (see this illustrative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JbLSIirXI). Important milestones in infants’ learning are gaining the ability to point and to share mutual gaze with others, so that common referents can be identified, enabling learning to occur via shared attention. Parent–infant interaction (the subject of Phillip’s Ph.D.) is reciprocal and has been described as a kind of ‘dance’ [57]. Parental sensitivity in responding to infant behaviours (attunement) is important for developing emotional

Building a Social Mind

25

regulation [58]. Children who have difficulty controlling strong emotions are at high risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of bullying [59, 60]. As children grow older, their social abilities continue to develop. Even toddlers sometimes show the first signs of empathy by comforting someone in distress [61], and from being initially ‘egocentric’ (to use Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget’s term), they become able to see things from others’ perspectives; that is, they develop a ‘theory of mind’, around four years old in western samples [62], though precursors have been identified in younger children. Perspective-taking ability increases further in adolescence, paralleled by changes in brain networks associated with social understanding [63]. The value of being able to interpret others’ cognitive and emotional states is that it helps us to predict their behaviour in order to guide our own responses [8]. The ability to quietly but rapidly ‘read the room’, or interpret others’ thoughts and needs, to promote harmonious relationships, is taken to a very high degree in Korean culture and is known as nunchi (literally, eye-measure) [64]. Children’s social skills gradually improve over time, and there is individual variability. There has been much debate about their role in bullying––whether a lack of such abilities or, conversely, well-developed skills, enable bullying [65]. At any rate, as US psychologist Eleanor Maccoby pointed out, parenting plays a crucial role in fostering such skills [66]. A wider range of experiences with teachers and peers also comes into play, whether in the course of informal interactions, formal teaching (either teacher-led or through peer-based learning) [67] or through programs aimed at promoting children’s social-emotional development [68]. Paradigm 1 for examining bullying has placed a major focus on individual differences in such skills, while paradigm 2 is more concerned with the general social processes that utilise them. From the early- to mid-twentieth century, the West’s exposure to the innovative research of Piaget placed a firm focus on children’s cognitive development, fostered by their solo experimentation on the world. This view was turned on its head when writings of his late contemporary, the Soviet psychologist Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky, were translated into English. His Thought and Language only became available in the 1960s. The idea that children could reasonably be considered more as ‘cultural apprentices’ than the solitary little scientists of Piaget was then quite novel and, in fact, not widely taken up by western psychology until the 1980s, following further translation of his work. Vygotsky’s insight was that the very way children come to understand the world depends on dynamic interaction with more experienced members of the culture, and its signs and symbols, such as language, and that the cognition of individuals in turn re-creates culture. His theory therefore drew attention to the essentially social nature of cognitive development and is variously called ‘socio-cognitive’ or ‘sociocultural’. More recently, cultural anthropology and studies in genetics have been united in the proposal that culture cannot be divorced from our biological heritage: biological evolution, acting through processes such as random genetic mutations and natural selection, results in changes (such as increasing brain capacity) that foster cultural evolution, which is driven by innovative ideas and can often (though not inevitably) be relatively rapid, compared with biological evolution [69, 70]. As US cognitive scientist and philosopher Daniel Dennett has said, the theory of evolution by natural

26

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

selection unifies our understanding of ‘not just the strivings of animals and the efficient designs of plants, but human meanings and purposes: art and science itself, and even morality… [covering both] a nightingale’s nest and ‘Ode to a Nightingale” [71]. In trying to imagine a person without culture, the US anthropologist Clifford Geertz suggested that, ‘A cultureless human being would probably turn out to be not an intrinsically talented, though unfulfilled ape, but a wholly mindless and consequently unworkable monstrosity’ [72]. In tune with this perspective, recent philosophical understandings of the human mind include that it is culturally embedded [73]. Just as for other areas of human behaviour, this carries implications for bullying, with cultural differences playing a part both within and across cultures [74, 75]. The acceptance of a sociocultural perspective meant that the notion of a ‘universal’ child became harder to sustain. For example, some cultures value individuality more, while others emphasise collectivity, and this is reflected in how children’s development is perceived: individualist cultures see infants as closely connected to others and needing to individuate (e.g. by sleeping in their own room as early as possible), while collectivist cultures see the infant as an individual who needs to be socialised into the collective fold (with bed-sharing being normal) [76]. Turkish–US academic Çi˘gdem Kagitcibasi proposed that thinking of the self as varying on a single dimension of autonomy-relatedness needed to be replaced with a view of two dimensions: agency (from autonomy to heteronomy) and connectedness (from separateness to relatedness). An example is that Australian Aboriginal (First Nations) children are traditionally brought up to understand how they fit into the extended kin system (high relatedness), but also to make independent decisions (high autonomy) [77]. Kagitcibasi proposed that a lack of balance along these dimensions might undermine children’s optimal development [78]. Examples of implications for bullying are that a cultural emphasis on both autonomy and separateness (as in the West, especially for boys) might impede a bullied child from asking for help, while a high valuing of both heteronomy and relatedness (as in Japanese culture) seems to set the stage for ijime. In any culture, being marginalised and bullied pushes victims into a position of being unhealthily disconnected from peers. Children are interested in interacting with other children from a very young age, and by school age, they form groups, or cliques, especially of same-sex peers, which contribute to their self-worth. While children would rather belong to higher-status cliques, they still prefer their own groups and, as we will later discuss at length, this has major implications for bullying [79].

Social Connectedness and Wellbeing From the mid-twentieth century, research led by John Bowlby and by Mary Ainsworth showed how, in the early months and years, attachment to others who will protect and nurture a child is crucial for healthy psychological development [80, 81]. The original focus on the uniqueness of mothers to fulfil this role has broadened, and a child often

Social Connectedness and Wellbeing

27

has numbers of attachment figures, who provide a secure base for exploring the world and creating a blueprint for future social relationships. New fathers, as well as mothers, experience hormonal changes that underpin empathy and bonding with their children [82]. It makes good evolutionary sense to have flexibility in attachments, and it is disputed whether attachment, in a narrow sense, is relevant for all cultures. In some societies, it does take a village to raise a child [83, 84], and this may be why babies are primed to distinguish helpful from unhelpful individuals. The value of communal child-rearing is suggested by anthropologist Sarah Hrdy’s evolutionary theory of ‘cooperative breeding’, which holds that a human mother’s best chance of reproductive success is to rely on social support (from kin and non-kin) in raising her children, which she may reciprocate [85]. For the infant to thrive, what is needed is sensitive caregiving from one or more others that creates a secure base for development. When this is severely undermined, the result can be disastrous. Violence or neglect in the early years has long-term ill effects. Early neurological changes that are adaptive in the short term, such as those that reflect hypervigilance towards threat, are predictive of psychological difficulties down the track [86]. Early attachment difficulty (‘avoidant attachment’) has been shown to set a child up as a potential victim in peer interactions at the age of four or five [87]. Psychoanalyst Joy Schaverien has studied the effects of disrupted childhood attachments in adulthood [88]. She noticed a pattern of disordered functioning in her adult clients who had been sent away to British boarding schools at the age of seven. Despite a good early start in life, and the provision by the schools of food, shelter, education and plenty of people, the children were bereft, as these were not the people who gave their life meaning. Grief, which involves behaviours such as crying and searching, has been characterised as a side-effect of evolved behaviours aimed at trying to regain contact with a temporarily lost attachment figure [89]. In the boarding school context, however, these children could not reunite with their loved ones. They had been brutally cut adrift, socially, and shut down their emotions in order to survive those years. However, many grew up to develop problems such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and difficulties with intimacy, while some became ruthless social operators. As Sigmund Freud recognised, lessons learned in the early years lay the foundations for adult functioning. It may take a great deal of psychotherapeutic work to undo early psychological damage, as Schaverien’s case studies of troubled early boarders illustrate. Peer relationships within boarding schools offer both risks (such as being bullied) and opportunities for new social connections that may help to buffer the worst effects of separation from family. As has often happened to colonised peoples around the world, many Australian First Nations children were taken from their families by the authorities and confined to institutions (‘missions’) in the mid-twentieth century (the ‘Stolen Generations’[90]); some have said, as adults, that other children in the mission were their saving grace. In boys’ boarding schools in the UK in the 1960s, ‘crushes’ on other boys often fulfilled a need for connection, and not just for homosexual boys. As one 16-year-old reported, ‘He has brought emotion to me in a world which, otherwise, could be cold and bleak’ [91]. Contact with home in those

28

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

days was restricted to occasional ‘snail-mail’ letters, but today’s technology allows boarders to stay in touch more easily [92]. Beyond the early years, when attachment to well-known individuals, especially family, is central, a sense of belonging to peer groups also becomes important for wellbeing and is placed at risk by being bullied. In fact, both bullying and being bullied are associated with mental health problems [93, 94]. The need for belonging is regarded as a basic human motivation and concerns a sense of fitting in with others and feeling valued [95]. As author Bill Bryson wrote about the end of a lengthy solo car trip around small towns across the USA: ‘And then I was in Iowa. I actually felt my heart quicken. I was home. This was my state. My licence plate matched everyone else’s. No-one would look at me as if to say, ‘What are you doing here?’ I belonged’ [96]. Australia’s Suzanne McLaren and her team have demonstrated the importance of belonging for good mental health in various groups, such as gay youth, who are especially prone to bullying and mental health problems. For example, they found that youth who belonged to a gay/lesbian/bisexual youth group also had a greater sense of connection with their school peers, which was, in turn, protective against depression [97]. At the other end of the lifespan, they found that elderly residents of nursing homes had a lower sense of community belonging than those living in their own homes and that this, in turn, was associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms [98]. Helle Hansen and colleagues, in a study of Danish students, found that over 37% were afraid of being bullied, excluded or ridiculed, all experiences concerned with acceptance, recognition and respect from their school peers [99]. Humans, then, are born into communities that are essential for surviving, but to foster thriving, those communities also need to provide socially and emotionally supportive conditions across the lifespan.

Conclusions This chapter has served as an introduction to the idea that modern humans have evolved as an essentially social species, in which biological and cultural evolution are intertwined. Sociality, especially close emotional relationships within a broader social environment, enables our very survival. It plays a central role in the dynamic systemic processes that constitute our developmental path and determine our wellbeing. We end this chapter with a heart-rending prayer written by an 11-year-old boy in his 1960s UK boarding school [100]. It is more eloquent than anything we could say to describe the effects of being estranged from one’s community. Lord, I ask you this, Why Lord. Why is it that I am left alone, Far from my parents, home and friend

Conclusions

29

Far from those creatures I love and tend; I may not shed a tear, You know why Lord. Here I am, lone and friendless, I’m one of them Nobody in particular Just one of them, ‘Smith’ they call me; But I may not cry Lord, You know why.

References 1. Lemmens, P. (2009). The detached animal—On the technical nature of being human. In M. Drenthen, J. Keulartz, & J. Proctor (Eds.), New visions of nature: Complexity and authenticity (pp. 117–212). Springer. 2. Aronson, E. (1972). The social animal. Viking Press. 3. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-philosophy/Aristotle 4. Grassian, S. (2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 22, 325–383. Accessed on November 4, 2019 at https://openschol arship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol22/iss1/24 5. Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12160-010-9210-8 6. Pantell, M., Rehkopf, D., Jutte, D., Syme, S. L., Balmes, J., & Adler, A. (2013). Social isolation: A predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 2056–2062. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301261 7. Winder, I. C., & Shaw, V. (2020). Coronavirus: Evolution experts explain why social distancing feels so unnatural. The Conversation, 26 March 2020. Accessed on April 5, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-experts-in-evolution-explain-why-socialdistancing-feels-so-unnatural-134271 8. Frith, C. D. (2007). The social brain? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 671–678. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2003 9. Colchero, F., Rau, R., Jones, O. R., Barthold, J. A., Conde, D. A., Lenart, A., et al. (2016). The emergence of longevous populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), e7681–e7690.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612191113 10. Brothers, L. (1990). The social brain: A project for integrating primate behavior and neurophysiology in a new domain. Concepts in Neuroscience, 27–51.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0 0991637 11. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 20, 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J 12. Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Curtiss, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The development of language in Genie: A case of language acquisition beyond the ‘critical period.’ Brain and Language, 1, 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(74)90027-3 13. Acedo-Carmona, C., & Gomila, A. (2016). A critical review of Dunbar’s social brain hypothesis. Revista Internacional de Sociologia, 74(3), e037.https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2016.74. 3.037

30

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

14. MacCarron, P., Kaski, K., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Calling Dunbar’s numbers. Social Networks, 47, 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.06.003 15. Acedo-Carmona, C., & Gomila, A. (2016). A critical review of Dunbar’s social brain hypothesis. Revista Internacional de Sociologia, 74(3), e037, p 7. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2016. 74.3.037 16. Byrne, R., & Corp, N. (2004). Neocortex size predicts deception rate in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 271(1549), 1693–1699. https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rspb.2004.2780 17. Papageorgiou, D., Christensen, C., Gall, G. E. C., Klarevas-Irby, J. A., Nyaguthii, B., Couzin, I. D., & Farine, D. R. (2019). The multi-level society of a small-brained bird. Current Biology, 29(21), 1120–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.09.072 18. Lehmann, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). Network cohesion, group size and neocortex size in female-bonded Old World primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 276, 4417–4422. Accessed on June 20, 2021 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40506076 19. Forcina, G., Vallet, D., Le Gouar, P. J., Bernardo-Madrid, R., Illera, G., Molina-Vacas, G., … Vilà, C. (2019). From groups to communities in western lowland gorillas. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286 (1896). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2019 20. ABC Radio National (2020). Trusting strangers: Who do we trust and why? Podcast All in the Mind, 20.09.2020. Accessed on November 8, 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ programs/allinthemind/trusting-strangers/12664518 21. Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. A. (2014). Tell me the gossip: The self-evaluative function of receiving gossip about others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1668–1680. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167214554916 22. McKeown, G. (2016). Laughter and humour as conversational mind-reading displays. In N. Streitz & P. Markopoulos (Eds.), Distributed, ambient, and pervasive interactions, Proceedings of 4th international conference, Toronto, July 2016 (pp. 317–328). Springer. DAPI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9749. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31939862-4_29 23. Nordseth, A. (2010). Be a courageous bystander. Student Voices, English Journal, 101(6), 28. 24. Roberts, A., & Thorpe, K. S. (2014). Challenges to human uniqueness: Bipedalism, birth and brains. Journal of Zoology, 292, 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12112 25. Demuru, E., Ferrari, P. F., & Palagi, E. (2018). Is birth attendance a uniquely human feature? New evidence suggests that Bonobo females protect and support the parturient. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(5), 502–512. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10 90513817302817 26. Smaldino, P. E. (2019). Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution. Behavioural Processes, 161, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.11.015 27. Fine, C. (2013). Is there neurosexism in functional neuroimaging investigations of sex differences? Neuroethics, 6, 369–409. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12152-012-9169-1 28. Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. PNAS 112(50), 15468–15473.https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1509654112 29. Rippon, G., Jordan-Young, R., Kaiser, A., & Fine, C. (2014). Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: Key principles and implications for research design, analysis, and interpretation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 650. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnhum.2014.00650 30. Rippon, G. (2019). The gendered brain: The new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain. Bodley Head. 31. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 32. Moore, D. S. (2013). The babies, the representations, and the nativist–empiricist bathwater. Commentary on “Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist debate” by J. Allen & M. Bickhard. Cognitive Development, 28, 148–153, 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.006

References

31

33. Moss, L. (2006). The question of questions: What is a gene? Comments on Rolston and Griffths & Stotz. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27, 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11017-006-9021-x 34. Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Cote, S. M. (2018). Chronic physical aggression: A bio-psychosocial model for the next generation of preventive interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044030 35. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2012). Perspectives on the dynamic development of cognitive capacities: Insights from Williams syndrome. Current Opinion in Neurology, 25, 106–111. https://doi. org/10.1097/wco.0b013e3283518130 36. Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6 37. von Melchner, L., Pallas, S. L., & Sur, M. (2000). Visual behaviour mediated by retinal projections directed to the auditory pathway. Nature, 404(6780), 871–876. https://doi.org/10. 1038/35009102 38. Suri, S. (2014). What sign language teaches us about the brain. The Conversation, 25 July 2014. Accessed on November 15, 2019 at https://theconversation.com/what-sign-languageteaches-us-about-the-brain-29628 39. Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 636–650. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nrn3313 40. Muetzel, R. L., Mulder, R. H., Lamballais, S., Cortes Hidalgo, A. P., Jansen, P., Gürog, B., et al. (2019). Frequent bullying involvement and brain morphology in children. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10. Online. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00696 41. Smith, T. M., Gunz, P., & Alemseged, Z. (2020). Baby steps: This ancient skull is helping us trace the path that led to modern childhood. The Conversation, 2 April 2020. Accessed on April 2, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/baby-steps-this-ancient-skull-is-helping-ustrace-the-path-that-led-to-modern-childhood-130535 42. Frank, M. C., Vul, E., & Johnson, S. P. (2009). Development of infants’ attention to faces during the first year. Cognition, 110(2), 16–170. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2008. 11.010 43. Susilo, T., & Duchaine, B. (2013). Advances in developmental prosopagnosia research. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012. 12.011 44. Beaver, K. M., Boccio, C., Smith, S., & Ferguson, E. J. (2019). Physical attractiveness and criminal justice processing: Results from a longitudinal sample of youth and young adults. Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, 26(4), 669–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2019. 1618750 45. Carroll, P., & Shute, R. (2005). School peer victimization in young people with craniofacial anomalies. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 10(3), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 48500500093753 46. Roberts, R., & Shute, R. (2012). A prospective study of coping and adjustment in adolescents with craniofacial conditions. Children’s Health Care, 41(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02739615.2012.657031 47. Eating Disorders Victoria. Overview of eating disorders today. (n.d.). Accessed on December 25, 2020 at https://www.eatingdisorders.org.au/eating-disorders-a-z/eating-disorder-statis tics-and-key-research/ 48. Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019). Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20, 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/152910061 9832930 49. Dutton, K. (2012). The wisdom of psychopaths: What saints, spies and serial killers can teach us about success. Scientific American. 50. Izard, C. E., & Haynes, O. M. (1988). On the form and universality of the contempt expression: A challenge to Ekman and Friesen’s claim of discovery. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992469

32

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

51. Heitler, S. (2013). How contempt destroys relationships. Psychology Today, 4 March 2013. Accessed on August 8, 2021 at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resolution-not-con flict/201303/how-contempt-destroys-relationships 52. De Stefani, E., Nicolini, Y., Belluardo, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2019). Congenital facial palsy and emotion processing: The case of Moebius syndrome. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 18, e12548.https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12548 53. Rudert, S. C., Reutner, L., Greifeneder, R., & Walker, M. (2017). Faced with exclusion: Perceived facial warmth and competence influence moral judgments of social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016. 06.005 54. Slee, P. T., Campbell, M., & Spears, B. (2012). Child, adolescent and family development (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 55. Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331, 477–480. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1199198 56. Scola, C., Holvoet, C., Arciszewski, T., & Picard, D. (2015). Further evidence for infants’ preference for prosocial over antisocial behaviors. Infancy, 20. Online. https://doi.org/10. 1111/infa.12095 57. Slee, P. T. (1984). The nature of mother-infant gaze patterns during interaction as a function of emotional expression. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23(4), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)60315-0 58. Shai, D., & Belsky, J. (2017). Parental embodied mentalizing: How the nonverbal dance between parents and infants predicts children’s socio-emotional functioning. Attachment and Human Development, 19(2), 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2016.1255653 59. Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioural dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174). Guilford Press. 60. Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck’s personality factors and self esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian school boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90136-Q 61. Nichols, S. R., Svetlova, M., & Brownell, C. A. (2009). The role of social understanding and empathic disposition in young children’s responsiveness to distress in parents and peers. Cognition, Brain and Behavior, 13(4), 449–478. http://www.pitt.edu/~toddlers/ESDL/Nichol s,Svetlova,Brownell_CBB2009_SocUnd,EmpDisp&RespToDistress.pdf 62. Rhodes, M., & Brandone, A. C. (2014). Three-year-olds’ theories-of-mind in actions and words. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 263. Online. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2014.00263 63. Blakemore, S. J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Review of Neuroscience, 9, 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2353 64. Hong, E. (2019). The power of nunchi: The Korean secret to happiness and success. UK: Hutchinson. 65. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2010). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151099165384 66. Maccoby, E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship. Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch. 67. Foot, H., Morgan, M., & Shute, R. (Eds.). (1990). Children helping children. Wiley. 68. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (Eds.). (2016). Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward. Routledge. 69. Stone, L., Lurquin, P. F., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2006). Genes, culture, and human evolution: A synthesis (p. 133). Wiley-Blackwell. 70. Gual, M. A., & Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal. Ecological Economics, 69, 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2008.07.020

References

33

71. Dennett, D. (2009). Darwin’s strange inversion of reasoning. PNAS, 106(suppl. 1), 10061– 10065. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904433106 72. Geertz, C. 1973, cited in Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27, 34–49, 34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.830548 73. Ward, D., & Stapleton, M. (2012). Es are good: Cognition as enacted, embodied, embedded, affective and extended. In F. Paglieri (Ed.), Consciousness in interaction: The role of the natural and social context in shaping consciousness (pp. 89–104). John Benjamins. 74. Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690301894 75. Marsh, S. (2018). Record number of UK children excluded for racist bullying. The Guardian, 1 December 2018. Accessed on February 14, 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/educat ion/2018/nov/30/record-number-of-uk-children-excluded-for-racist-bullying 76. Morelli, G. A., Rogoff, B., Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D. (1992). Cultural variation in infants’ sleeping arrangements: Questions of independence. Developmental Psychology, 28, 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.604 77. Byers, l., Kulitja, S., Lowell, A., & Kruske, S. (2012). ‘Hear our stories’: Child-rearing practices of a remote Australian Aboriginal community. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 20, 293–297.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1584.2012.01317.x 78. Kagitcibasi, C. (2012). Sociocultural change and integrative syntheses in human development: Autonomous-related self and socio-cognitive competence. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00173.x 79. Nesdale, D., & Dalton, D. (2011). Children’s social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 895–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02017.x 80. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Penguin. 81. Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behaviour of oneyear-olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 113–136). Methuen. 82. Li, T., Chen, X., Mascaro, J., Haroon, E., & Rilling, J. K. (2017). Intranasal oxytocin, but not vasopressin, augments neural responses to toddlers in human fathers. Hormones and Behavior, 93, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.01.006 83. Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1979). Growing up in Polynesia. Allen and Unwin. 84. Crittenden, A. N., & Marlowe, F. W. (2013). Cooperative child care among the Hadza: Situating multiple attachment in evolutionary context. In N. Quinn & J. M. Mageo (Eds.), Attachment reconsidered: Cultural perspectives on a western theory (pp. 67–83). Palgrave Macmillan. 85. Hrdy, S. B. (2005). Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding model. In C. S. Carter, L. Ahnert, K. E. Grossman, S. B. Hrdy, M. E. Lamb, S. W. Porges, & N. Sachser (Eds.), Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis (pp. 9–32). MIT Press. 86. McCrory, E., Gerin, M. I., & Giding, E. (2017). Annual research review: Childhood maltreatment, latent vulnerability and the shift to preventative psychiatry—the contribution of functional brain imaging. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 338–357. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12713 87. Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(2), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198703000-00007 88. Schaverien, J. (2015). Boarding school syndrome: The psychological trauma of the ‘privileged’ child. Routledge. 89. Archer, J. (1999). The nature of grief: The evolution and psychology of reactions to loss. Routledge. 90. Robinson, J. A. (1999). Update on attachment theory and research. Paper presented to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, Norwich House, Adelaide, April 1999. 91. Lambert, R., & Millham, S. (1968). The hothouse society (p. 371). Penguin.

34

2 The Social Animal—Evolutionary Beginnings

92. UK Study Centre (2018). Top UK boarding school, Eton College, requests students hand over their mobile phones in the evenings. Accessed on November 7, 2019 at https://www.ukstudycentre.co.uk/blog/top-uk-boarding-school-eton-college-requests-stu dents-hand-mobile-phones-evenings/ 93. Evans, C. B. R., Smokowski, P. R., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). Cumulative bullying victimization: An investigation of the dose–response relationship between victimization and the associated mental health outcomes, social supports, and school experiences of rural adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.021 94. Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P. T., Askell-Williams, H., & Lawson, M. J. (2012). Associations between types of involvement in bullying, friendships and mental health status. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704312 95. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 96. Bryson, B. (1989). The lost continent: Travels in small-town America (p. 232). Black Swan. 97. McLaren, S., Schurmann, J., & Jenkins, M. (2015). The relationships between sense of belonging to a community GLB youth group; school, teacher, and peer connectedness; and depressive symptoms: Testing of a path model. Journal of Sexuality, 62(12), 1688–1702. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1078207 98. McLaren, S., Turner, J., Gomez, R., McLachlan, A. J., & Gibbs, P. M. (2013). Housing type and depressive symptoms among older adults: A test of sense of belonging as a mediating and moderating variable. Aging & Mental Health, 17(8), 1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/136 07863.2013.805402 99. Hansen, H. R., Henningsen, I., & Kofoed, J. (2014). When classroom culture tips into bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 267–297). Cambridge University Press. 100. Lambert, R., & Millham, S. (1968). The hothouse society (p. 318). Penguin.

Chapter 3

Competition, Cooperation and the Self

Here, we address a question that is often asked: are humans basically competitive or cooperative? Perhaps school bullying is just a reflection of normal human competitive behaviour, and children simply have to learn to deal with it. This is the view of New York’s Izzy Kalman, for example, whose program Bullies 2 Buddies, rather than being ‘anti-bullying’, is aimed at undermining what he calls ‘the victim mentality’ [1]. Like all living creatures, humans have evolved to respond positively towards stimuli that are beneficial to them, and negatively towards harmful ones. Drawing upon this basic biological fact, US social psychologist Morton Deutsch developed his theory of social interdependence, the nature of which he saw as the basis for cooperation and love, as well as for competition and hate. Put simply, with whom should I ally myself? Am I likely to either sink or swim with this person, or if they swim, am I likely to sink? [2] Deutsch helped to found conflict resolution as a field of research. Such social ‘dependence’ models, based on the notion of meeting our goals and needs through groups, have been critiqued by those who see social identity as central, [3] something we cover in more detail from a social psychological perspective in Chap. 6. Here, we take an evolutionary view of how the self (or identity) fits with notions of cooperation and competition.

Competition and Cooperation Konrad Lorenz’s writings in the 1950s and 1960s contributed to understanding of aggressive displays as an expression of competition between members of a species [4]. Physical fighting is a survival threat to all involved parties and is often replaced by rituals that determine who is dominant and who must submit. Dominance brings privileges such as access to resources and mates. Lorenz studied the growling threats of wolves, where teeth are bared but not used to cause damage. Another example is

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_3

35

36

3 Competition, Cooperation and the Self

that the huge mandibles of male stag beetles have evolved not for inflicting bites, but for engaging in wrestling matches to win mating rights [5]. In humans, competition for status (degree of social respect) can sometimes take the form of bullying; indeed, according to some young people the specific purpose of bullying is to achieve higher status. One young Swedish person explained: ‘If you’re more popular, then you might get used to having that position and you don’t want to lose it, have it taken away from you, and you might feel threatened or jealous or something if you’re kind of used to having high status’ [6]. As Robert Thornberg and Hanna Delby put it, ‘From the students’ perspective, the social hierarchy of the peer landscape creates bullying as an expression of the survival of the fittest’ [6]. Achieving status is a form of reward for bullying, although there are also other motives including revenge, retaliation and recreation [7]. Bullying can be physical at times, but is often verbal (name-calling or other insults) or indirect, such as by spreading harmful gossip, [8] and its methods now include electronic ones. In humans and other primates, when a social hierarchy is stable, those at the bottom show physiological stress responses of being threatened, but if a hierarchy is unstable, it is those at the top who experience threat [9]. In humans, the stress responses of those at the bottom at a time of instability are typical not of threat, but of ‘challenge’ [10]. This pattern of responses seems to be very basic to humans, as it can be created even in laboratory conditions, where there are no real-life consequences. It is found whether considering status or power (the ability to control resources). Building upon the original insights of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace on natural selection, [11] Richard Dawkins’ theory that humans (and other species) will work to outcompete non-relatives or assist their closest kin in order to favour the replication of their own ‘selfish genes’, has become broadly accepted, if subject to some critique [12, 13]. Dawkins also maintains that deceit is an integral part of evolution, in the interest of competing for resources, and that the ability to detect deceit has co-evolved with it. A further suggestion is that, in humans, self-deception occurs to boost one’s self-confidence and thus one’s social influence, this process being aided by a tendency to derogate others (a notable feature of bullying, sexual harassment, dis-ableism, ageism, homophobia and racism) [14]. This evolutionary view regards self-deception as an ‘offensive’ strategy, rather than a matter of being defensive in the face of threat, in a Freudian sense. Lorenz’s writings, and those of others after the horrors of the Second World War, saw aggression as being a ‘hallmark of humanity’, [15] as captured in William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies, about the descent into savagery of a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island [16]. Frans de Waal has countered this bleak perspective with evidence that humans are highly cooperative and empathic creatures and that peaceful co-existence is the norm [15]. Indeed, it has been suggested that human evolution has followed a track of ‘self-domestication’; that is, human traits that promote social integration, such as lower aggressiveness and within-group tolerance, have been selected for [17]. We even seem predisposed to trust strangers [18] (though this seems to be a particularly western propensity [19]), and the ability to cooperate with them is remarkable, according to Hrdy [20]. She observes that it is a regular event for three hundred strangers to sit down peaceably in uncomfortable conditions

Competition and Cooperation

37

for long-haul flights, while three hundred chimpanzees in the same situation would tear one another apart! By contrast with Lord of the Flies, an account of how a reallife group of Tongan teenage boys managed their affairs while stranded for fifteen months on a deserted island is heart-warmingly positive [21]. Primatologist Agustin Fuentes suggests that attempting to understand human nature by pitting the notions of competition and cooperation against one another is unrealistic. Both are in the human repertoire and play a part in evolution, but he suggests that simple individualist evolutionary theories based on ‘selfish genes’ neglect the complexity of human social, cultural and ecological factors that drive evolution. Aggression is thus a human capability, but not a necessity, and Fuentes finds that across primate species, affiliative behaviour, rather than aggression, forms a strong basal pattern: Given our neurological complexity, individual biobehavioral diversity, and ability to convey extremely large and temporally disparate amounts of information behaviorally as humans, it appears that cooperation and shared information exchange, combined with socially negotiated distribution of labor, seems to effectively coordinate large groups of people [22].

A biologically evolved tendency to cooperate may be overlaid by cultural change. In non-human primates (baboons), a wild colony has been observed to move towards a more peaceable culture when the most aggressive animals were wiped out through illness, with incoming members adhering to this new regime [23]. Putting aside that the cultural change in this case was initiated by deaths, that such a change towards less aggressive behavioural norms in a community is possible even in non-human animals is encouraging for those seeking to reduce bullying. Research has also shown that a preference for either human cooperation or competition is learned through the cultures of institutions within which we have experience [24]. Specifically, school climate––a cluster of measurable aspects of school culture such as affiliation and teacher support [25]––has been found to contribute to the level of bullying, [26] and is therefore a potential target for prevention programs. Prosociality, such as the giving and receiving of social support, is fundamental to human existence. Empathic responding to others, as we have already noted, appears as early as the second year, with individual differences already apparent [27]. There may be an evolved predisposition towards a moral sensibility, but it is clear that early prosociality is nurtured by social experiences [28]. With Tony de Blasio and Paul Williamson, Rosalyn published the first detailed study of the social support that Australian children receive from family and friends; children’s self-esteem was related to support satisfaction and network size, and while companionship support came mainly from friends, parents gave informational, emotional and instrumental support. Such patterns of specialist versus generalist support provision seem to vary across cultures, as this pattern differs from that reported for children in the USA [29]. Receiving support from those outside the family requires some explanation, as altruism towards non-kin seems to fly in the face of ‘selfish genes’, [30] but as de Waal says, friendships and conflict resolution have survival value (chimpanzees literally kiss and make up). In reviewing the literature on non-kin friendships, Robert Kurzban and colleagues note that these occur universally in humans [30]. Such friendships

38

3 Competition, Cooperation and the Self

and school bullying are inextricably linked, as we will discuss in later chapters. One explanation offered for the existence of non-kin friendships is the expectation of reciprocal (‘tit for tat’) benefits (as in the case of cooperative breeding), with empathy seen as an evolved emotional mechanism to initiate help. Anger and vengefulness at lack of reciprocity, and guilt over not providing it, are associated emotions. Even at five and a half years old, children are prosocial to classmates who have been prosocial to them [31]. However, people deny seeing friendships as cold exchange and are most likely to give help when reciprocity is least likely. And, the Kurzban team observes, over-zealous tracking of reciprocal events is likely to damage a friendship. This is presumably the case only if one makes it explicit; and casual observations indicate that in some relationships, even without a mental checklist being kept, an imbalance of reciprocity may become so glaringly obvious to the ‘losing’ party that they decide to end the relationship. While receiving social support is protective, giving it is draining of resources, so it is in the interest of survival to achieve a reasonable balance. Evidence supports this proposition, although there are complexities depending on the closeness and longevity of the relationship, as well as cultural differences, such as the emphasis on filial piety (respect for elders) in some Asian societies [32]. An alternative suggestion to reciprocity canvassed by Kurzban and colleagues is that friendships are a form of social insurance; if others come to value you for your particular characteristics and abilities, then they are more likely to help if you are in dire need. This might be achieved through a strategy of cultivating allies, especially ‘best friends’, whose support can be drawn upon when conflicts arise with others. Reputation may also be involved, such that if you create a good record for being supportive of others, then third parties might be more willing to support you. People are more likely to be helpful if they believe others are watching, and even put more money in an honesty box furnished with a pair of eyes! While it is possible that helpful individuals have had an evolutionary advantage through selective mating, some studies suggest that there may be a flipped explanation: that cooperation is promoted because antisocial behaviours are punished, though the evidence is rather confusing. At another level of analysis, it is interesting that known reward systems in the brain are activated by successful cooperation, by earning a good reputation and by punishing wrongdoers [30]. ‘Wrongdoing’ is a matter of breaking the norms that social groups establish to enable their smooth functioning. Computer simulations based on game theory show that norms become ‘tighter’ (more adhered-to and more punished if broken) under conditions of societal threat and that such cultural adaptation is evolutionarily advantageous [33]. All these processes––concerned with competition, cooperation, reputation, norms, threat, rewards and punishment––are relevant for bullying. The cognitive work needed to keep track over time of reciprocal helpful acts and the social reputations of a circle of friends and acquaintances, to work out the implications for oneself, and to resolve conflicts, is considerable. Hence, our social brain.

Evolution, Self and Identity

39

Evolution, Self and Identity According to Dan McAdams and Keith Cox, having evolved to live in small groups, we start out as social actors even before there is any ‘self’, and ‘human selves are fundamentally oriented to social performance’ [34]. Some scholars have focused more on ‘identity’, and others on ‘the self’, but these concepts are intermingled. In having a sense of self, or personhood, we inevitably make a contrast with other people, although in some cultures the self is more intimately tied to being part of a family or community [35]. The self tends to be the focus of personality theorists and has an inward-looking, self-reflective inclination, at least, from adolescence and in the West. A more outwardly-orientated view tends to be the province of both sociologists and social psychologists, who prefer the term ‘identity’ to ‘self’, placing a focus on group belonging in defining who we are. German-American psychologist and psychoanalyst Erik Erikson put it as strongly as this: ‘In the social jungle of human existence, there is no feeling of being alive without a sense of identity’ [36]. The sociological term ‘othering’ has entered common parlance and carries the implication that the ‘other’ is ‘not one of us’ and is inferior or marginalised. Dominant groups in society maintain their status by ‘othering’ minorities [37]. For example, India’s 2019 citizenship laws have been interpreted as setting the scene for Muslims to be othered in society, with their homes, businesses and individuals being targeted, often violently [38]. As children grow up, their interactions with others within social and cultural contexts contribute to their developing sense of self or identity. Initially, the family is the main context, while peer groups become influential later. Kagitcibasi theorised that depending on the cultural context, the developing self will come to place greater or lesser emphasis on autonomy (personal agency) and on degree of relatedness to others, but that to be low on both these dimensions suggests psychopathology [39]. To a greater or lesser degree, then, the self or identity is intimately tied up with needing others and relating to them, but also with how far we are able to act independently of them. Erikson saw adolescence as the time of life when people are especially concerned with finding ‘who they are’, especially in relation to peers [40]. He proposed that achieving a stable sense of identity is then the main developmental task, though others have regarded identity as relatively fluid, with people having a range of future ‘possible selves’ as they move through life [41]. Paradigm 2 advocate Hanne Haavind, like Erikson, sees the creation of identity as an effortful process that adolescents cannot shirk [42]. However, the notion of the ‘identity crisis’ (a term coined by Erikson) and the ‘project’ of finding out who one is, or could be, is not a universal human preoccupation. It is one that has developed gradually in the West over the past few hundred years, being boosted by the nineteenth-century social changes of the Industrial Revolution [43] and the late twentieth-century’s increasing neoliberal focus on the individual [44–46]. It is now close to an obsession for many as the self is consciously constructed and beamed out to the world via social media (which selfie will project my best image?). This is not to deny that this cultural shift may have

40

3 Competition, Cooperation and the Self

built upon an evolved emphasis on social-affective development, after puberty, as relationships with peers then become more important in defining who we are [47]. Our own sense of self plays a motivating role in our social behaviour [48]. For example, if we see ourselves as kind we are more likely to do someone a good turn, while if we think of ourselves as a good deal-maker we may be more willing to take advantage of another’s weakness. However, coming from an evolutionary perspective, cognitive scientist Paul Smaldino has recently emphasised that it is not our felt self, but our social identity as conveyed to others that determines what characteristics are selected for, through cultural as well as genetic processes [49]. In other words, taking our two examples again, the tendency to behave kindly, or the tendency to take advantage of others––traits, that develop epigenetically [50]— is what evolution acts upon. According to this theory, a diverse range of social behaviours can be understood as serving the same evolved function: the need to find suitable partners for cooperation in large-scale societies. Therefore, we are driven to belong to certain groups that will help us meet our goals. The formation and maintenance of groups necessarily involves processes of inclusion and exclusion, and a consideration of the social processes that achieve this, and the evolutionary pressure underlying them, is therefore fundamental to gaining an understanding of bullying as functional rather than pathological. As we have seen, understanding the human propensity to cooperate with non-kin, even strangers, presents a challenge, with numbers of theories proposed. Smaldino observes that the evolution of cooperation requires mechanisms that ensure that those who cooperate are not exploited by the non-cooperative or by bullies. This is not to say that bullies don’t sometimes ‘win’, but the point is that, for cooperation to be maintained in human populations, bullying should not be the strategy that out-competes cooperation in the longer term. All theories of cooperation hinge on the idea of ‘positive assortment’, that is, that individuals with similar traits tend to interact preferentially with one another, and as long as the cooperative out-perform the non-cooperative, cooperative traits will be selected for, whether (epi)genetically, culturally or both. Where Smaldino takes this notion forward is in proposing that social identity plays a crucial role: that ‘social identity signals often function as multi-dimensional, context-dependent markers for assortment’ [51]. Within large-scale societies, he suggests, we are not just looking for any old cooperators, but for the best cooperators, for whoever is most likely to help us achieve our goals. Not only our goals, but our norms and values matter, and we also need to present ourselves as a desirable partner for the other party. In other words, coordination is needed. Smaldino focuses less on the ‘felt’ sense of self than its behavioural expression, his view being consonant with the premise of Self-Categorisation Theory (which we will discuss in Chap. 6), that we have multiple identities. We selectively reveal parts of ourselves dependent on the social context, and this is in the interest of achieving coordination with others. Smaldino’s theory thus brings together the dependence and social identity models of group behaviour. The identity signals we emit may be overt or covert and include clothing, language (spoken and nonverbal), humour and even food choice [52]. Such signals are markers of group inclusion and exclusion. Adolescents may wear clothing

Evolution, Self and Identity

41

that marks them out as fans of sci-fi or the latest pop music sensation, or as supporters of a certain sports team. These markers of differentiation are often harmless but, in line with Schott and Søndergaard’s cautious paradigm 2 definition of bullying, [53] in the event of social exclusion anxiety, they may be used to symbolically define some individual(s) as ‘the other’. Ask any ethnic minority child who has had the contents of their lunchbox scrutinised by classmates. This othering may stretch into contempt or even bullying. Smaldino points out two schools of thought in social psychology that offer explanations for which subset of identity we reveal at any given moment; both maintain that we have a goal to distinguish ourselves from others who are similar to us. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory holds that we aim to create a balance between goals for assimilation and distinctiveness. For example, a player in a cricket team might identify as a team member, creating camaraderie by behaviours such as demeaning the abilities of the opposing team, while at the same time identifying uniquely within the team as a specialist spin bowler. The alternative theory is Identity Signalling Theory, based on the idea that we want to distinguish ourselves from those who may be seen as similar to us, but from whom we wish to differentiate ourselves, in order not to be mistaken for being ‘like them’, with their different norms and values, and we are therefore motivated to signal that those others are different. A study by Haavind exemplifies this: she found that children often give a signal of difference in the form of an ‘announcement’ about a peer, or it may take the form of a loaded question [54]. There is evidence for both Optimal Distinctiveness Theory and Identity Signalling Theory. Smaldino suggests, in summary, that in both cases, ‘the expression of social identity functions as a signal to facilitate assortment for successful coordination’ [49] [original italics]. The nature of this expression is affected by the complexity of a society and by culture. The existence of cultural differences means that perspectives on the self, identity and proper social relationships vary. For example, by contrast with Urie Bronfenbrenner’s well-known ecological systems model of development that places the individual at the centre, [55] there is a traditional Maori view of the social world as a ninetentacled octopus, with its central head being the family, and the unique individual just one of the connected tentacles [56]. Buddhism sees the self as either inseparable from others or as an illusion to be deconstructed [57]. Aspects of our discussions, in this book, of social identity may not be globally applicable, therefore. However, Smaldino’s evolutionary view implies that there is an underlying universal push towards cooperative relationships and social coordination. As an African proverb says: If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.

Conclusions To summarise our evolutionary perspective on bullying, humans have evolved as highly social animals, who preferentially associate with, or identify with, certain smaller groups within wider society. There may be an evolutionary basis for our

42

3 Competition, Cooperation and the Self

choice of groups with whom to associate, with social identity (and in fact, multiple social identities) playing a core role in coordinating with others in order to achieve our goals. In associating with some groups, certain others are inevitably excluded; in some cases, according to paradigm 2, this leads to behaviours that can be seen as bullying. Although humans are mainly peaceable and cooperative, there is also competition for resources and status, which may sometimes play out in the form of bullying and other forms of unkindness. According to the lengthy but tentative Schott and Søndergaard definition of bullying presented in Chap. 1, our social survival is put at risk by being marginalised or bullied, or by fearing that this will occur after witnessing it happening to others, even though some may benefit from it [58]. Marginalising others then acts as a defence against becoming a victim oneself. In extreme cases, as the tragedy of ‘Dolly’ Everett shows, being marginalised results in self-annihilation or, in instances such as school shootings, lethal revenge by ‘victims’ against those they perceive as the excluders. We should re-emphasise that in taking an evolutionary starting point for considering bullying, we are in no way endorsing any view that bullying is somehow hardwired into human beings. We share the concern of Tim Johnston that when relevant evolutionary and neuropsychological research is translated into the popular arena, there is a danger of ‘naturalizing bullying behavior and making our evolutionary heritage, not our social relationships, responsible for bullying’ [59]. Our approach is, rather, systemic and multidimensional: evolutionary, epigenetic, developmental, psychological, relational, cultural and moral. In the next chapter, we examine bullying more closely from the paradigm 2 perspective.

References 1. Kalman, I. C. (2013, June). Why psychology is failing to solve the problem of bullying. International Journal on World Peace, XXX(2), 71–97. 2. Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (2nd ed., pp. 23–42). Jossey-Bass. 3. Bernd, S., & Oakes, J. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59, 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706062760 4. Lorenz, K. (1967). On aggression. Methuen. 5. Goyens, J., Dirckx, J., & Aerts, P. (2015). Stag beetle battle behavior and its associated anatomical adaptations. Journal of Insect Behaviour, 28, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905015-9495-3 6. Thornberg, R., & Delby, H. (2019). How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational Research, 150. Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1600376 7. Runions, K. C., Salmivalli, C., Shaw, T., & Burns, S. (2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21770 8. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1992)18:2%3C117::AID-AB2480180205% 3E3.0.CO;2-3

References

43

9. Sapolsky, R. M. (1983). Endocrine aspects of social instability in the olive baboon (Papio anubis). American Journal of Primatology, 5, 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.135005 0406 10. Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2018). Stress and the stability of social systems: A review of neurophysiological research. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 340–376. https://doi. org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1543149 11. Kutschera, U. (2003). A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection. Theories in Biosciences, 122, 343–359. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12064-003-0063-6 12. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press. 13. Moss, L. (2006). The question of questions: What is a gene? Comments on Rolston and Griffths & Stotz. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27, 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11017-006-9021-x 14. von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001354 15. de Waal, F. B. M. (2012). The antiquity of empathy. Science, 336(874–876), 874. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1220999 16. Golding, W. (1955). Lord of the Flies. Coward McCann. 17. Barron, A. B., & Hare, A. B. (2020). Prosociality and a sociosexual hypothesis for the evolution of same-sex attraction in humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2955. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02955 18. ABC Radio National (2020). Trusting strangers: Who do we trust and why? Podcast All in the Mind, 20.09.2020. Retrieved on November 08, 2020, from https://www.abc.net.au/radionati onal/programs/allinthemind/trusting-strangers/12664518 19. Siliezar, J. (2020). How the West became WEIRD. (Q & A with Joseph Henrich). Harvard Gazette, 16 September 2020). Retrieved on November 10, 2020, from https://news.harvard. edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/ 20. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). cited in Smaldino, P. E. (2019). Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution. Behavioural Processes, 161, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.11.015 21. Bregman, R. (2020). The real Lord of the Flies: what happened when six boys were shipwrecked for 15 months. The Guardian, 9 May 2020. Retrieved on May 15, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-whathappened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months 22. Fuentes, A. (2004). It’s not all sex and violence: Integrated anthropology and the role of cooperation and social complexity in human evolution. American Anthropologist, 106(4), 710– 718, p. 715. Retrieved on November 17, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3567189? seq=1 23. Sapolsky, R. M., & Share, L. J. (2004). A pacific culture among wild baboons: Its emergence and transmission. PLOS Biology, 2(4), e106. Retrieved on March 07, 2017, from https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387274/ 24. Peysakhovich, A., & Rand, D. (2016). Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science, 62(3), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.2015.2168 25. Glover, D., & Coleman, M. (2005). School culture, climate and ethos: Interchangeable or distinctive concepts? Journal of In-service Education, 31(2), 251–271. 26. Wang, C., Berry, B., & Swearer, S. M. (2018). The critical role of school climate in effective bullying prevention. Theory into Practice, 52(4), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841. 2013.829735 27. Nichols, S. R., Svetlova, M., & Brownell, C. A. (2009). The role of social understanding and empathic disposition in young children’s responsiveness to distress in parents and peers. Cognition, Brain, & Behavior, 13(4), 449–478. 28. Brownell, C. A. (2013). Early development of prosocial behaviour: Current perspectives. Infancy, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12004

44

3 Competition, Cooperation and the Self

29. Shute, R., De Blasio, T., & Williamson, P. (2002). Social support perceptions of Australian children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 318–326. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01650250143000201 30. Kurzban, R., Burton-Chellew, M. N., & West, S. A. (2015). The evolution of altruism in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 575–599. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych010814-015355 31. House, B., Henrich, J., Sarnecka, B., & Silk, J. B. (2013). The development of contingent reciprocity in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evolhumbehav.2012.10.001 32. Suanet, B., & van Tilburg, T. G. (2019). Balance in social support exchange and discontinuation of young-old’s personal relationships in three birth cohorts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3371–3388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518822779 33. Roos, P., Gelfand, M., Nau, D., & Lun, J. (2015). Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.003 34. McAdams, D. P., & Cox, K. S. (2010). Self and identity across the lifespan. In R. M. Lerner, M. E., Lamb, & A. M. Freund, (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development, Vol. 2, Social and Emotional development (pp. 159–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 35. McCarthy, J. R. (2012). The powerful relational language of ‘family’: Togetherness, belonging and personhood. The Sociological Review, 60, 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X. 2011.02045.x 36. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis (p. 130). Norton. 37. Guttormsen, D. S. A. (2018). Advancing Otherness and Othering of the cultural other during ‘intercultural encounters’ in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(3), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.148 0874 38. Sambaraju, R., & Roy, S. (2020). Indian citizenship has now been reduced to ‘us’ versus ‘them’. The Conversation, 28 February 2020. Retrieved on March 01, 2020, from https://theconversat ion.com/indian-citizenship-has-now-been-reduced-to-us-versus-them-130422 39. Kagitcibasi, C. (2013). Adolescent autonomy-relatedness and the family in cultural context: What is optimal? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jora.12041 40. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. Norton. 41. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954 42. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—On the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158). Cambridge University Press. 43. McAdams, D. P., & Cox, K. S. (2010). Self and identity across the lifespan. Social and Emotional developmentIn R. M. Lerner, M. E. Lamb, & A. M. Freund (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development (Vol. 2, pp. 159–207). Wiley. 44. Shute, R. (1991, April). Cooperative learning and peer tutoring. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 159–160. 45. Dobson, A. S., & Kanai, A. (2018). From ‘can-do’ girls to insecure and angry: Affective dissonances in young women’s post-recessional media. Feminist Media Studies. Online. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1546206 46. Wrenn, M. V., & Waller, W. (2017). Care and the neoliberal individual. Journal of Economic Issues, 51(2), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2017.1321438 47. Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 636–650. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nrn3313 48. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3

References

45

49. Smaldino, P. E. (2019). Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution. Behavioural Processes, 161, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.11.015 50. Fuentes, A. (2004). It’s not all sex and violence: Integrated anthropology and the role of cooperation and social complexity in human evolution. American Anthropologist, 106(4), 710– 718. Retrieved on August 17, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3567189?seq=1 51. Smaldino, P. E. (2019). Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution. Behavioural Processes, 161(108–116), 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.11.015 52. Cantarero, L., Espeitx, E., Lacruz, M. G., & Martin, P. (2013). Human food preferences and cultural identity: The case of Aragon (Spain). International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.692792 53. Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Introduction: New approaches to school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 16– 17). Cambridge University Press. 54. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind – on the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 11, 129–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 55. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. 56. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge. 57. O’Brien, B. (2018). Learn Religions. The Buddhist teachings of self and no-self. Retrieved on November 25, 2019, from https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-the-self 58. Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Introduction: New approaches to school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59. Johnston, T. R. (2015). Affirmation and care: A feminist account of bullying and bullying prevention. Hypatia, 30(2), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12144

Chapter 4

Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

From an evolutionary perspective, we need to associate with other humans in order to survive, thrive and reproduce. However, the goals of various individuals and groups will often clash, so that competition, winners and losers are inevitable aspects of the human condition. As political philosopher Chantal Mouffe has said, social relations always require decisions to be made between conflicting alternatives [1]. Convivencia, or living together in harmony, is a worthy aspiration that can never be fully realised; we have seen how the Japanese education system, despite its collectivist ideals, has still enacted a heavy price for some. Nevertheless, we have also established that humans do have a great capacity for cooperation, empathy and conflict resolution, and are basically peaceable. All societies and religions adopt rules of behaviour, whether moral or legal, to prevent a ‘free-for-all’ and, as we have noted, all countries but one (the USA) have signed up to a treaty acknowledging that all children have human rights that must be upheld. To recap, bullying violates the rights of children to security of the person and to freedom from inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment, and many efforts are being made around the world to minimise bullying behaviours in schools. In considering, in this chapter, critiques of paradigm 1 (the standard Olweus perspective) [2], we are not quite ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, we do embrace the possibility of bringing new perspectives to bear on old data. As Tom Stoppard wrote in Arcadia, his play about the nature of evidence and truth in scientific thought: It makes me so happy. To be at the beginning again, knowing almost nothing ... A door like this has cracked open five or six times since we got up on our hind legs. It’s the best possible time of being alive, when almost everything you thought you knew is wrong [3].

We begin by considering a case from the perspective of paradigm 1. We were being paired up for a project, and we could only work in groups of four. Me and my friends paired up together, but we needed an extra person. My teacher suggested this guy who also bullied me, but not as frequently as the girl. I told him that I couldn’t work with him, and another girl in my class kept complaining that I complain too much. I started arguing with her, which turned into an argument against the girl who was bullying me. My © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_4

47

48

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual teacher broke us up, but the girl continued to bully me. So then, my friend pulled me out the class to talk to me. She said that I should report it to my guidance counselor or the front office. I didn’t want to do it at first, since I did it with the girl who last bullied me and I was the only person that got in trouble. But I decided that enough was enough, and it was time for me to take action. [4]

This is part of a posting by a girl, Si’erra, on an anti-bullying website. She goes on to describe how she and a girl she says bullied her had to write reports about the situation, after which she overhears someone in gym class saying nasty things about her and, in a later class, yet another girl denying that Si’erra has been bullied. She yells back at some length and storms tearfully out of the class. Can we identify a powerful bully and a weak or defenceless victim here? Did anyone have an intention to bully? Si’erra clearly sees herself as the victim, but numbers of students deny this. Are they correct, or are their denials part of a pattern of bullying? If we are not sure there was bullying, how can we know whether it was repeated? Si’erra herself has been blamed by the school authorities in the past; was this justified, or did the school fail to understand what was really going on? Si’erra excludes a boy from joining her work group; is this bullying by Si’erra, or is it a fair call, as she wants to avoid further bullying from him? She feels victimised, but is she lacking in power? She is very ready to argue when she feels injustice and has several friends, one of whom backs up her efforts to defeat the bullying. She also seems aware of the school policies and is prepared to use them, even when they haven’t worked for her in the past. The school authorities now have the unenviable task of working out ‘what happened’ and how to address it. Is it bullying, which can have serious consequences––Si’erra reports that the ‘main bully’ is later expelled from the school for bullying another student––or just a string of differences of opinion? And if it is deemed that there is no bullying, what should be done, if anything? Si’erra is obviously distressed and the relationships between some of the students seem fractious. This demonstrates the difficulties that can arise in attempting to apply the standard bullying criteria to an individual case. What seem like ‘facts’ to one person escape like slippery fish as we try to grasp them.

Objections to Paradigm 1 Schott believes that paradigm 1 fails as a way of thinking about bullying. It leads the school to focus on trying to identify ‘the bully’ and ‘the victim‘, whose behaviours are considered to result from issues beyond the classroom, such as parenting problems or children’s personalities. These individuals are therefore seen as dysfunctional, which suggests that the solution to bullying is to ‘fix’ them. However, Schott makes a strong case that the primary source of bullying lies in the student peer group relationships themselves, rather than in dysfunctional individuals [2]. Dixon, too, has studied the everyday social processes involved and expressed concern that the more widely the term ‘bullying’ casts its net, the greater the risk of pathologising large numbers of young people [5]. Recent perspectives present something of a

Objections to Paradigm 1

49

conundrum: Louise Arsenault’s view is that bullying was once considered ‘normal’ (even character-building) childhood behaviour but that it actually needs addressing as it is associated with psychopathology [6]; paradigm 2 advocates, by contrast, propose reconceptualising bullying as not concerned with psychopathology, but as arising from ‘normal’ group-based behaviour (although acknowledging its harmful effects on victims). In considering dysfunctionality, we can reflect on the notion of ‘passive’ and ‘provocative’ victims that was put forward by Olweus some years ago [7]. While ‘passive’ victims are not judged to have brought bullying on themselves, ‘provocative’ victims are those children who behave in ways that attract bullying, such as by being annoying to others [8]. While this terminology was presumably not meant to be pejorative, it does risk sounding like victim-blaming. Australian psychologist Evelyn Field has developed clinical methods to help victimised children by strengthening their abilities to deflect bullying, for example, by holding their bodies in more confident postures and learning humorous ripostes to verbal bullying [9]. Such methods may help some targeted children, especially so-called ‘passive’ victims. But what of children with autism, who have a very high chance of being bullied in mainstream educational settings? [10] Is it fair to consider their disability as a ‘provocation’ because peers find them ‘annoying’? Or the immigrant girl in Haavind’s study who is asked by a popular girl the apparently innocent question, ‘Why do you wear floralprint trousers?’ [11] Understanding the social nuances, she knows, at that moment, that she has gained a negative reputation that she will never shake off. She dare not give the real reason (that her family bought them as a special gift) as she may appear childish, so she says nothing. She appears passive but has a valid reason of her own to keep quiet. Also, bullied students can come to be seen as ‘irritating’ as part of exclusionary processes [11], rather than being ‘provocative’ in the first place. Under the alternative proposed paradigm 2, instead of being regarded as provocative or passive, such victims are viewed more as hapless pawns in the peer-group social positioning that is integral to human sociality. Function versus dysfunction is a core distinction between the two paradigms, discussed by both Schott and Haavind. Bullying behaviours are functional for some, such as the students who boost their ‘cool’ reputation amongst their peers by differentiating themselves from the ‘weird’ kids or those who wear floral trousers or hearing aids. Such processes can be seen as part of the competitive jockeying for status and influence that, as we saw in the previous chapter, is part and parcel of the ordinary functioning of human social groups (though we should not lose sight of the fact that humans are largely peaceable, and therefore also very capable of finding ways to accommodate one another’s needs). According to the proponents of paradigm 2, it is to such social processes that we need to attend, rather than attaching the labels of ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ to certain students. The literature has increasingly referred to ‘those who bully’ or ‘bullying behaviours’ to counter somewhat the stigma of being labelled as a bully. However, stigma is not the only reason for the objection from paradigm 2: it is the lack of fixity of bully and victim roles. Qualitative and quantitative research over time shows that such roles are fluid: a top dog one day may be the underdog the next, or at least

50

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

fear that they will become so [11, 12]. As we will discuss later, many students in a class, not just a few ‘dysfunctional’ ones, may become involved in bullying, and this demands explanation. Another problem Schott identifies with paradigm 1 is the criterion that bullying must involve intention to harm; as we mentioned previously, this is notoriously difficult to judge and may be absent if harm is merely a side-effect of efforts to reach a goal such as higher status. Considering the human propensity for self-deception [13], a bullying individual may genuinely believe that they did not mean to cause harm (though sometimes they do) [14]. They may remain oblivious to the hurt they have caused and barely notice the students who are still suffering from being demeaned by them in the past [11]. Can we expect even a ‘reasonable person’ to make a fair judgement about intentionality? A further limitation of paradigm 1 that is raised by Schott is the view of power as residing in the bully and their followers. This individual, or small-group, understanding of power, is the focus of psychological approaches, and neglects other sources of power more readily recognised by sociologists, such as institutions, government directives and the social norms that drive students’ behaviour (e.g. to dress and behave acceptably according to gender) [15]. Finally, Schott suggests, Olweus’ view of bullying in terms of dysfunction (aggressive bullies, weak victims, inadequate parents and neglectful teachers) leaves little room for respect for anyone but the researcher! Schott considers two other approaches to bullying that she sees as closely allied to the Olweus view. One relates bullying to broader issues of societal violence [2], but this implies, Schott suggests, that there would be a peaceful alternative if these external crises were to cease, again reducing classroom bullying to a matter of abnormality. It is not clear that such external influences can be readily dismissed, however. For example, in 2016–17, the number of students excluded from British schools for participating in racist bullying increased considerably after a decade of stability; while some believed this was due to greater enforcement of zero-tolerance policies, others suggested it was fuelled by ‘toxic’ public discourse about refugees and immigrants [16]. This was at the time of the Brexit referendum that began a very socially divisive period in British society. Similarly, school bullying in Fiji has been linked to high rates of domestic violence and a culture of coups, where ‘might is right’ [17]. Schott also addresses two definitions proposed by Phillip and his colleague Ken Rigby, who together originated bullying research in Australia [18]. One is that: ‘Bullying is oppression directed by more powerful persons or by a group of persons against individuals who cannot adequately defend themselves’, while the other is that it is ‘the systematic abuse of power in interpersonal relationships’ [19]. Schott acknowledges that these definitions do move towards recognition of the relevance of internal group factors, but that they revert to individual-level explanations for why bullying occurs and, in taking a justice-for-victims perspective, neglect to consider how ordinary children might come to adopt the roles of bullies or bystanders. Do we need to ditch the notion of justice, then? This is a point we consider later in the book.

Paradigm 2

51

Paradigm 2 As a philosopher, Schott has drawn upon research in areas such as critical theory, race theory and feminist studies, as well as discussions with her research colleagues in the interdisciplinary Danish eXbus project on bullying in schools, to arrive at an understanding of social processes, as she says, on a large scale. Influenced by theories about conflict, otherness and abjection (about which we will say more later), she proposes that similar processes occur on a small scale, in school bullying. It is not clear how far theories and research from psychology (especially developmental and social psychology) have influenced her thinking (her colleague Søndergaard is a social psychologist), but in later chapters we discuss a range of theories and research findings, often focused on the smaller scale of social relations, that we believe are relevant, and are in the spirit of paradigm 2. Here, though, we follow up on Schott and Søndergaard’s lengthy, if tentative, definition of bullying that was provided in the first chapter. This views bullying ‘in terms of the basic challenge of living in a community with others’ [19]. As we have seen, communal living is integral to the human condition, with a sense of connection or belonging at the centre. Schott and Søndergaard suggest that bullying can best be understood as an extreme manifestation of the ordinary, yet complex, social processes that occur within and between groups. Based on her understanding of largescale social processes, Schott puts forward four hypotheses concerning bullying, reproduced here in full [19]. Hypothesis 1: Power inheres in a social system and is distributed in such a way that some individuals have access to more material and symbolic power than others. All individuals have access to power––not primarily because of their personalities, but because of the distribution of roles, functions or identities within a social system. Since all individuals are dominated by power in the social system, they are also at risk for and vulnerable to losing the privileges with which they identify. Hypothesis 2: Conflict is an inherent dimension in social relations. Hence society needs to manage conflict rather than attempting to eradicate it entirely in the hope of achieving stable, harmonious relations. Conflicts in society are not an expression of pre-existing natural antagonisms between individuals or groups. Rather, opposing identities are generated from within a social group. Hypothesis 3: A society is defined in terms of whom both it includes and excludes. Exclusion is necessary to establish borders of society (e.g. national, geographical, cultural, political, economic, linguistic). Such borders are not rigid, but are constantly under pressure to be re-negotiated. Individuals or groups who are excluded become viewed as ‘the other’ by the society that excludes them. In principle, the concept of ‘the other’ is not harmful to those who are excluded, since they also belong to a society that is defined by whom it includes/excludes. But if individuals or groups become excluded from all possible societies, they lose the social meaning in their lives (e.g. recognition, rights, privileges, etc.). Individuals or groups who move across borders disturb the system for organising inside/outside; thus, they are viewed as potentially dangerous. Hypothesis 4: Interpersonal relations are mediated by social institutions and symbolic representations, such as language and values.

52

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

Schott then suggests a lengthy definition of bullying with similar principles to those in her definition put forward with Søndergaard (see Chap. 1), though this version is more specific. It sites bullying within formal institutions, such as schools, that are not easily escapable. It also refers to informal groups that form within the institution, their constitution being subject to an ongoing process of exclusion and inclusion. Threats to the social status quo cause anxiety about the risk of exclusion, and this is alleviated by defining some individual(s) as ‘the other’. It is noteworthy that the first hypothesis concerns the matter of power. Despite the inclusion of ‘power’ in Olweus-type definitions of bullying, Elizabeth Meyer has pointed out that traditional bullying studies do not seriously examine power and how it is wielded by students in their peer groups [20]. This situation may have been exacerbated by a broader lack of attention to power in psychology, with social psychology remaining relatively isolated from other fields where it is central to theorising about human relationships [21].

A Japanese Perspective While highlighting the proposals of Schott and Søndergaard, it is important to acknowledge other calls to widen our perspective beyond individual bullies and victims. One was from Japan, as far back as 2003. Shoko Yoneyama and Asao Narito reviewed the literature on bullying (ijime) [22] in this collectivist culture, where ‘the nail that sticks up must be hammered down’ [23]. They raised the fact that any widespread social problem, such as bullying, is viewed by sociologists as potentially being a structural, not an individual, issue. They identified a host of factors related to school that contribute to a greater incidence of bullying, which in Japan has always been seen as a group-based phenomenon, often involving the whole class and typically occurring in the classroom (homeroom) itself rather than the yard or corridors as is typical in western schools. Contributory factors include an authoritarian regime, characterised by hierarchies and power-dominance, as well as dehumanising punishments. Other factors seen to promote ijime are a highlyregimented school atmosphere, methods of learning that students find alienating, and students being obliged to interact closely with others without any choice, in the interest of promoting cooperative group behaviour. This, together with pressure to achieve academically, elevates student stress, which forms a background for bullying. The solution, the authors suggested, is to change the school climate. Motoko Akiba examined student and teacher perspectives about ijime, finding it was considered a daily occurrence, with large numbers of students involved as both perpetrators and targets at different times, reinforcing that it is a social phenomenon, not the preserve of a few dysfunctional individuals [24]. Students explained ijime in terms of peer group processes, with large numbers of classmates bullying an individual who violates group norms. It was justified as being in the interest of the group as a whole, with victims seen as deserving it, for not changing their unacceptable behaviour (we can recall here that punishing offenders activates the neurological

A Japanese Perspective

53

reward system). Paradigm 2, and this Japanese perspective, are moving our thinking a considerable way beyond individual bullies and victims.

Indirect Aggression as Marginalisation Owens‘ Ph.D. research with us, published at the turn of the millenium, provides further evidence that social marginalisation amongst school students is an ordinary, not a pathological, phenomenon. It followed up on Scandinavian studies on aggression by Kaj Bjorkqvist and colleagues [25]. They were the first to extend studies of aggression to be inclusive of females as well as males, showing that female aggression more often takes an indirect form, such as rumour-spreading and exclusion from peer groups, as opposed to direct actions such as physical attacks and verbal abuse. Their findings were largely supported by later studies, some using slightly different terminology that more explicitly acknowledged the relational nature of the behaviours (‘social aggression‘ or ‘relational aggression‘). After Owens found that aggression between Australian students increased from primary to secondary school, with indirect aggression between girls specifically increasing, he focused on that aspect, holding focus groups and interviews with teenage girls about their relationships with one another [26]. This research was never claimed to be about bullying, as its subject matter was not defined by the Olweus criteria. It contributed to a body of research internationally that led to a slew of media stories about ‘mean girls’––also the title of a popular 2004 US comedy film about girls’ relationships. It needs to be emphasised, however, that indirect aggression is far from being the exclusive preserve of females. Owens’ research can be revisited in the light of the paradigm 2 approach to bullying that sees it as an extreme form of ‘normal’ processes of marginalisation involved in the ongoing formation and reformation of social groups. This social process approach contrasts with the paradigm 1 greater focus on bullying events. What emerged from Owens’ work was, in effect, a process model of group-based marginalisation, summarised by a flow chart, reproduced in Fig. 4.1. The data on which it was based were descriptions by girls and teachers of everyday indirectly aggressive behaviours occurring within girls’ peer groups, their explanations for their occurrence, and responses to being marginalised. This model, like the paradigm 2 definitions, pivots on the need for group acceptance and inclusion, but adds the desire to stir up excitement, which was also inherent in Twemlow’s definition of bullying given in Chap. 1. Deutsch, too, has observed that conflict can alleviate boredom, and arouse excitement, purpose and unity [27]. Owens’ model shows motivation to belong and have fun as leading to indirect aggression in the form of gossiping (‘rumour-mongering’) and exclusion. Interestingly, the model also shows this motivation as resulting in direct aggression, which underlines that both modes of aggression serve the same function of creating group belonging by excluding others. This functional approach is one we recommended when considering the non-verbal aspects of indirect aggression [28]; it downplays the relevance

54

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

" "

" "

" " " "

"

" "

Fig. 4.1 Girls’ indirect aggression (from Owens et al. [26])

Indirect Aggression as Marginalisation

55

of the mode of aggression, whether direct or indirect, ‘traditional’ bullying or cyberbullying. Japanese students who are victims of ijime typically experience a broad range of types of abuse, including ostracism, verbal insults, physical attacks and property being damaged or stolen [24]. In Latin America there is a similar picture, but with the rate of theft especially high [29]. Owens concluded that individuals ‘use the forms of aggression that they can get away with’ [30]. While Owens conceptualises the behaviour towards peers in terms of indirect aggression rather than paradigm 2’s ‘creating contempt’, its effects on victims are similarly identified as pain, fear and paranoia. The very real ‘pain’ of being excluded has also been identified in research on ostracism, (see Chap. 8). Owens’ description of ‘fear and paranoia’ is identical to what Schott and Søndergaard call ‘social exclusion anxiety’, and the extension of effects from victims to witnesses is described in both versions. The Owens model includes additional emotional, behavioural and cognitive reactions by victims that can be considered as ways of coping, and we will discuss these too in later chapters. Owens approached this work from a different theoretical basis from that of paradigm 2 scholars’ consideration of large-scale (e.g. sociological) theories concerned with social marginalisation. It was, rather, based on child development theory concerning the different nature and functions of same-sex peer group relationships amongst girls and amongst boys, as young people enter adolescence [31]. However, both research programs drew upon rich qualitative data concerning the lived experiences of young people, and findings were similar despite differences in theoretical frameworks and separations of time and place, suggesting that the described phenomena are robust. Where the model differs most significantly from paradigm 2 is in including characteristics of victims that participants saw as making them vulnerable, such as being ‘provocative’ (a contentious term, as we have mentioned), or having few friends, which is consistent with much evidence from quantitative studies. The model encompasses potential interventions by adults in response to victim distress, recognising that this needs to take account of the peer group processes involved, but also noting that these interventions are considered largely ineffective by the girls themselves. This resonates with paradigm 2 researchers’ advice that it is impossible for adults to really grasp ‘what has been going on’ in young people’s peer group relationships. This is not to say that adults might not be able to assist by having an understanding of exclusionary motivations, practices and their effects, even if we don’t know exactly ‘who did what to whom’.

Direct Aggression as Marginalisation Direct aggression, which may sometimes be considered as bullying, encompasses physical and verbal behaviours. Physical aggression in very young children is considered normal, and something that most learn to use less as they grow older [32, 33]. There is a developmental sequence from physical through verbal aggression (such

56

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

as yelling, teasing and name-calling) to a greater use of indirect aggression, though all may continue to be employed, and verbal and indirect aggression are sometimes found to form a combined factor of ‘psychological aggression’ [34, 35]. Paradigm 2 encourages us to place less emphasis on the form of the aggression, and more on its function. Name-calling is used to directly point out the grounds on which the target is considered unacceptable (Ya fag! Bitch! Fatso! Nerd! Weirdo!). In 2013 a 13-yearold girl at an Australian Rules football match yelled to a player that he was ‘an ape’ [36]. Even though the girl claimed not to realise it, this was a racist slur towards the player, a First Nations man, Adam Goodes. He had twice won the code’s top award. His high standing was no protection for his feelings after a lifetime of such abuse: after asking officials to remove the girl from the stadium, he retired tearfully to the dressing room. The booing he received in future matches every time he touched the ball showed all too well what can happen to even a high-achieving adult who is judged by some to have risen above his station. Despite having many vocal supporters, he retired early from his profession (and was honoured as Australian of the Year in 2015). He was, effectively, bullied out of his job, and the Australian Football League (several years later) apologised for not acknowledging the racism and for failing to support him enough; it had permitted an environment that supported the bullying. Names do hurt, sometimes devastatingly so, while teasing and humorous putdowns, and even ostensibly innocent questions, serve the same purpose in a more subtle and sophisticated way [11, 37]. Physical aggression is used by some girls, but boys use it to a greater extent [35, 38]. Haavind’s longitudinal qualitative research in Norway is again valuable for providing insight, through case examples, of how physical aggression can be far from the disorderly explosion that it may appear to be. Rather, as detailed next, it can be used with great care by boys to serve the same functions of group inclusion and exclusion that we have observed for girls’ indirect aggression [35]. Haavind describes how one Norwegian-born boy from a migrant family did not attract any contempt from other boys as he ‘knew his place’; he was friends with another migrant boy, focused on his studies and did not attempt to join other peer groups. He was not really noticed by the ‘ruling majority’, as she calls them. She contrasts this with the case of Ali, another boy with few friends. Peter reported that he and other boys beat Ali up regularly as he tried to ‘act tough’. Ali had a dispute with Goran, a good fighter, which led to an agreement to have a fight, though Ali was warned by Goran’s friends that he could not win. The boys seemed evenly matched, but then Ali gained the upper hand and hit Goran’s nose, which began to bleed. Peter then intervened; Ali must not be allowed to win, so he hit Ali’s nose and kicked him in the stomach. While Ali was disabled, Goran kicked Ali’s nose hard enough to break it. Peter thought Goran’s attack was getting out of hand, so he pushed him. Goran accepted his friend’s intervention and stopped his attack. Haavind’s analysis is that Peter and friends were fully in control of events, the fight being stopped not for Ali’s sake but with the aim of reducing any punishment for Goran from the school authorities (i.e. they judged what they could get way with). The fight had been allowed to continue just long enough to humiliate Ali and make it clear that

Direct Aggression as Marginalisation

57

he could never expect to join the community of tough boys. Haavind’s investigation shows that a behaviour that would certainly attract a label of ‘physical bullying’ can be used in a very strategic way to marginalise a person who is seen as different and yet dares to try and cross the group boundary, in line with Schott’s third hypothesis.

Sexual Harassment as Marginalisation (and an Example of Bias-Based Bullying) In 1999, Neil Duncan published his qualitative Ph.D. research on peer victimisation in four English schools [39]. He spent extensive periods of time in the schools, observing and discussing with students their relationships. Much of the victimisation that he saw he attributed to the power-laden policing of strict borders between stereotypical gender roles, by both boys and girls, within a misogynist culture. Although, as a sociologist and educator, his work had more in common with sexual harassment research than with paradigm 1 bullying studies, he applied the term ‘sexual bullying‘ to the everyday behaviours he observed. For example, a boy would call a girl a ‘bitch’ (a gender-loaded abusive term) simply because she would not lend him a pencil. He theorised that such behaviours were concerned with maintaining identity and status as ‘acceptable’ males or females (often centred on the body as an emerging marker of identity at the time), but with females being kept at a lower status. Boys were punished by their friends as ‘unmanly’ if they were lured away from their male group by a girlfriend, for not keeping her in order, while the girl also then lost face as her friends believed her boyfriend was not a ‘real man’. Duncan found the lose/lose scenario for girls ‘depressingly circular’ [39]. Needless to say, the situation for nongender-conforming adolescents was far from welcoming, either. Duncan’s descriptions were of ordinary social processes that, like ijime, were widespread amongst the students, rather than occurrences arising from dysfunctional individuals, but he did propose that the misogynist culture created an environment in which those identified as ‘bullies’ could thrive. Bullying based on gender or other cultural forms of oppression (such as racism) has more recently been termed discriminatory or biasbased bullying [40]. Samantha Salmon and colleagues in Canada have suggested that measures of bullying that are limited to the traditional definition omit a great deal of such victimisation; they propose the inclusion of questions about harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, appearance, and race/culture, as well as cyberbullying and threats with weapons, although they do not present a unifying theoretical framework for including these [41]. They found that girls were more subject than boys to six of the nine types of victimisation they identified. Niamh O’Brien too has found that students are unlikely to include gendered or racial bullying in questionnaire responses, yet they bring up these topics in interviews and focus groups [42]. In a 2013 edited book, Duncan and Rivers pursued the link between bullying and sexuality, noting that, ‘Although these two phenomena are widely written and

58

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

spoken about, it is rare to find them conjoined in academic research’ [43]. By then, we too had taken up the idea that there could be value in breaking down the barriers between three largely separate areas of research: bullying, aggression and sexual harassment. Through qualitative research, we found that, amongst Australian high school students, sexually toned behaviours, especially verbal ones denigrating girls’ bodies or their sexuality, were the main means by which high school boys victimised girls; for instance, they would call them flat-chested, big-tits, a whale, a slut or ‘lezzo’, sometimes shouting insults right in their faces, with girls afraid to enter certain areas of the school as a result [14]. Even as we write this, more than a decade later, publicity is being given to a prestigious private boys’ school in Australia where unsavoury happenings have included boys singing loud sexist chants while travelling on city trams, an intimidating experience for girls who were present [44]. In our study, we found such harassment was a widespread experience for girls, indicating, as Duncan found in the UK, and Greetje Timmerman observed in Netherlands schools [45], that harassment is a cultural phenomenon that can be ascribed to living in patriarchal societies [46]. While boys are sometimes harmed by sexual bullying from girls, they are more likely to accept unsolicited sexual approaches [47], while girls’ harassment of boys is more likely to be retaliative [14, 47]. That boys’ harassment of girls sometimes constitutes assault, at social events outside school, has been highlighted by recent media reports, again concerning certain elite private schools in Australia [48]. One girls’ school principal initially believed that multiple sexual assaults occurring at parties were caused by alcohol and lax parenting, but formed a different view after talking to her students. She came to see the root cause as the culture in the nearby boys’ school of ‘entitlement, power, feeling a superiority … boys feel entitled to women’s bodies’, with boys who don’t accede to this ‘rape culture’ experiencing bullying from their male peers [49]. One mother said, ‘My daughter is from a [Sydney] eastern suburbs school. She tells me that at least half of her friends have been raped. She matter-of-factly describes all men as pigs’ [49]. The publicity surrounding these cases in Australia led to similar revelations by girls in the UK. These recent anecdotal reports reflect the dynamics of previous sexual harassment research findings, but ‘on steroids’; there appear to be assault-prone subcultures in some youth communities fuelled by privilege and young people’s easy access to pornography that overwhelmingly portrays sex as violence towards women [50]. Calls for better consent education at school and changes to masculinity ideals have been made. In India, public harassment of pubertal girls is known as ‘eve-teasing’. This extends from name-calling, boys’ taking up of space at school and teasing of girls who like playing male sports, to openly masturbating, stalking and raping girls [51]. Many such incidents do not meet the Olweus definition of bullying, and Damanjit Sandhu notes that such gendered victimisation is masked by the use of the terms ‘bullying’ and ‘cyberbulling’. These abuses often go unreported and simply being a girl in a public space is a challenge in India [51]. Eve-teasing is part of the spectrum of discriminatory and violent behaviour against women in India that led to a massed protest (formation of a human ‘wall’) by up to five million women in Kerala on New Year’s Day, 2019 [52].

Sexual Harassment as Marginalisation …

59

We have found, through quantitative research in Australia, that sexually-toned unwelcome behaviours that girls experience from boys are often aligned with nonsexual psychological aggression, which undermines girls’ sense of safety at school [34]. These findings show that there is a gendered dimension to aggression that is an important aspect of school peer victimisation, but which has generally been overlooked in both bullying and aggression research. It can be exposed by being made explicit in surveys, not hidden behind gender-neutral terminology and questions [53]. Jennifer Berdahl put forward a specific status-based theory for explaining sexbased harassment (‘behavior that derogates, demeans, or humiliates an individual based on that individual’s sex’) [54]. Its central premise is that when the status of males and females is stratified, those with higher status will defend it by the derogation of others based on sex. In a patriarchal society, where males have greater power, most harassment will be directed at females by males, and the least at males by females. Same-sex harassment will also occur, at intermediate levels, in order to defend one’s status within the same-sex group, with most female harassment directed at other females. Consistent with paradigm 2, downgrading the status of others is done by making threats to their identity, in this case as ‘good’ (heterosexual, stereotyped) males or females, as Duncan found, and as later reinforced by Siân Williams’ qualitative work in a London borough [47]. Berdahl’s propositions were supported by Rosalyn’s quantitative study in Australian secondary schools, with same-sex harassment perceived as a greater threat to safety than opposite-sex harassment [55]. This seems surprising (for girls), but may reflect the low levels of physical harassment our studies have found in Australian (state, or public) schools together with the supreme importance to adolescent girls of belonging to intimate, same-sex peer groups [56]. Meyer has taken further the critique of an individualistic approach to bullying that ignores cultural issues such as gender, bemoaning neglect of the strong history of relevant research in fields beyond psychology. It is crucial, she says, ‘to consider the impact that race, ethnicity, disability, class, gender identity and expression, sex and sexual orientation have on the power dynamics present in relationships’ [20]. Intersectional effects are suggested by a recent US finding that young males are more likely to sexually harass females in more advantaged neighbourhoods (controlling for gender stereotyped attitudes), which is consistent with a status-based explanation (the more socially advantaged males have more status to protect) [57]. Homophobia and transphobia are recent areas of research attention, Meyer observes, with heteronormativity and the exercise of social power in schools having been ‘blind spots’ in bullying research but needing much closer attention. US psychology researcher Dorothy Espelage has also addressed the relationship between sexual harassment, homophobic teasing and bullying, from a paradigm 1 perspective, noting the close relationships between these, and the existence of a developmental pathway from bullying through homophobic teasing to sexual violence [58]. She shares with Sanhdu and Meyer the goal of ensuring that gender-based and other forms of discrimination should not be hidden under a general label of ‘bullying’. This is particularly pertinent in the US legal context, where there are laws against sexual harassment as a form of discrimination, which may become lost if subsumed under the bullying umbrella. Hence, there is a strong pragmatic push in that country

60

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

to keep the two concepts separate, which is at odds with the present view that both can be understood through the lens of an evolved human tendency to marginalise others in ways intimately connected to power. However, our adoption of Duncan’s term ‘sexual bullying’ acts to highlight the specifically gendered, cultural, form that bullying often takes. Conceiving of sexual bullying as a cultural phenomenon may help to account for a long history of teachers often failing to take it seriously, just as the goldfish does not realise it exists in water. In Nan Stein’s 1995 US study a girl who hit a boy who physically sexually assaulted her in class was punished and told by the teacher that she deserved it for wearing a short skirt [59]. A teacher in one of our Australian studies in the 2000s believed harassment was ‘all sex and natural’ [14]. Some London teachers in 2015 told victimised students who complained to ‘get used to it’ [60]. A 2017 UK survey reported many similar stories, with sexual harassment ‘highly prevalent’ in coeducational secondary schools, with girls (and sometimes female teachers) overwhelmingly targeted (by boys) but rarely reporting it; indeed it was found to be ‘a typical feature of school culture, often reinforced through mundane, “everyday” actions’ [61]. In 2019 Victoria Rawlings described a Facebook-organised ‘Kick a slut in the head day’ at an Australian secondary school that resulted in young women being kicked throughout the day, yet this event was construed by senior staff as ‘not bullying’ (judged against the Olweus criteria) and as ‘joking’ and small-scale, with ‘only’ about sixty students having signed up! [62]. In 2021, the UK’s education inspectorate, Ofsted, reported that sexual harassment had become normalised in schools and students did not think it worth making reports [63]. In the interest of girls’ human rights, and those of LGBTIQ + students, this issue needs much greater consideration in anti-bullying research and programs [64]. Girls’ wellbeing drops, compared with boys, as they enter their teens [65], and they say that a reduction of sexism and harassment would be one of the main things that could be done to improve their lives [66]. As Rosalyn and her colleague Anna Dedousis-Wallace, amongst others, have shown, the role of teachers in treating bullying seriously is a crucial step along the pathway to the successful implementation of interventions [67]. Espelage has suggested that in the USA, a significant reason for the failure of anti-bullying programs is likely to be the lack of attention to gendered harassment. The US is not alone in this. Government funding for LGBT anti-bullying programs was withdrawn in England in 2020 [68]. Anti-bullying programs in Australia that address homophobia have been subject to political suppression from the ‘religious right’ and other conservatives over many years [69], with the term ‘post-modern cancer’ used by one politician, in reference to gender fluidity [70]. However, there has also been movement towards greater inclusivity by some Australian Catholic schools [71]. This brief examination of gender as a culturally-derived determinant of peer victimisation in schools suggests that it is a comfortable fit for the paradigm 2 conceptualisation of bullying. Sexual harassment or bullying can be seen as a form of marginalisation that involves sex-based status and power dynamics, and that is inclusive of both cross-sex and same-sex behaviours, homophobia and transphobia.

Sexual Harassment as Marginalisation …

61

For a discussion of girls’ mental health in relation to gendered socialisation in ecological contexts, incorporating both psychological and postmodern perspectives, see Rosalyn’s 2018 book [72]. For further links to information about race-based, disability-based and sexual orientation-based bullying in the USA see the PACER website; notably, gender-based bullying is not included (the PACER Center is mainly staffed by parents of children with disabilities) [73].

Popularity Contests and Marginalisation Research on peer group popularity is relevant to the present discussion as it focuses on the matter of social status. From an evolutionary perspective, as we saw, those of higher status have access to greater power and more resources, so individuals are motivated to maintain high status, if they have it, or to work to gain it, if they do not. Popularity is a term that is understood in two different ways in the western literature on peer victimisation [74]. Sociologists, following the lead of western young people themselves, use the word to mean those who are highly visible and of high status amongst peers, rather than being well-liked, which is the sense in which it has generally been used in research by psychologists, especially in the USA [75] and is also how Chinese adolescents regard popularity [76]. In line with the paradigm 2 proposal that there is ongoing peer group positioning, there is some evidence for cyclical processes in popularity, with high status students being well-liked initially, but later becoming resented as ‘stuck up’ [77]. ‘Popular’ (high-status) students also have the most power to determine who is allowed to belong to the highest status group and who should be excluded [78]. Duncan found in his UK research that the least popular girls were lesbians, quiet girls and those with special needs [79]. Owens and Duncan later found that, amongst Australian secondary school girls, being popular means being physically attractive and fashionably dressed, from a wealthy background, socially powerful and rebellious (such as prioritising party-going over school work and, in a lower socioeconomic school, using alcohol and drugs) [80]. These girls are described by their peers as loud, highly visible ‘barbie dolls’ who are inauthentic, deliberately cultivate being ‘cool’, and are attractive to boys. They are seen as the ‘mean girls’ who use verbally aggressive behaviours, denigrate others (especially about their appearance), spread unkind rumours and are socially manipulative. For example, they might be nice to lower-status girls if there is something to be gained from it, but not if their high-status friends are around. They can be sexually active without damaging their reputations, in contrast to less-popular girls, who are demeaned as ‘sluts’. Owens and Duncan related this to our earlier work on indirect aggression, supporting the idea that girls join in aggressive, exclusionary behaviours in order to cement their place in a social group, at the expense of others. Thornberg and Delby similarly observed more recently in Sweden that looks are everything for girls’ popularity; as one girl said, ‘[those who] look the way you should look and take advantage of the attention get air under their wings to push someone else down’ [81].

62

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

Dawn Jennifer notes the relative lack of attention to gendered bullying between girls before adolescence, providing examples of studies that have found its use in younger children [82]. She suggests the value of a socio-cultural explanation whereby young girls are bombarded daily with sexualised and objectifying media images and discourse about females, which are adopted by girls in their competitions for status in the context of close friendships. Bullying may have a different meaning for boys, she suggests, in being more about dominance and showing off than in manipulating close relationships. However, as we have seen, boys are capable of using stereotypical ‘boy behaviour’ in quite measured ways to determine who is in and who is out of the group. In her longitudinal qualitative study with Norwegian early adolescents, Haavind saw the ‘popular’ groups as the ones ‘leading the way’ in growing up: ‘They are the ones who take the initiative in crossing the boundary of what is considered childish, trying out new things and having a promising future in their existence as youths and young women’ [83]. As in Owens’ research, this illustrates that developmental imperatives interact with cultural ones in determining the nature of marginalising behaviours.

Conclusions In this chapter we have summarised the objections that have been raised to the paradigm 1 approach to school bullying and have laid out Schott’s hypotheses under paradigm 2. These are based on a consideration of theories about social relations on a large scale, involving the ongoing formation and maintenance of groups, in a dynamic, continuous process in which power is central. Certain groups are granted more power, either in society broadly (e.g. males, the wealthy), or at a more local level (e.g. rebellious girls), and this gives them the motivation to defend their status, at the expense of some others. We can see these processes in action in areas not usually considered as ‘bullying’, including indirect aggression, sexual and racial harassment and peer group popularity contests. Conversely, we can see traditionally-defined bullying as serving the purpose of marginalisation. As such, the ‘marginalisation‘ perspective offers a unifying theory for understanding all forms of peer victimisation in schools, based on the human motivation to belong to high status groups, which wield the most power and whose members make efforts to preserve their exclusivity. The nature of marginalisation is influenced by cultural factors such as the relative status afforded to different groups in society, and by institutional factors, examples being the school climate thought to promote ijime, and the laissez-faire attitudes of many teachers towards sexual bullying. Under this view, marginalisation may occur at a relatively mild and passing level or develop into something more severe that can be considered as bullying or even assault. Paradigm 2 places a greater focus on the grounds for marginalisation, which may sometimes be societally devalued characteristics concerning gender or ethnicity, for example, while aggression and bullying research has often focused on the means,

Conclusions

63

or mode, for achieving one’s social goals. The particular mode will be affected by various factors: for example, the developmental level of the child (a kick is less sophisticated than a verbal putdown), what is considered socially acceptable (‘boys mustn’t hit girls’) or whether the perpetrator can escape blame or punishment (indirect methods and cyberbullying are useful for that) [84]. Recall Owens’ comment that perpetrators will use whatever means they can get away with! Because a behaviour can be seen as both functional and ‘ordinary’ it does not mean it is morally acceptable, and we will discuss this in due course. Next, though, we examine whether there is still a place for individual and family factors in seeking to understanding bullying.

References 1. Mouffe, C. (2013). Cited in McAuliffe, C., & Rogers, D. (2018). Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: Agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. Geographical Research. Online. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12283 2. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying: Philosophical reflections on definitions. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46). Cambridge University Press. 3. Stoppard, T. (1993). Arcadia: A play in two acts. Samuel French. 4. No place 4 hate. (n.d.). Retrieved on November 7, 2019, from https://www.noplace4hate.org/ real-bullying-stories/ 5. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 6. Arsenault, L. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry, 16, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 7. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying: What we know and what we can do. Basil Blackwell. 8. Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2010). Peer, self and teacher nominations of participant roles taken in victimisation by five- and eight-year-olds. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2(4), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.5042/jacpr.2010.0532 9. Field, E. M. (2007). Bully blocking. Jessica Kingsley. 10. Wotherspoon, A., Slee, P. T., Bottroff, V., Martin, J., & Spears, B. (2016). Issues of bullying and autism spectrum disorder. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 136–145). Routledge. 11. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—On the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158). Cambridge University Press. 12. Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205– 218. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:3%3C205::AID-AB5%3E3.0.CO;2-J 13. von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001354 14. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 15. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying. Routledge. 16. Marsh, S. (2018). Record number of UK children excluded for racist bullying. The Guardian, 1 December 2018. Retrieved on February 14, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/educat ion/2018/nov/30/record-number-of-uk-children-excluded-for-racist-bullying

64

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

17. Chanel, S. (2020). Horrific viral video reveals ‘crisis’ of school bullying in Fiji. The Guardian, 10 March 2020. Retrieved on March 20, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ mar/10/horrific-viral-video-reveals-crisis-of-school-bullying-in-fiji 18. Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). Australian school children’s self-appraisal of interpersonal relations: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23(4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00707680 19. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying: Philosophical reflections on definitions. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 20. Meyer, E. J. (2014). New solutions for bullying and harassment: A post-structural, feminist approach. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 209–239). Cambridge University Press. 21. Bernd, S., & Oakes, J. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59, 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706062760 22. Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690301894 23. Toda, Y. (2009). Personal communication to Rosalyn Shute. 24. Akiba, M. (2004). Nature and correlates of ijime—Bullying in Japanese middle school. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005. 07.002 25. Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. 26. Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982337(2000)26:1%3c67::AID-AB6%3e3.0.CO;2-C 27. Deutsch, M. (2006). Justice and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (2nd ed., pp. 43–68). Jossey-Bass. 28. Shute, R. H., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2002). “You just stare at them and give them daggers”. Nonverbal expressions of aggression in teenage girls. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 10, 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2002.9747911 29. Jarroud, M. (2012). School bullying, a reflection of society in Latin America. IPS News Agency. Retrieved on July 14, 2020, from http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/school-bullying-a-reflec tion-of-society-in-latin-america/ 30. Owens, L. D. (1998). Physical, verbal and indirect aggression amongst South Australian school students. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis (p. 262). Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide. 31. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. http://psyc336.stasson.org/maccoby.pdf 32. Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Côté, S. M. (2018). Developmental origins of chronic physical aggression: A bio-psycho-social model for the next generation of preventive interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416044030 33. Hay, D. F., Waters, C. S., Perra, O., Swift, N., Kairis, V., Phillips, R., & van Goozen, S. (2014). Precursors to aggression are evident by 6 months of age. Developmental Science, 17(3), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12133 34. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2016). High school girls’ experience of victimization by boys: Where sexual harassment meets aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 25(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1129656 35. Owens, L. D. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls’ and boys’ aggression in schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 45–55. 36. Guardian staff and agencies. (2019). AFL issues unreserved apology for failings over Adam Goodes saga. The Guardian, 7 June 2019. Retrieved on March 1, 2020, from https://www.the guardian.com/sport/2019/jun/07/afl-unreserved-apology-failings-adam-goodes-saga

References

65

37. Søndergaard, D. M. (2018). The thrill of bullying. Bullying, humour and the making of community. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jtsb.12153 38. OECD. (2019). Bullying. In PISA 2018 results (Vol. III). What school life means for students’ lives. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cd52fb72-en 39. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying (p. 119). Routledge. 40. Walton, L. M. (2018). The effects of “Bias Based Bullying” (BBB) on health, education, and cognitive–social–emotional outcomes in children with minority backgrounds: Proposed comprehensive public health intervention solutions. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 20, 492–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0547-y 41. Salmon, S., Turner, S., Taillieu, T., Fortier, J., & Afifi, J. O. (2018). Bullying victimization experiences among middle and high school adolescents: Traditional bullying, discriminatory harassment, and cybervictimization. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 29–40. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.005 42. O’Brien, N. (2019). Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1984). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2019.01984 43. Rivers, I., & Duncan, N. (2013). Introduction. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (p. 4). Routledge. 44. Silva, K. (2019). St. Kevin’s College issues apology after students’ sexist chant on Melbourne tram. ABC Radio Melbourne, 22 October, 2019. Retrieved on March 1, 2020, from https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-21/st-kevins-apologises-after-students-sexist-chant/11623880 45. Timmerman, G. (2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetuated by teachers and by peers: An exploration of the dynamics of power, culture and gender in secondary schools. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, March 2003. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022821320739 46. Brown, L. M., Chesney-Lind, M., & Stein, N. (2007). Patriarchy matters: Toward a gendered theory of teen violence and victimization; Violence against women, Brown, L., Chesney-Lind, M., & Stein, N. (2013). Patriarchy matters: toward a gendered theory of teen violence and victimization. In M. Chesney-Lind, & L. Pasko (Eds.), Girls, women, and crime: Selected readings (pp. 21–38). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387574.n21 3(12), 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207310430 47. Williams, S. (2013). Sexual bullying in one local authority. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 61–74). Routledge. 48. Amin, M., & Malone, U. (2021). NSW school principals in crisis meeting after petition detailed thousands of alleged sexual assaults. ABC News, 5 March 2021. Retrieved on March 5, 2021, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-05/nsw-private-school-principals-meetover-sexual-assault-petition/13218674 49. Lessar, D., & Chrysanthos, N. (2021). Sex, schoolkids and where it all goes wrong. Sydney Morning Herald Good Weekend, 15 May 2021. Retrieved on March 05, 2021, from https://www. smh.com.au/national/sex-schoolkids-and-where-it-all-goes-wrong-20210312-p57a48.html 50. Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Hamburger, M., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2011). X-rated material and perpetration of sexually aggressive behavior among children and adolescents: Is there a link? Aggressive Behavior, 37, 1–18. 10.1002/ab.20367. 51. Sandhu, D. (2017). Eve-teasing in the guise of school bullying and cyberbullying. In P. T. Slee, G. Skrzypiec, & C. Cefai (Eds.), Child and adolescent wellbeing and violence in schools (pp. 77–84). Routledge. 52. Thiagarajan, K. (2019). Millions of women in India join hands to form a 385-mile wall of protest. Goats and Soda: Stories of Life in a Changing World, 4 January, 2019. Retrieved on March 11, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/01/04/681988452/mil lions-of-women-in-india-join-hands-to-form-a-385-mile-wall-of-protest 53. Lee, C.-H. (2011). An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle-school students in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1664–1693. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260510370591

66

4 Paradigm Lost—Thinking Beyond the Individual

54. Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658. 55. Shute, R. H. (2017, October). A test in the high school context of Berdahl’s status theory of sex-based harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, first online. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260517734862 56. Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “I’m in and You’re out...” Explanations for teenage girls’ indirect aggression. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 2, 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14616660050082906 57. Mumford, E. A., Okeke, N., & Rothman, E. (2020). Young men’s attitudes and neighborhood risk factors for sexual harassment perpetration in the United States. Journal of Community Health, 45, 245–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00738-2 58. Espelage, D. L. (2011). Bullying and sexual violence: Definition, prevalence, outcomes and moderators. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 31–44). Routledge. 59. Stein, N. (1995). Sexual harassment in school: The public performance of gendered violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.65.2.7080h5t35 4300557 60. Jamal, F., Bonnell, C., Harden, A., & Lorenc, T. (2015). The social ecology of girls’ bullying practices: Exploratory research in two London schools. Sociology of Health and Illness, 37(5), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12231 61. National Education Union and UK Feminista. (2017). “It’s just everywhere’: A study on sexism in schools—And how we tackle it. NTEU & UK Feminista. Retrieved on October 13, 2020, from https://neu.org.uk/advice/its-just-everywhere-sexism-schools 62. Rawlings, V. (2019). ‘It’s not bullying’, ‘It’s just a joke’: Teacher and student discursive manoeuvres around gendered violence. British Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 698–716. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3521 63. BBC News. Sexual harassment normalised among children, warns Ofsted. BBC News, 10 June 2021. Retrieved on June 10, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/education-57411363 64. Meyer, E. J. (2008). A feminist reframing of bullying and harassment: Transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43, 33–48. Retrieved on June 21, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/coe_dean/10 65. Finch, L., Hargrave, R., Nichols, J., & van Vliet, A. (2014). Measure what you treasure: Well-being and young people, how it can be measured and what the data tell us. New Philanthropy Capital. Retrieved on May 28, 2014, from http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/mea sure-what-you-treasure/ 66. Girlguiding. (2015). Girls’ attitude survey 2015. Retrieved on March 1, 2016, from http://new. girlguiding.org.uk/latest-updates/making-a-difference/girls-attitudes-survey-2015 67. Dedousis-Wallace, A., Shute, R., Varlow, M., Murrihy, R., & Kidman, A. (2014). Predictors of teacher intervention in indirect bullying at school and outcome of a professional development presentation for teachers. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 862–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.2013.785385 68. Hunte, B. (2020). School LGBT bullying projects axed by government. BBC News, 19 November, 2020. Retrieved on November 19, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/educat ion-54988187 69. Greig, B. (2016). History repeats: 20 years of political homophobia from the religious right. The Guardian, 30 March 2016. Retrieved on April 5, 2020, from https://www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/history-repeats-20-years-of-political-homophobia-fromthe-religious-right 70. Gillespie, E. (2020). ‘Transphobic’: One Nation slammed over attempt to ban gender fluidity lessons in NSW schools. SBS the feed, 8 September 2020. Retrieved on September 12, 2020, from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/transphobic-one-nation-slammed-over-att empt-to-ban-gender-fluidity-lessons-in-nsw-schools

References

67

71. Walquist, C. (2017). Catholic plan to combat homophobic bullying praised by education experts. The Guardian, 1 June 2017. Retrieved on April 5, 2020, from https://www.thegua rdian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/01/catholic-plan-to-combat-homophobic-bullying-pra ised-by-education-experts 72. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 73. PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center. (updated May 2020). Retrieved on July 11, 2020, from https://www.pacer.org/bullying/resources/stats.asp 74. Owens, L., & Duncan, N. (2009). “They might not like you but everyone knows you”: Popularity among teenage girls. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 3, 14–39. https://doi.org/10.21913/JSW.v3i 1.408 75. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282. 76. Xi, J., Owens, L., & Feng, H. (2016). Friendly girls and mean girls: Social constructions of popularity among teenage girls in Shanghai. Japanese Psychological Research, 58, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12101 77. Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165. 78. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. Rutgers University Press. 79. Duncan, N. (2004). ‘It’s important to be nice, but it’s nicer to be important’: Girls, popularity and sexual competition. Sex Education, 4, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/146818104100016 78329 80. Duncan, N., & Owens, L. (2011). Bullying, social power and heteronormativity: Girls’ constructions of popularity. Children and Society, 25(4), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860. 2011.00378.x 81. Thornberg, R., & Delby, H. (2019). How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational Research (p. 154) Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1600376 82. Jennifer, D. (2013). Girls and indirect aggression. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 53–59). Routledge. 83. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—on the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 84. Kofoed, J. (2014). Non-simultaneity in cyberbullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 159–184). Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 5

Individual and Family Factors—Do They Still Have a Role in Bullying?

Our discussion in the previous chapter indicates that we see much value in paradigm 2, which takes a functional approach to bullying, in the context of ordinary peer group processes that are affected by culture, including societal power differentials. Where does this leave the matter of individual and family factors? As Peter Horton has recently said, referring to Olweus’ writing in 2003: Olweus has argued that the idea that students who are different in terms of appearance, ethnic background, or language tend to be bullied is one of the ‘common myths about bullying’ and that ‘personality characteristics’ and ‘typical reaction patterns’ are more important [1].

This view has predominated in the bullying literature for decades. By contrast, paradigm 2 scholars largely dismiss a role for individual and family factors, but we are not sure that the evidence can be so easily rejected.

Individual and Family Factors: The Evidence There is evidence for Bronfenbrenner’s proposition that contexts such as the family, that are close to children, and within which certain types of interaction occur regularly over time, have a strong influence on children’s development, including their social behaviours with peers [2]. For example, parental stress compromises parents’ interactions with their sons, and this in turn is associated with boys’ likelihood of exhibiting less positive social behaviour and more negative social behaviour, including a tendency to be cruel or to bully [2]. Another example is that young people who experience non-democratic parenting characterised by harsh punishment are more likely to become involved in peer bullying [3]. Coming from a violent home or neighbourhood puts young people at risk of being bullied, while sibling support is protective [4]. After reviewing the literature, Arsenault and colleagues concluded that becoming a victim of bullying can be predicted by family and individual factors [5].

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_5

69

70

5 Individual and Family Factors …

Paradigm 1 has focused on stability in bullying roles, suggesting that individual and family factors play a strong part, while paradigm 2 emphasises fluidity and peer group processes. Through quantitative methods, Skrzypiec and colleagues recently found that there is about a 50% chance of a targeted child still being victimised in five years’ time, yet they also found that ‘new’ victims appeared over this timeframe [6]. Paradigm 2 researcher Haavind, on the basis of her qualitative research, has observed the presence of both fluidity (social positioning) and stability in bullying roles. Such findings are indicative of a role for both individual factors and peer group positioning. While individual factors may be one cause of stability, it is also possible that once a role as a ‘bully’ or victim is established, for whatever initial reason, there is a tendency for a pattern of behaviour to continue into the longer term [7]. For example, a boy who was bullied for being overweight continued to be bullied even after he lost weight [8]. Haavind suggests that certain individual attributes, such as bullies’ arrogance and the psychological troubles of victims, may be a result, not a cause, of bullying [9]. Much of the quantitative research (e.g. on the association between bullying, mental health problems and suicidality) [10] has been cross-sectional and is therefore unable to assess causality. However, there is some longitudinal evidence that bullying causes psychological problems, for those who bully, for victims and for bully-victims, [11–13] although there is some counter-evidence that ‘bullies’ suffer little and even benefit [14]. The more an adolescent is bullied (and cyberbullied) over a three-year period, the greater their degree of mental health disturbance and the less social support they experience [15]. However, this is not the whole story: there is evidence for a transactional model, whereby pre-existing psychological difficulties promote victimisation and victimisation promotes psychological difficulties. For example, this has been shown for victimised children in terms of low self-regard [16] and depression, [17] with the formation of a vicious cycle. Furthermore, a victim’s nonattendance at school to avoid bullying may lead to a cycle of missing classes and lost opportunities for positive peer activities [18]. Overall, it seems premature to dismiss a role for individual psychological difficulties and family factors as causal for bullying, if not the only cause.

Personality It is worth looking more closely at the potential role of personality, as this is a factor that Schott rejects as of importance in bullying [19]. Numbers of systems for assessing personality have been devised. A well-established one is the Big Five, which measures the traits of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversionintroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism [20]. Children’s personality has been studied and similar dimensions found. Slightly different terminologies may be used at times, with similar meanings, such as ‘friendliness’ instead of ‘agreeableness’. Some studies focus on a group of ‘negative’ traits known as the Dark Triad, which are

Personality

71

narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism; although they can be distinguished, all indicate a focus on self-interest as opposed to caring about others [21]. Numbers of studies have examined whether personality traits are related to bullying. An example is an early study by Phillip, with Ken Rigby, in 1993 [22]. They found that children who bullied others tended to be higher in ‘psychoticism’, a term we would not use today in this context, but which encompassed hostility, solitariness, impulsivity and lack of social sensitivity. Victimised children, by contrast, scored low on extraversion and high on neuroticism (an anxiety-like trait). A metaanalysis of personality studies later found that both bullying and being victimised were associated with higher extraversion and neuroticism and with lower levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness [23]. In addition, empathy was negatively associated with bullying others. Jon Sutton and Edmund Keogh found that children high on the manipulative trait of Machiavellianism were more likely to bully and held lower pro-victim attitudes [24]. This was later followed up by a relatively rare type of study, a year-long observational one, with British children in school playgrounds. Loren Abell and colleagues found gender differences in Machiavellianism, in relation to time spent on various group-related activities [25]. Boys high on this trait spent more time engaged in both direct aggression (such as hitting) and indirect aggression (social exclusion, such as by back-turning), being accepted into different peer groups themselves and accepting others into theirs. Girls high on the trait spent less time engaged in indirect aggression, and in being accepted into other groups and accepting (and rejecting) others as members of their groups. The boys’ behaviour is easy to understand, in terms of spending time in group membership manipulations that presumably might benefit themselves. The girls’ behaviour seems counter-intuitive, however. The researchers speculated that they might have spent more time organising their groups through gossip, which the study was unable to record, or restrained themselves from behaviours that girls were inclined to condemn, or acted in prosocial ways to achieve their ends. This latter suggestion is consistent with Angela Book and colleagues’ evolutionary, adaptive perspective, that those who bully may use either prosocial or aggressive means to attain their goals [14]. Franca Tani and colleagues examined the possibility that a wider range of bullying roles may be related to personality [20]. In a sample of Italian children, they found that both pro-bullies and victims were higher on emotional instability and lower on friendliness, while victims were also low on conscientiousness. Defenders of victims were higher on friendliness, while outsiders were more introverted and independent. A study of cyberbullying on Twitter, led by Malaysia’s Vimala Balakrishnan, used machine learning to classify users’ personality and found that an algorithm that included the traits extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and psychopathy significantly improved the detection of bullying roles (bully, aggressor, spammer or non-bully). A precision of 96% in identifying cyberbullying was achieved [26]. Another recent personality study by Savannah Boeles and colleagues is of particular interest as it was carried out from the point of view of bullying as a social process [27]. It therefore offers a link between ‘traditional’ personality studies and the paradigm 2 approach. There were complex findings on individual traits, with both

72

5 Individual and Family Factors …

similarity and dissimilarity to the class norm being associated with more victimisation. In terms of overall personality profile, especially seen from perpetrators’ perspectives, adolescents whose profile was different from the classroom norm were more likely to be victimised. The authors interpreted this in terms of victims being less socially well-adapted to their environment. There is, then, a wide range of evidence that personality plays a significant part in being involved in bullying and the roles taken. Let us, then, revisit the paradigm 2 contention that the relevant traits identified in such studies may be caused by bullying, not cause it. In terms of psychological difficulties, as we have noted, there is evidence for two-way (transactional) processes and vicious cycles. When it comes to personality traits, it is certainly possible that a relatively permanent change may be caused by being bullied (or bullying), especially if it is long-term (see Chap. 8), but this cannot be tested by cross-sectional studies. Even the Abell year-long study did not have enough participants to examine trends over time. However, some of the other personality findings seem much more likely to be explicable as causal factors in bullying, rather than resulting from it. Personality is relatively stable and would be expected to have arisen from a host of experiences over the years as well as, possibly, from genetic predispositions and epigenetic changes [28]. The relative importance of, and relationship between, personality and group processes in predicting various types of bullying engagement is a matter for future longitudinal, quantitative research. It has, however, been subject to some examination from a qualitative, complexity, perspective, by Eva Silberschmidt Viala [29]. She has proposed that it is important to, firstly, examine the social context of the school in terms of how it frames conditions for inclusion and exclusion, and then to explore how the particularities of an individual child present them with barriers or opportunities for belonging. One example she analysed was the new child at a country school whose confident and outgoing personality confirmed to her new peers, in line with the local community culture, that she considered herself as ‘something special’ because she came from a city. This was expressed as persistent appearance-based bullying and caused the girl to wonder whether there was ‘something wrong with her’. It is worth remarking that, as a counterbalance to the ‘Dark Triad’ of personality, Scott Kaufman and colleagues have developed a measure (for adults) of a ‘Light Triad’, which is not just the inverse of the Dark Triad and which correlates with measures such as compassion and empathy [30]. It has three components: Kantianism (treating others as individuals, not just as means to one’s own ends); humanism (valuing the dignity of individuals); and faith in humanity (believing people are essentially good). While this particular scale structure is unlikely to be applicable to children, a children’s kindness scale has recently been developed [31]. This opens up the possibility of including kindness as a variable in bullying studies, either as a predictor (a personality trait expected to predict not bullying others, or being supportive of victims), or as an outcome variable (such as level of kindness in a school following an anti-bullying initiative, perhaps as part of a measure of school climate). As in the case of psychopathology, a transactional model might be found to apply. The time may be ripe to take this positive approach, as recently the word ‘kindness’ has become very prominent in connection with anti-bullying programs,

Personality

73

although not widely studied. The promise of the approach is shown by a study with Canadian preadolescents by Kristin Layous and colleagues: the wellbeing of children increased following a four-week intervention, whether they were asked to perform three kind acts a week or to visit three places a week, but only the ‘kindness’ group increased their ratings of being accepted by peers, a measure associated with a lower risk of being bullied [32]. These findings support a choice Phillip made in his 2015 book for teachers on helping children to cope with bullying: to devote the opening chapter to a discussion of prosociality.

Individuals and Groups: Not Either-Or Evidence can be found, then, for a role for both victim/perpetrator characteristics and marginalisation as potential triggers for bullying. It is interesting that both these beliefs were found to be present amongst teachers in a qualitative study by Dixon. This was in a school where hearing-impaired students were mainstreamed [7]. The specialist teachers of the hearing-impaired students considered them to be egocentric and oversensitive, and thus bringing bullying behaviours on themselves. By contrast, the mainstream students and their teachers, as well as the hearing-impaired students themselves, believed that bullying happened because the hearing-impaired students were seen as different and therefore marginalised. Rather than trying to determine which view was ‘correct’, Dixon explored the issue in more detail and found that the specialist teachers’ views were driven by their knowledge about a subgroup of the hearing-impaired students who had had early language impairment, and therefore were likely to have experienced particular difficulty in learning about the perspectives of others. Dixon came to that understanding by searching for functionality in the beliefs of the various participants in her study. We believe that, considering the available evidence, it is important to follow Owens’ lead and develop models of bullying that include both ordinary marginalisation behaviours and individual characteristics. This helps to resolve the issue of whether those who bully are deficient or strong in social skills: either may be true. The child with a difficult background may initiate bullying by lacking constructive ways to address conflict, while a highly skilled, popular young person may be very good at choosing their methods for marginalising others––and getting away with it. It is very important to note that findings that family or individual characteristics can sometimes play a part in bullying do not constitute a reason to support the idea that a child who is being bullied, or their family, is ‘at fault’ or is ‘the cause’ of bullying. As shown by the work of Hein and others, there is a strong tendency for school personnel to lay the blame for bullying at the door of targets and their families, such as seeing the victim as ‘too sensitive’ (as with the specialist teachers of the hearing-impaired students), or concerned parents as ‘over-involved’ or ‘difficult’ [8]. This may be partly because the individualised view of bullying has been strongly adopted, but also to avoid blame or responsibility on the part of the school when bullying reported by children or parents is not adequately addressed. We believe that

74

5 Individual and Family Factors …

a systemic perspective is needed, in line with Viala’s approach, in which individual characteristics may be just one part [29].

Individual Factors and Function We would like to add something further on the matter of function versus dysfunction. Although paradigm 2 scholars critique a dysfunctional view of individual participants in bullying, it is in fact quite possible to appreciate a role for individual predisposing factors, such as family background and individual characteristics, while still taking a functional approach. The history of functionalism goes back to Darwin and to William James, whose 1890 book Principles of Psychology was highly influential in establishing the discipline in the USA [33, 34]. Behaviour is seen as directed towards achieving some purpose and as adaptable to environment changes. It has often been applied to solving real-world issues, such as educational and clinical problems. Both present authors are very familiar with functionalism from a practical standpoint: Phillip is experienced in family therapy, and Rosalyn used to teach and practise clinical child psychology. Family therapy assumes that a behaviour problem serves a function within a system such as a family, and hence, a problematic pattern of interaction is maintained. Family therapy aims to uncover underlying functions and help change habitual problematic patterns into more positive ones. For example, a child’s angry outbursts might serve a function for the child of getting an inattentive parent to engage with them, while the child’s behaviour might serve to support the parent’s belief that this is ‘the difficult child’ of the family. By way of illustration is one of Phillip’s cases. He worked with a family who expressed considerable anger at their 11-year-old son’s inability to control his own anger. They had employed over the years a range of strategies including punishment, rewards and ignoring the angry outbursts and concluded that this child was ‘uncontrollable’. Time was taken to explore the patterns when he gave in to his anger and times when he did not. Over a number of sessions the child’s behaviour was re-framed as ‘immature’ which evolved into a description that he was not in fact ‘uncontrollable’ but ‘young for his age’, and efforts were made to identify times where he obtained the strength to ‘win over’ his anger, and it emerged that by managing his breathing he could regulate his anger more easily. The family members including siblings began to notice the re-organisation of his behaviour from ‘uncontrollable’ to ‘in control’. In turn the child began to see himself differently (not as ‘bad’) and he began to take pride in the victories over his anger. The relevance of this particular example is that those who bully tend to have higher anger levels, and family therapy was the choice of intervention in a Canadian study by Marius Nickel and colleagues, with the families of adolescent boys who were bullying peers. The 12-week program reduced the boys’ anger and salivary cortisol (a stress-related physiological response), lessened their bullying and improved their health-related quality of life [35]. A calmer home life may have made the boys less

Individual Factors and Function

75

reactive at school, or they may have carried over newly-learned responses to conflict (or both). Clinical psychology is divided on the matter of function versus dysfunction: some practitioners do take a dysfunction view, based on psychiatric diagnoses of individuals, but others, including Rosalyn, have argued for the value of a functional perspective [36]. For example, functional behavioural analysis involves assessing what circumstances precede a problematic behaviour, and what its consequences are, in order to hypothesise about its function: is the child motivated by seeking attention, for instance, or avoiding something aversive? [37] This method has been shown to be applicable not just in the clinic but to disruptive classroom behaviour in the school context [38]. A US school-based anti-bullying program has been devised that is based on behavioural principles and incorporates the use of functional behavioural analysis for those participants in bullying whose concerning behaviour is not sufficiently addressed by the broader school program [39]. Such approaches imply that even if some bullying-related behaviours appear dysfunctional at first blush (and may, in some cases, even have attracted a clinical diagnosis), they are still functional for the actors. For example: a boy might bully another in order to promote his masculine credentials in the peer group and/or because he has found aggression works successfully in getting what he wants at home; a victim’s school refusal might serve the function of avoiding being bullied; a bystander or supporter of bullying might be motivated by fear of becoming the next victim. Revenge might yield adult disapproval but serve the purpose of restoring a victim’s sense of control and dignity, in their own eyes at least. In short, in addressing a specific case of school bullying, rather than seeing dysfunctional individuals as the cause, an adult can gain insight, and a potential way forward, by considering the question: ‘What function does this behaviour serve for the person (or the system) and is there a more acceptable way to fulfil the same function?’

Conclusions Although we believe there is a compelling case for the paradigm 2 perspective on bullying as a form of group-based marginalisation, we do not accept that it is sufficient, as it downplays the relevance of individual and family factors. There is an enormous body of research that is continuing to emerge from studies driven by the traditional bullying paradigm. These unequivocally demonstrate a role for individual characteristics as both cause and effect in bullying, with the emergence of vicious cycles of victimisation and deteriorating mental health of victims that demands attention through both prevention and intervention. Later, we will explore how lessons from both paradigms might be brought together. Next, though, we will pick up an important issue that we have already hinted at as being a central feature of marginalisation: that of identity.

76

5 Individual and Family Factors …

References 1. Horton, P. (2019). School bullying and bare life: Challenging the state of exception. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1444–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1557043 2. Ashiabi, G. S., & O’Neal, K. K. (2015). Child social development in context: An examination of some propositions in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory. SAGE Open, April–June, 2015, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590840 3. Gómez-Ortiza, O., Romera, E. M., & Ortega-Ruiza, R. (2016). Parenting styles and bullying. The mediating role of parental psychological aggression and physical punishment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 51(132–143). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.025 4. Cluver, L., Bowes, L., & Gardner, F. (2010). Risk and protective factors for bullying victimization among AIDS-affected and vulnerable children in South Africa. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(10), 793–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.04.002 5. Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 40, 717–729. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 6. Skrzypiec, G. K., Askell-Williams, H., Slee, P. T., & Lawson, M. J. (2018). Involvement in bullying during high school: A Survival Analysis approach. Violence and Victims, 33(3), 563–582(20). https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.v33.i3.563 7. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 8. Hein, N. (2014). Parental positions in school bullying: The production of powerlessness in home-school cooperation. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 301–329). Cambridge University Press. 9. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—On the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158). Cambridge University Press. 10. Kim, Y. S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A Review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2008.20. 2.133 11. Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y.-J., Hubbard, A., & Boyce, T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: Cause or consequence of psychopathologic behaviour? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.9.1035 12. Huh, S. H., Park, J. S., & Jung, T. Y. (2009). A longitudinal study of the effects of bullying on the self-image and self-esteem of adolescent victims. Studies on Korean Youth, 55, 279–299. 13. Arsenault, L. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry, 16, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 14. Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 218–223. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2011.10.028 15. Evans, C. B. R., Smokowski, P. R., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). Cumulative bullying victimization: An investigation of the dose–response relationship between victimization and the associated mental health outcomes, social supports, and school experiences of rural adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.021 16. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.299 17. Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: A longitudinal study. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.08.012 18. Cowie, H., & Hutson, N. (2005). Peer support: A strategy to help bystanders challenge school bullying. Pastoral Care in Education, 23(2), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0264-3944.2005. 00331.x

References

77

19. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying: Philosophical reflections on definitions. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46). Cambridge University Press. 20. Tani, F., Greenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso, M. (2003). Bullying and the Big Five: A study of childhood personality and participant roles in bullying incidents. School Psychology International, 24(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034303024002001 21. Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and hostiledominant psychopath? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 622–627. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2012.11.021 22. Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck’s personality factors and self esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian school boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90136-Q 23. Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.avb.2015.01.007 24. Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158227 25. Abell, L., Qualter, P., Brewer, G., Barlow, A., Stylianou, M., Henzi, P., & Barrett, L. (2015). Why Machiavellianism matters in childhood: The relationship between children’s Machiavellian traits and their peer interactions in a natural setting. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v11i3.957 26. Balakrishnan, V., Khan, S., Fernandez, T., & Arabnia, H. R. (2019). Cyberbullying detection on twitter using big five and dark triad features. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.024 27. Boele, S., Sijtsema, J. J., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J. A., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2017). Persongroup dissimilarity in personality and peer victimization. European Journal of Personality, 31, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2105 28. Lewis, M. D. (2000). Emotional self-organization at three time scales. In M. D. Lewis & I. Granic (Eds.), Emotion, development, and self-organization (pp. 37–69). Cambridge University Press. 29. Viala, E. S. (2014). ‘Is something wrong with me?’: A context-sensitive analysis of school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 361–386). Cambridge University Press. 30. Kaufman, S. B., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsukayama, E. (2019). The light versus dark triad of personality: Contrasting two very different profiles of human nature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 467, March 2019. Retrieved on August 03, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2019.00467 31. Binfet, J. T., Gadermann, A. M., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Measuring kindness at school: Psychometric properties of a school kindness scale for children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21889 32. Layous, K., Nelson, S., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PLOS ONE 7(12), e51380. 33. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. Holt. 34. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives. Routledge. 35. Nickel, M. K., Muehlbacher, M., Kaplan, P., Crawczyk, J., Buschman, W., Nickel, C. et al. (2006). Influence of family therapy on bullying behaviour, cortisol secretion, anger, and quality of life in bullying male adolescents: A randomized, prospective, controlled study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(6), 356–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370605100604 36. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge.

78

5 Individual and Family Factors …

37. Meadows, T. (n.d.). Everyday FBA: Functional Behavior Assessment. Retrieved on February 20, 2020, from https://www.iloveaba.com/2012/02/everyday-fba.html 38. Packenham, M., Shute, R., & Reid, R. (2004). A truncated functional behavioral assessment procedure for children with disruptive classroom behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 9–25. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/42899781 39. Ross, S. W., Horner, R. H., & Stiller, B. C. (2012). Bully Prevention Manual (Elementary Level). Retrieved on February 18, 2020, from https://www.pbis.org/resource/bully-preventionmanual-elementary-level

Part II

Processes of Marginalisation

Chapter 6

The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

Some suggest that thinking about the world, including people, in terms of categories is especially typical of Westerners [1], but others maintain that it is a universal human tendency, the most basic cognitive process that identifies patterns and helps us make sense of the world [2, 3]. Categories may be fuzzy, and are changeable and culturally bound, but as cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad has said, ‘… at bottom, all of our categories consist in the ways we behave differently toward different kinds of ‘things,’ i.e. doing the right thing with the right kind of thing’ [4] [original italics]. When Rosalyn’s granddaughter was very small, there was once great concern on a family outing when she plucked and ate a berry from an unrecognised bush, and there was a flurry of activity to try and identify it. For an object such as a berry, doing the right thing might be to eat it, if it is in the subcategory of ‘edible’, but leaving it alone would be the right thing if it is in the subcategory of ‘poisonous’. In the case of a person, how we categorise them and the ‘right thing to do’ are determined dynamically through the prism of social group processes on both a small scale and a large cultural scale. According to Nazi propaganda, the ‘right thing to do’ with Jews was to shun them and, indeed, to recategorise them not as people, but as vermin. In Rwanda in the 1990s, similar dehumanising propaganda describing Tutsis as inyenzi (cockroaches) led to the mass slaughter by Hutus of Tutsi men, women and children [5]. These are examples of what Minton describes as ‘linguistic signifiers’ that are the first step on the road to genocidal mentality [6]. While the marginalisation of others can occasionally follow such a devastating path, it is also seen by paradigm 2 scholars as an ordinary process of defining the borders of social groups, but which can sometimes develop into bullying. This is in opposition to the traditional approach that regards school bullying as individually based and pathological. In Chap. 4, we suggested that evidence about school peer victimisation from a number of fields can reasonably be seen as supporting the paradigm 2 approach, although we differ from it in also accepting a role for individual characteristics. Schott’s paradigm 2 hypotheses (presented in Chap. 4) draw upon theories developed for explaining human relations at a large scale, from fields such as © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_6

81

82

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

sociology and women’s studies and in that sense hers is a top-down approach.1 In this chapter, we examine further the idea that marginalising certain others is ‘normal’ human behaviour and functional, rather than dysfunctional, but we do so from a different, ‘bottom-up’, perspective that builds on psychological theories (which Schott acknowledges, but does not review, in her philosophical consideration of bullying as a social concept) [7]. A more complete understanding of social phenomena can be achieved by a complementary marriage of the two standpoints [8]. In Chap. 2 we addressed the question of why marginalisation of others should exist as a social phenomenon, concluding that it is an inevitable consequence of the evolutionarily advantageous formation of human groups. Now we delve more deeply into two further questions: What are the motivations underlying individuals’ marginalisation of others? And what are some of the psychological mechanisms that help them to achieve their ends? Central to these questions is the matter of identity, which we raised in an evolutionary context at the end of Chap. 3.

Social Identity Theory Social psychologist Henri Tajfel’s experience as a Polish Jew, and Nazi prisoner-ofwar, drove him to study how people could turn to such a shocking thing as genocide. That is a situation where the term ‘unkindness’ that we have often chosen to use in this book is utterly inadequate. However, the group processes that support genocide certainly involve myriad unkindnesses along the way: ignore your Jewish neighbour; stop patronising Jewish-owned shops; throw stones through their windows. Whenever Australian/British author Clive James saw films of Kristallnacht he remembered with some horror his childhood trick of co-ordinating his gang in regularly throwing gravel noisily at a certain neighbour’s roof, reflecting perhaps rather misanthropically that, ‘the difference between mischief and murder is only what the law will allow’ [9]. (This is reminiscent of Owens’ conclusion that adolescents will use the form of aggression that they can get away with.) In this book, our focus is on school bullying, which nevertheless shares commonalities with other forms of unkindness involving marginalisation. Calls to incorporate a greater understanding of group processes into bullying research have not just come from paradigm 2 qualitative researchers and those studying ijime, but from within the traditional quantitative field itself, for example, from Canada’s Shelley Hymel and colleagues [10]. Tajfel’s highly influential Social Identity Theory (SIT), developed with John Turner in Britain in the 1970s, is especially pertinent in this regard and, as we shall see later, has been applied by some researchers into school bullying for a number of years. Tajfel’s work and that of his associates has been particularly valuable for creating an understanding of the role of groups in forming our sense of identity [11]. Being a member of a group, the existence of which may be defined on the slimmest of 1

Schott in fact regards her perspective as bottom-up as it draws on the lived experiences of participants.

Social Identity Theory

83

grounds, is enough to create discrimination in favour of the ingroup and against outgroups (‘othering’, in sociology).2 Though the evolved function of seeking to belong to particular groups in large-scale societies is, according to Smaldino, to find the best co-operators (see Chap. 3), the favouring of one’s ingroup is a very basic human tendency, apparent even if the grouping happens to be quite arbitrary. Simply allocating people to groups in itself promotes discrimination. As Clive James also wrote, ‘People at the top of the street started sneering at the people at the bottom of the street before the people at the bottom of the street had even moved in’ [9] (this would later be called ‘territorial stigmatisation’) [8]. Eighteenth-century novelist Jonathan Swift recognised discrimination on minimal grounds in describing the conflict between Lilliput’s Big-Endians and Little-Endians, defined by which end of a boiled egg they preferred to eat first (a metaphor for religious differences within the Christian faith) [12]. Sometimes group discrimination can be based on more substantial differences, as when the famous geneticist mentioned in Chap. 1 derided the equally famous postmodern philosopher. From a political philosophy perspective, Mouffe accepts that us-and-them antagonisms are normal, but that a move is needed towards ‘agonistic pluralism’, whereby social order is fostered when participants in an enterprise recognise and respect difference in seeking an outcome [13]. Experimentally, ingroup favouritism was shown in early SIT studies with children as well as adults. A widely publicised demonstration of such discrimination in children had occurred in 1968, the day after the assassination of US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. Schoolteacher Jane Elliott devised for her class her ‘Blue eyes-Brown eyes’ learning exercise, favouring (initially) the brown-eyed children as ‘superior’ and showing how that group’s academic performance improved, and how they became arrogant and unpleasant towards the blue-eyed kids, who became submissive; their grades dropped, too [14]. Philip Zimbardo’s (in)famous Stanford prison experiment showed a similar pattern of behaviours in adults when volunteers were randomly divided into ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners’ [15]. That study and Elliott’s demonstration were both highly controversial, but stand as excellent illustrations of how easily prejudice and unkindness can develop on the basis of random allocations to different groups, especially where one is granted greater status or power. In 2003, real-life echoes of the Stanford study emerged chillingly from the Abu Ghraib 2

Ironically, Tajfel’s understanding of such matters did not extend to gendered discrimination. The highest award of the European Association of Social Psychology since 1982, the Henri Tajfel Medal, was renamed in 2019 following revelations of his persistent sexual harassment of female psychology students and colleagues at the University of Bristol. The concept of ‘sexual harassment’ did not then exist, but his behaviour, also described as bullying, set a general tone of female discomfort and sexual license between male staff (the ‘Bristol Mafia’) and female students. Tajfel’s behaviour was excused at the time on the grounds of his difficult personal history. The ‘masculinist’ experimental social psychology culture led some female graduates to turn towards qualitative research in which women’s voices could be heard. We can also note that some of the most famous social psychology studies by Aronson (author of The Social Animal) have been critiqued as sexually harassing of female participants. Both cases are discussed in: Young, J. L., & Hegarty, P. (2019). Reasonable men: Sexual harassment and norms of conduct in social psychology. Feminism and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519855746.

84

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

US army detention centre for Iraqi prisoners [16]. Those who saw news footage at the time cannot easily forget the sight of a hooded prisoner standing on a box with outstretched arms, attached to electrical wires, for the amusement of the guards. Even more shocking was the 2020 report finding that at least 39 Afghan citizens (mostly unarmed prisoners) had allegedly been killed in cold blood by soldiers belonging to elite Australian Special Air Services regiments, with such killing sometimes being an initiation rite for junior soldiers [17]. SIT holds that three cognitive processes are central to how we define our place in society: social categorisation, social comparison and social identification. Social categorisation concerns thinking of oneself and others in terms of the groups to which we/they belong, such as working women, a military regiment or the school football team, and attributing certain characteristics to members on that basis (stereotyping). Social comparison indicates how we see our group as faring relative to others, for example, the standing in society of our occupational group, or the peer-group status of our friendship group compared with other cliques in the classroom. Social identification refers to the fact that we perceive and behave in social situations on the basis of groups to which we and others belong. These three processes add up to our social identity: how we see ourselves and others in terms of group belonging, which is associated with certain values, attitudes, emotions and behaviours. A classic TV comedy sketch about the British class system of the 1960s showed actor John Cleese with a bowler hat and upper class accent looking down on a shorter, middle-class Ronnie Barker who looked up to him, but down on an even shorter Ronnie Corbett, wearing a flat cap and scarf; he looked up to them both, and ‘knew his place’, but appreciated his own working-class attributes of being industrious and honest (the sketch has been removed from the internet, but the start of it, and a 1990s version, can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppv97S3ih14). By contrast with such social identity, personal identity is how we regard ourselves in terms of our unique characteristics, though it is quite difficult to think of personal attributes that are not tied up with some kind of group membership. We are generally motivated to boost our self-concept by evaluating the attributes of ourselves and our groups more highly than those of other individuals and groups. Those from North and South Vietnam disagree about who has the best recipe for pho, and the beautiful, liveable city of Adelaide where we authors live is often the butt of jokes emanating from the larger Australian cities of Melbourne and Sydney, which also have their own rivalry. We are also motivated to defend our group if its status is threatened in some way. An example is Duncan’s finding (cited previously) that British adolescent boys denigrated peer group members who were lured away by girls, in order to maintain the ‘manly’ status of the group [18]. This conceptualisation underscores the view of bullying and related unkindness as functional, in accord with evolutionary theory, paradigm 2, and some clinical approaches to emotional and behavioural problems. One form of risk to status is group-distinctiveness threat. For example, a New Zealander may be offended to be mistaken in the UK for an Australian, and declare how their home country is better than Australia at rugby, has a treaty with its First Nations people and has wildlife that won’t kill you. Another form of identity threat is acceptance threat, when a group to which we consider we

Social Identity Theory

85

(should) belong rejects us, such as when a refugee doctor finds their qualifications are not recognised in the host country, or a boy is excluded from a friendship group as being ‘too gay’. Disadvantaged individuals and groups strive to improve their status, while privileged groups seek to defend theirs. One strategy is to ‘band together’ (forcing social competition), such as the feminist Me Too movement, which has yielded a predictable backlash from certain young males who participate in underground internet groups that engage in online trolling of outspoken women. Another strategy for members of disadvantaged groups is to try to become upwardly socially mobile, such as applying to join an up-market club or gain membership of the ‘popular group’ at school, though this is difficult and one risks being seen as, or feeling like, a traitor, an interloper (like Ali, who wanted to join the tough guys) or both. A third strategy is to change one’s perceptions (social creativity), to upgrade the value of attributes that one’s lower-level group has. One example is Corbett’s working-class character valuing his honesty. Another is a girl who decided, after a romantic entanglement that went wrong, that she didn’t fit in with the popular group and became a tomboy, dressing as such and with career aspirations to match [19]. However, disadvantaged groups do not always discriminate in favour of their own group and may take on the prejudice against it, as in the case of internalised homophobia. Turner and colleagues elaborated SIT in the form of Self-Categorisation Theory (SCT) [20]. SCT can be characterised as not just the individual in the group, but the group in the individual. It proposes that the individual self-categorises at both a personal level (relative to all comparison groups) and as a member of groups at various levels of abstraction, up to being a ‘human being’ (as opposed to other life-forms). A British comedian joked that citizens of Liverpool and nearby Manchester hate each other, but band together as ‘North-Westerners’ to hate Yorkshire, which joins with them as ‘Northerners’ to hate the South, which unites with them as ‘English’ to hate the Scots; the world would only come together as humans, he suggested, in the face of an alien invasion! SCT is concerned with the cognitive processes underlying personal and social identity and how these motivate behaviour. Children make active efforts from a very young age to make sense of their social world, by inferring the salience of social cues (e.g. dress, language) and constructing categories (e.g. gender) accordingly [21]. SCT addresses the fact that we identify with numerous groups, something that is also basic to Smaldino’s evolutionary theory, as discussed previously. For example, Phillip self-categorises as a male, a husband, a father, an academic, a sporty person and a photographer. Such groups have social meaning for us, and the more positive groups to which we feel we belong, the greater our wellbeing [22]. For adolescents too, identifying strongly with more groups is predictive of wellbeing [23]. SCT is concerned with how we select our behaviours according to group norms, depending on the salience of particular groups at a certain time within a social context. We may at times behave more similarly to a certain ingroup, while differentiating ourselves from a particular outgroup. On an everyday basis, we generally negotiate our way through these complications in an ongoing, unconscious, dynamic fashion. Group memberships affect how we dress, talk and carry ourselves, for example, and the

86

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

opinions we express; in children as well as adults, categorisation affects ingroup preferences and stereotyping, and paves the way for prejudice. As an example of how such self-categorisation processes play out in our interactions with others, consider the experience of Monica McWilliams, co-founder of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, a cross-sectarian organisation striving to bring peace to Northern Ireland after decades of violent political struggle. Elected to the negotiating body that included paramilitary leaders from opposing sides (and that eventually brought peace in 1998), McWilliams later recalled how gender trumped even deep-seated sectarian identities [24]. She recounted how the males from opposing sides banded together against the few female representatives, telling them to go home and have babies; it was humiliating and she needed to mentally put on body armour to enter the room for meetings. On a more everyday basis, similar dynamics can occur whenever groups of disparate people come together to collaborate on a project [25]. For example, a school principal, head of year, school counsellor, parent, academic researcher and student representative might come together to reassess the school’s bullying policy. All will bring different characteristics to the table, in terms of the groups with which they identify and the power and norms of those groups. In contrast to paradigm 2, we would also grant some importance to their personal histories and qualities and their understanding of bullying. One example is that older teachers with an extended history of experiencing school ‘reforms’ may be very jaded by any new suggestions for change [26]. Another is that while one student might believe that cyberbullying ‘… hurts people’s feelings and can even lead to committing suicide’ another might not believe in the phenomenon: ‘I don’t really think it exists. If you’re being cyber‘bullied’ then there is something wrong with you––it is insanely easy to avoid, by blocking people and so on’ [27]. Japanese ijime is often contrasted with western school bullying because it generally involves a whole class rather than smaller friendship groups. This can be explained by SCT in terms of the emphasis placed on the homeroom in the Japanese system: the whole class is more salient than the informal peer groups within it. The descriptions of the social processes of bullying within that class do, however, sound identical to those in informal friendship groups in western qualitative studies, with the cultural difference that ‘selfishness’ is often given as a reason for bullying someone (though it can also be some minor personal difference such as having a few grey hairs) [28]. While group-based social phenomena will emerge on the basis of arbitrary differences such as eye colour, grey hairs or the style of one’s trousers, group difference may sometimes be based on a characteristic that is widely stigmatised in society. Although, as we noted previously, there is evidence that belonging to an LGBTI support group can have a positive impact on young people’s mental health, there can be a downside, in terms of identity [29]. When identification with a minority group (such as a gay sexual orientation or certain ethnicity) becomes stronger, discrimination is more keenly felt. For gay people, whose minority identity is less obvious than some ethnic differences, the more valued they feel within their minority group, the more salient their minority status becomes for interpreting everyday interactions;

Social Identity Theory

87

therefore, the more they feel discrimination, with a negative effect on mental health. Overall, however, the impact of feeling valued by the minority group has been found to outweigh the negative impact of discrimination [29]. That study illustrates the value of quantitative research: the measurement of change over time enabled the statistical teasing out of the opposing effects of different factors on depressive symptoms and distress, to conclude that, overall, the impact of minority-group identification was positive for mental health. There is another theory with its origins in SIT that can help us to understand group-based relationships. This is communication accommodation theory (CAT), developed by Tajfel and Turner’s associate Howard Giles [30]. It originally focused on speech, spurred by Giles’ observation that his own Welsh accent varied in a chameleon-like fashion according to social context, but later the theory expanded to include all aspects of communication. We vary our communicative behaviours, including speech, in order to associate ourselves more closely with, or more distantly from, other groups. An example is that, when Rosalyn’s family migrated from Britain to Australia her daughter, then aged ten, was asked by her new classmates to say things in her Welsh accent for their amusement; within three weeks she was talking Aussie! She now uses a southern English accent like her mother’s to speak to her, as does her brother, but his accent becomes more Welsh on speaking to his Welshborn father, while he speaks in the Welsh language to an old school friend; both son and daughter speak English with an Australian twang in talking to their downunder friends. While such ‘code-switching’ is often harmless or positive, in oiling the wheels of communication, it may be stressful, resented and a political issue for minorities who feel under pressure to do it in order to fit professionally into the majority culture, as with those who speak Multilingual London English (MLE) at home: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ls8x. A few years ago, after finding derogation of girls’ bodies was a very common type of harassment in a study in Australian secondary schools [31], we asked Japanese colleague Toda about the situation in his country. There, he said, adolescents were most likely to denigrate others in terms of ‘the correct way to talk’. The normal tendency to use varied speech forms in relation to group identity therefore seemed to have reached a particular, conscious level in Japanese schools, in his experience, and is an instance of Schott’s Hypothesis 4 (that social relations are mediated by symbolic representations such as language) [32]. The contrast between Australia and Japan exemplifies the relevance of cultural context for influencing beliefs, attitudes and behavioural norms within and between groups. To the best of our knowledge, CAT has not yet been applied to studying school bullying, but it has potential. For example, our work with Owens on indirect aggression between teenage girls highlighted the use of nonverbal and dress code signals (such as turning sock tops up or down on certain days) to communicate who was in and out of the group [33] (a further exemplar of Schott’s symbolism hypothesis). One of the most heart-warming stories we have heard in recent years about someone trying to find a group where they ‘fitted’ concerned a young man with Tourette Syndrome. His attempts to join various social groups were stymied because

88

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

his frequent vocal outbursts upset others. He hit on the idea of joining the deaf community, where no-one cared about his noises; he became an expert in sign language and a teacher of others. That is an impressive example of communication accommodation! In ending this section, we refer to a criticism of SIT and SCT by intercultural communication researcher David Guttormsen [34]. He sees these theories as attending to identity distinctiveness and activation, but neglectful of why individuals attribute meaning and salience to certain markers of the boundaries between social categories. He suggests, for example, that an individual might have a particular bias in determining salience that may give rise to conflict in social encounters. He gives the example of a Swiss football commentator who was sacked for making remarks about the strengths and weaknesses of ‘Black players’ without any regard to the fact that they came from a vast array of different backgrounds and cultures. Guttormsen maintains that ‘learning through interaction’, which is core to social anthropological theory, needs to be considered. A Vygotskian account of development, such as we outlined in Chap. 2, would partially meet this requirement, in explaining how an individual develops certain ways of seeing the world (biases) in the course of interactions with other members of their culture. Guttormsen points out that it is often through interacting with someone from a different culture that one’s own worldview and sense of self are challenged. CAT and related intergroup communication theories help to fill the gap that Guttormsen perceives. That it is a complex and even ‘messy’ endeavour to capture the multiplicity of forces impinging on human communication is captured in a statement by Cindy Gallois and colleagues: that ‘attitudes, motivations, intergroup history, and communication are mutual and reciprocal influences. Furthermore, societal and intergroup forces, particularly power inequalities, are central contributors to communication, but communication still happens between individual people’ [35]. This applies to bullying just as to other types of human interaction, and we will address the matter of complexity in future chapters.

Social Norms Belonging to certain groups carries the implication that one should behave according to that group’s norms or ‘rules’ of the group. This includes the types of behaviours we have already noted as markers of social identity, such as dressing and speaking in certain ways, but it also extends to any behaviours, including rules for how we treat other people. Norms may be as formalised as laws or school bullying policies, understood as moral codes, or be as informal (and rapidly changeable) as deciding whether sock tops will be turned up or down today. Some years ago, Rosalyn saw a man walking determinedly along a busy London high street, naked (as her then 5-year-old granddaughter later reported, ‘He didn’t even bother to put any shoes on!’). The whooping and tooting from passing cars was meant to send a message that he had broken the rules of British society, but his oblivion suggested that he was mentally unwell, so unlikely was it that a person in their right mind would break the convention of appearing fully dressed in a public street.

Social Norms

89

US psychologist Michele Gelfand has examined how norms vary between different cultures and organisations, and how they can change over time [36]. She has found that societies historically subjected to frequent threat, such as natural disasters or wars, have tighter norms, that attract greater punishment for offenders, while under conditions of reduced threat, norms become more relaxed. As we noted previously, this adaptability confers an evolutionary advantage. However, norms can play an invidious role in bullying, as when an unacceptable trouser style is used as a reason to marginalise an immigrant child, or a boy is excluded for ‘not being masculine enough’. Dominic Abrams and colleagues have put forward their Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics, which proposes that, with age, children’s understanding of social group norms becomes increasingly sophisticated, such that they become more able to differentiate between group members in terms of the implications of their behaviour for group membership, and to hold more complex understandings about what others believe and expect of them [37]. This lays the groundwork for the potential inclusion or exclusion of certain others. Some studies in the next section have included an examination of the role of norms in school bullying.

Bullying Research Based on Social Identity Theory The potential power of applying group-based theories to the school context has been observed by Isobel Turner and colleagues: ‘a range of constructs that are widely researched in the educational domain such as school connectedness, school belonging, student engagement, and school climate may take on new meaning when understood through the lens of group psychology and social identity’ [38]. Identity research with adolescents has focused almost exclusively on personal, rather than social, identity [39], and paradigm 2 advocates have characterised traditional bullying research as neglectful of group processes. However, there is, in fact, a body of school bullying research based on SIT and SCT by Drew Nesdale and his associates, in Australia. This was prompted by a 1995 UK study by Michael Boulton that indicated the potential of the theory for conceptualising bullying [40]. Bullying research had previously been largely descriptive and atheoretical, limiting the potential for furthering our understanding of the phenomenon. Nesdale developed Social Identity Development Theory (SIDT) to fill this gap [41]. It proposes that young children’s intergroup (ethnic) prejudice passes through several stages: undifferentiated (up to 2 or 3 years), ethnic awareness, ethnic preference and, after 6–7 years, ethnic prejudice (in those who develop it) [42]. Development of ethnic awareness is illustrated by the child who, shortly after starting school, excitedly told his mother that he had made a new friend. She asked whether he was Black or White, and her son replied, ‘I don’t know. I’ll look tomorrow.’ Nesdale proposed that prejudice would either be an ingroup norm or develop under perceived threat from an outgroup. Numbers of studies have supported the SIDT approach. For example, ingroup preference becomes ingroup prejudice when children identify

90

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

highly with the ingroup, when there is a group norm of prejudice, and/or when the outgroup is seen as a threat [43]. Identity as integral to group processes therefore has relevance for children long before adolescence, even if identity issues come to the fore more acutely then. Nesdale and his student Kris Ojala, in 2004, set out to specifically examine whether this theoretical framework could provide a plausible explanation for bullying in schools [44]. They were interested in the role of group norms in modifying bullying attitudes, noting that a couple of previous studies had found group norms to be relevant for children’s aggression. They also assessed the effect of a distinctiveness threat (that bullying would be more approved if the outgroup was more similar to the ingroup). They presented 10–13-year-old boys with various versions of a vignette that set up pro-bullying group norms versus fairness group norms, depicting a character from a popular ingroup either engaging in bullying or helping a member of a less popular outgroup. Although their hypotheses about how much the boys would like a character were not supported, they did find that boys judged that the ingroup character was much more likely to be retained by the group if he had acted in accord with group norms, and that they considered bullying more acceptable when it was targeted at a member of the outgroup who was more similar (and thus more of a potential threat) to the ingroup. This supports Schott and Søndergaard’s proposition that group members are vulnerable to losing privileges and will act to defend against threat. Bullying others has been found to raise the self-esteem of pre-adolescents [45], as would be expected under SIT, and the possibility was suggested that a ‘scapegoating’ process might be a feature of bullying, whereby a group must find a ‘whipping boy’ against which to favourably judge their group [46, 47]. Promising as this concept seemed, several studies failed to find evidence for it. Studies identified school classes with very different makeup, from no bullying at all up to many who bullied others, which emphasised the likelihood that behavioural norms play an important role [48]. Amanda Duffy, with Nesdale, later applied SIT to friendship groups, although they also suggested that children may sometimes bully independently of any group [49]. Working with 8–13-year-olds, they drew upon Salmivalli’s classification of bullying roles (bystanders, defenders of victims, etc.), and examined ingroup similarities between members, as well as the role of bullying or anti-bullying norms, but this time in a more naturalistic setting, based on actual class friendship groups. The students were asked about bullying behaviours, and to make judgements about how happy certain friendship groups would be if members behaved in certain ways, as well as rating group members on how similar they were to their group overall. This research confirmed that there was more bullying behaviour by students who belonged to pro-bullying-norm groups. Also, there was group similarity in behaviours such as seeking to harm others’ friendships, though whether individuals who favour such behaviours choose to join such groups or are socialised into such behaviour once in the group, could not be determined. They further examined whether those on the periphery of a pro-bullying group would most strongly favour the ingroup and derogate the outgroup (as a strategy for cementing their place in the group), or whether prototypical group members would bully more; they found the latter to be the case, although their later research found that those on the periphery of a group who are

Bullying Research Based on Social Identity Theory

91

seeking higher status are more supportive of aggression and bullying [50]. Those findings support part of Schott’s third hypothesis, that those seeking to move across borders of a group create a disturbing force [32]. Siân Jones and colleagues followed up this research by investigating a possible ‘black sheep’ phenomenon in 10–11-year-olds, based on the finding that children, in general, disapprove of bullying and do not want their group to be associated with it [51]. The children were individually assigned to a high-status, a near-high status (peripheral) or an irrelevant group as described in a vignette, on the basis of an initial task; the task actually had no impact on group allocation, which was random, but the process was aimed at giving the children a sense of ‘belonging’ to their assigned group. Children responded to a story in which a high-status group member bullied an outgroup member and was supported in this by other members of the high-status group. Children assigned to the high-status group liked the bullying individual less than the rest of the group and considered that person as more deserving of punishment than the group as a whole. Peripheral group members liked them less but did not differentiate on punishment. The irrelevant group did not differentiate between the bully and the group as a whole in terms of either liking or punishment. The findings support Schott’s Hypothesis 2 that opposing identities are created by group processes [32]. The researchers saw the black sheep phenomenon as serving a self-protective function (‘My group is not a bad group, it’s just this one person’). Indeed, they further suggested that this is an instance of a broader societal tendency to pathologise individual bullies and victims, as a way of deflecting attention away from groups, norms and institutions, such as schools, that may be contributing to bullying. SCT has been little applied to young people, but Rosalyn’s student Elysia Page used this theory to examine the sexual bullying of girls by boys [52]. Secondary school boys (Year 9) were presented with vignettes depicting a boy bullying a girl at school, by calling her a slut or by spreading a sex-based rumour, in front of his friends. The context was varied so that gender was either less or more salient, and boys were asked what they would be most likely to do if they were a friend of the boy, using a scale that drew upon Salmivalli’s roles, on a spectrum from joining in the bullying, through doing nothing, to defending the girl. As predicted, boys reported being more likely to join in or laugh at the bullying when gender was more salient. Having a pro-bullying attitude also predicted such engagement, but only when the context was less gender salient. This indicated that the perceived social context was a powerful determinant of whether an individual characteristic (attitude to bullying) gained expression (group norms were not manipulated in that study). The concept of ingroup identity has recently been drawn upon by Poland’s Małgorzata Wojcik and Anna Hełkain, in devising a classroom-based anti-bullying program. This is for teachers to apply as students transition to middle school, at the point of forming new friendship groups. Specifically, it draws upon ‘crossedcategorisation’, alerting students to attributes that are common across different peer groups, thereby classifying all students as ‘in the group’, allowing them to take a collective stand against bullying [53, 54]. We will elaborate on this in a later chapter.

92

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

Conclusions Coming from the point of view of large-scale theories about social relations, paradigm 2 advocates propose that ordinary processes of marginalisation, rather than psychopathology, are what give rise to school bullying. Here, we have explored this matter from a different stance: that of psychological theorising concerned with group processes, coming from an evolutionary starting point. Central to these considerations is Social Identity Theory, along with its offshoots Self-Categorisation Theory and Communication Accommodation Theory. Other relevant social psychological theories that we mentioned in Chap. 3 include Optimal Distinctiveness Theory and Identity Signalling Theory. Our exploration supports the paradigm 2 proposal that marginalising others can be considered a ‘normal’, functional human social process that sometimes plays out in the form of school bullying. Humans have evolved to associate with some groups and distance themselves from others. This can be seen to have arisen from the need to coordinate with those who seem the most likely to cooperate with us, and we selectively present aspects of our self in the interest of that coordination. Our human social world is therefore complex in large-scale societies and Erikson described it as a ‘jungle’. As with the natural world, we make sense of it by thinking of ourselves and others as belonging to various categories (social groups), with which we either directly interact or with which we feel affiliated. Perceived group memberships shift dynamically according to context and motivate us to behave in the ‘right way’ according to group norms. Ingroup and outgroup membership is signalled in a range of symbolic ways, such as through speech and dress styles. Our consideration of these issues supports the view that marginalisation of others is, indeed, ‘ordinary’ human behaviour that extends across childhood, adolescence and the adult years. However, when group membership is threatened, defending it by marginalising others may sometimes become judged as serious or entrenched enough to be considered as bullying (though different participants or observers may draw the line at different points). As we saw in a previous chapter, bullying may be tinged with racism, sexism or other forms of discrimination that are widespread in society (bias-based bullying). In accepting that ordinary social processes indeed play a central role in bullying, we do not lose sight of the fact that individual characteristics are also relevant: some who bully have a background that promotes such behaviour, while targets may also be picked on for being shy, overweight, having red hair, a prominent nose or being short, if it suits someone else’s identity project. Our group belonging requires active management, and in the next chapter, we examine some social behaviours that help us to do this.

References

93

References 1. Siliezar, J. (2020). How the West became WEIRD (Q & A with Joseph Henrich). Harvard Gazette, 16 September 2020). Accessed November 10, 2020 at https://news.harvard.edu/gaz ette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/ 2. Gy˝ori, G. (2013). Basic level categorization and meaning in language. Argumentum 9, 149– 161. Accessed Januar 2, 2021 at http://argumentum.unideb.hu/2013-anyagok/kulonszam/06_ gyorig.pdf 3. Harnad, S. (2017). To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. In Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 21–54). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08101107-2.00002-6 4. Harnad, S. (2017). To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. In Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 21–54). Elsevier.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08101107-2.00002-6, p. 49 5. Ndahiro, K. (2014). Dehumanisation: How Tutsis were reduced to cockroaches, snakes to be killed. The New Times, 13 March, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2020 at https://www.newtimes. co.rw/section/read/73836 6. Minton, S. J. (2016). Marginalisation and aggression from bullying to genocide. Sense. 7. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying: Philosophical reflections on definitions. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46). Cambridge University Press, p. 36. 8. Wacquant, L., Slater, T., & Pereira, V. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1068/a46 06ge 9. James, C. (1981). Unreliable memoirs (p. 49). Picador. 10. Hymel, S., McClure, R., Miller, M., Shumka, E., & Trach, J. (2015). Addressing school bullying: Insights from theories of group processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.008 11. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole. 12. Swift, J. (1726/2008). Gulliver’s travels. Penguin. 13. Mouffe, C. (2013), cited in McAuliffe, C., & Rogers, D. (2018). Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: Agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. Geographical Research. Online. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12283 14. Bloom, S. G. (2005). Lesson of a lifetime. Smithsonian Magazine, September 2005. Accessed March 4, 2020 at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lesson-of-a-lifetime-727 54306/ 15. Zimbardo, P. (n.d.). Philip Zimbardo’s response to recent criticism of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Stanford Prison Experiment. Accessed March 4, 2020 at https://www.prisonexp. org/response 16. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn bad. Random House. 17. Knaus, C. (2020). Australian special forces involved in murder of 39 Afghan civilians, war crimes report alleges. The Guardian, 19 November 2020. Accessed November 23, 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/19/australian-special-forcesinvolved-in-of-39-afghan-civilians-war-crimes-report-alleges 18. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying. Routledge. 19. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—on the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158). Cambridge University Press. 20. Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (pp. 233–275). Erlbaum.

94

6 The Social Jungle—Groups and Identity

21. Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in pre-school classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81(6), 1787–1798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01510.x 22. Cruwys, T., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Haslam, C., Jetten, J., & Dingle, G. A. (2016). Social Identity Mapping: A procedure for visual representation and assessment of subjective multiple group memberships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 613–642. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjso.12155 23. Miller, K., Wakefield, J. R. H., & Sani, F. (2015). On the reciprocal effects between multiple group identifications and mental health: A longitudinal study of Scottish adolescents. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12143 24. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2020). Negotiating peace. The Conversation podcast. Accessed July 14, 2020 at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvs1y 25. Shute, R. H. (1997). Multidisciplinary teams and child health care: Practical and theoretical issues. The Australian Psychologist, 32(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/000500697082 57362 26. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05277975 27. O’Brien, N. (2019). Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1984), p. 7 & p. 6. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2019.01984 28. Akiba, M. (2004). Nature and correlates of Ijime—Bullying in Japanese middle school. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005. 07.002 29. Begeny, C. T., & Ho, Y. J. (2017). When identity hurts: How positive intergroup experiences can yield negative mental health implications for ethnic and sexual minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 803–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2292 30. Soliz, J., & Giles, H. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. Annals of the International Communication Association, 38, 107–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2014.116 79160 31. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 32. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying: Philosophical reflections on definitions. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46). Cambridge University Press. 33. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2002). “You just stare at them and give them daggers”: Nonverbal expressions of social aggression in teenage girls. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 10(4), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2002.9747911 34. Guttormsem, D. (2018). Advancing otherness and othering of the cultural other during “intercultural encounters” in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 48(3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.148 0874 35. Gallois, C., Watson, B. M., & Giles, H. (2018). Intergroup communication: Identities and effective interactions. Journal of Communication, 68, 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/ jqx016 36. Roos, P., Gelfand, M., Nau, D., & Lun, J. (2015). Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.003 37. Abrams, D., Powell, C., Palmer, S. B., & van der Vyver, J. (2017). Toward a contextualized social developmental account of children’s group-based inclusion and exclusion: The developmental model of subjective group dynamics. In A. Rutland, D. Nesdale, & C. S. Brown (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents (pp. 124–143).

References

95

38. Turner, I., Reynolds, A. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2018). Understanding aggression and victimization: Negative binomial modelling with supportive school climate, mental health, and social identity mediation. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 380–402, p. 381. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000174.supp 39. Koni, E., Moradi, S., Arahanga-Doyle, H., Neha, T., Hayhurst, J. G., Boyes, M., Cruwys, T., Hunter, J. A., & Scarf, D. (2019). Promoting resilience in adolescents: A new social identity benefits those who need it most. PLoS ONE, 14, e0210521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0210521 40. Boulton, M. J. (1995). Patterns of bully/victim problems in mixed race groups of children. Social Development, 4(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1995.tb00066.x 41. Nesdale, D. (2017). Children and social groups: A social identity approach. In A. Rutland, D. Nesdale, & C. S. Brown (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents (pp. 3–22). Wiley. 42. Nesdale, D., Lawson, M. J., Durkin, K., & Duffy, A. (2010). Effects of information about group members on young children’s attitudes towards the in-group and out-group. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151009X433321 43. Nesdale, D., & Dalton, D. (2011). Children’s social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 895–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02017.x 44. Ojala, K., & Nesdale, D. (2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151004772901096 45. Verkuyten, M. (2007). Ethnic in-group favoritism among minority and majority groups: Testing the self-esteem hypothesis among pre-adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00170.x 46. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 47. Mahdavi, J., & Smith, P. K. (2007). Individual risk factors or group dynamics? An investigation of the scapegoat hypothesis of victimization in school classes. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(4), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620701512196 48. Nesdale, D. (2007). Peer groups and children’s school bullying: Scapegoating and other group processes. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(4), 388–392. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17405620701530339 49. Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development, 18, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.004 84.x 50. Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2010). Group norms, intra-group position and children’s aggressive intentions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(6), 696–716. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17405620903132504 51. Jones, S., Haslam, S. A., York, L., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). Rotten apple or rotten barrel? Social identity and children’s responses to bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X200385 52. Page, E., Shute, R., & McLachlan, A. (2014). A self-categorization theory perspective on adolescent boys’ sexual bullying of girls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535096 53. Crisp, R. J., Walsh, J., & Hewstone, M. (2006). Crossed categorization in common ingroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1204–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167206289409 54. Wojcik, M., & Hełka, A. M. (2019). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: ABBL antibullying program during middle school transition. Psychological Reports, 122(3), 1043–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118768671

Chapter 7

Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

Smaldino’s evolutionary theory and Social Identity Theory (SIT) and its offshoots support the proposition that the need to belong to the ‘right’ groups is a powerful motivating force for individuals, and that marginalising others is an inherent aspect of this. We now consider several specific social behaviours that have been studied by social psychologists and others, that are important for managing our reputation and social group belonging. They are highly relevant for understanding school bullying: gossip, deception and self-deception, and the use of humour and laughter.

Gossip and Reputation Management Gossiping and reputation management are central to our social wellbeing, and wellknown to play a part in bullying. To recap a few ideas, the ‘social brain’ view of how we manage a complex, socially layered world acknowledges the role of gossip in keeping a handle on available groups and the reputations of those around us. Who is likely to be helpful, or to work against our interests or those of our loved ones? At the same time, we work to maintain or improve our own social status and reputation which, from an evolutionary perspective, offers us the power to gain social and material resources. Given what we know about how our self-concept is intimately connected with the groups with which we identify, this sets up a framework within which who is ‘better’ is contested. At times, in the interest of promoting ourselves or other members of our ingroups, this may involve deception and further, given the fundamental need to maintain our own self-concept, we may deceive ourselves too. We will return to those points shortly. Gossip is an important vehicle through which the formation, maintenance and undermining of identities and reputations is carried. It goes beyond simple sharing of news, such as, ‘A new girl has joined the class’. Rumours may not be gossip, as when your friend says, ‘Ahmed said a new girl is joining the class’. Gossip is a specific type of rumour, and can be defined as ‘positive or negative evaluative talk © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_7

97

98

7 Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

about someone who is not present’ [1]. A positive piece of gossip might be, ‘That new girl in our class seems very friendly’, while a negative one would be, ‘That new girl in our class is really up herself’ (Aussie slang for having a high opinion of oneself). Two-thirds of conversation time is devoted to interpersonal evaluations [2]. While ‘the gossip’ is broadly seen as a reviled figure in society, this view must be modified [3]. Someone who passes on gossip is regarded as morally good if their intentions are positive. Well-meant information about another person can help us to predict who is, and is not, to be trusted in society. Elena Martinescu and colleagues have studied gossip from the point of view of the individual [1]. They drew upon a model theorising that humans have a fundamental need to improve, promote and protect the self, in the interest of our mental health [4]. Gossip, they suggested, is important to individuals as it fosters social comparison that enables us to evaluate and re-evaluate ourselves in an ongoing manner. They asked university students to reflect on the ‘informal conversations’ that had occurred around a real group-work incident in their studies, and also set up an experimental study. There was a gender difference, with men valuing gossip’s self-promotion value more than women did. They found that positive gossip, that is, talk about success stories, aided self-improvement. A recent example is that one of us authors told our spouse that an acquaintance with a sick partner had found a new way of thinking about the situation and was coping much better as a result: a ‘success story’ that might encourage us to think of ourselves too as people who could similarly cope in the same situation. Negative gossip, on the other hand, Martinescu found to stimulate self-promotion and raise concerns about self-protection. We are reminded of an academic who called together his research team and berated them as the team was being criticised by others in his university for not producing enough publications; he said they all had to lift their game, ‘as my reputation is on the line.’ There are a few indicators that gossip is modified by ingroup affiliation. In a 2012 Ph.D. in the USA, Dana Turcotte found that an ingroup member who is uncertain about her position in the group will pass on gossip to most others if it concerns a central group member, but only if it is not too negative; this suggests that the person is walking a fine line between passing on relevant information and not taking too strong a risk, as a peripheral member who might be treated as disloyal [5]. A Chinese study by Yijiao Ye and colleagues also took a social identity perspective. They found that negative workplace gossip undermines employees’ sense of identification with the organisation, which in turn impedes their organisational performance and customer service; this effect is exaggerated if the individual has a tendency to interpret the intentions of others in a negative way [6]. So while gossip can have positive effects, it can also be harmful, and sometimes it constitutes a form of bullying [7]. In schools, negative gossip (‘rumour-mongering’) is a particularly hurtful type of exclusionary behaviour, whether classified as indirect aggression, bullying or harassment [8]. It arises from a complex array of group and individual attributes and has functionality for some but does reputational damage to others. This may be especially ill-deserved if the gossiper is badly informed or malicious (‘maliciousness’ having a moralistic undertone but being functional for the gossiper). The notion of gossip now needs to be extended to electronic forms of communication that spread positive

Gossip and Reputation Management

99

and negative talk about individuals; when this becomes a vehicle for marginalisation it can morph into cyberbullying, as outlined here: https://www.stopbullying.gov/cyb erbullying/cyberbullying-tactics.

Deception, Self-deception and Moral Disengagement Gossip that deliberately spreads untruths about someone is a form of deception. Richard Dawkins maintains that deception is a product of evolution, as it serves competition [9]. We can define it as the misleading of an individual or individuals in order to benefit oneself, one’s kin or one’s ingroup. In the cult British comedy science fiction series Red Dwarf , Dave Lister, the only human left alive in the universe, tries to train the mechanoid Kryten to lie, which goes against his programming; he tells him that you’re psychologically naked without the ability to hide your intentions from others. In the animal world deception often consists of evolved physical adaptations such as when a harmless creature’s body mimics a dangerous one in order to protect itself from attack, as when a stingless fly is striped like a harmful wasp. In primates, deception can be intentional, such as when hiding food from others, but it is thought that the involvement of ‘theory of mind’, or an understanding of the beliefs of others, only occurs in humans [10]. Schemes aimed at cheating people out of money are one example of deception, such as telephone calls trying to convince us that the caller is from a legitimate company needing to access our electronic devices. The existence of competition and deceit is why we need to have means of finding out whom to trust. However, the evidence for Dawkins’ suggestion that a human ability to detect deceit evolved along with the ability to deceive is mixed. Many studies suggest that our performance at judging whether someone is lying is little better than chance, though it seems to be considerably better than that when we allow unconscious processes to operate [11]. It can sometimes be very difficult, amid today’s claims of ‘fake news’, false online identities and doctored electronic material, to work out what information is accurate, and many people have been fooled online into financially and emotionally damaging ‘love affairs’ by overseas extortionists [12]. Deception can sometimes play a part in group processes of marginalisation such as bullying and can contribute to a teacher’s difficulty in finding out ‘what really happened’ when investigating bullying claims. Lies, often in the form of cyberbullying, may be spread about a competitor in order to damage their reputation, or a person may lie about having committed a socially unacceptable behaviour in order to protect themselves from repercussions, which may range from moral condemnation, through punishments such as suspension from school up to criminal charges. Just as gossip can be positively judged if it is well-intentioned, a lie may be considered as ‘white’ in some circumstances. For example, when Rosalyn’s motherin-law developed dementia and became agitated because she was ‘late meeting her father’ the family judged that the honest answer that he had been dead for thirty years would be decidedly less helpful than reassuring her that she still had plenty of time.

100

7 Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

A further proposition, by evolutionary theorists William von Hippel and Robert Trivers, is that self-deception exists in order to facilitate the deception of others [13]. One advantage is that self-deception reduces the cognitive load associated with deception (it saves us having to keep in mind both the truth and the fiction, as we only have to focus on ‘our truth’). Another suggested advantage is that by eliminating mental ambiguity it creates a greater sense of confidence, which increases one’s social powers of persuasion. Self-deception plays a part in maintaining our self-concept, in the event that we have violated a socially- or self-defined norm of acceptable behaviour. Freud recognised this in discussing defence mechanisms although, as noted previously, the evolutionary view sees self-deception as a proactive strategy. Claude Steele’s self-affirmation theory holds that individuals are motivated to serve their self-concept, in terms of moral integrity and competence [14]. Cognitive bias comes into play, as exemplified by the ‘fundamental attribution error’: ‘You fell over because you were careless, but I fell over because someone left an object in my path’ [15]. Self-serving bias may also motivate us to continue self-deception by avoiding accessing information that clashes with our goals and self-concept. Internet-based organisations support this by using algorithms that keep us within our preferred informational ‘bubble’, which minimises input from outgroups that might disturb the status quo. Commentators today often condemn an increasing ‘tribalism’ as antithetical to the holding of rational conversations about issues. Self-deception is relevant to bullying and related phenomena given the social norm that one should be kind and respectful of others. Most adolescents, like children, consider bullying unacceptable [16]. If someone has engaged in bullying, in order to maintain a positive self-concept they may use a cognitive strategy of moral disengagement. This may include diffusion of responsibility, distortion of consequences, euphemistic labelling [16], or seeing the victim as deserving the bullying (by being ‘annoying’, for example). Examples of such moral disengagement were apparent in our qualitative study of sexual bullying of girls by boys, in which boys claimed to be only joking, and said that the girls took it too seriously [17]. Prince Andrew displayed euphemistic labelling in referring to his sexual-offender friend’s behaviour as ‘unbecoming’. A related means of protecting the self or one’s ingroups is the suspension of empathy. It is difficult to simultaneously bully someone while also being able to imagine yourself in their shoes. A boy in our sexual bullying study demonstrated this when he said about the girls, ‘You know they’ll take it to heart’ but clearly did not care––he had ‘cognitive empathy’ but not ‘emotional empathy’ for the harassed girls [18]. Peter, the boy in Haavind’s study who controlled the fight in which Goran broke Ali’s nose, later said, ‘Oh it was fine. He only broke half his nose.’ [19]. The boys in Peter’s group also deliberately practised not feeling any emotions when adults told them off. Suspension of empathy and other forms of moral disengagement are strategies to avoid cognitive dissonance, whereby it is uncomfortable to simultaneously hold two inconsistent beliefs, such as, ‘I am a kind person’ and ‘I have bullied someone’ [20]. The Japanese adolescents interviewed by Akiba clearly described being swept along by bullying, with no question at all that they should refrain; it would be stupid, they said, to set yourself up as the next victim. Others have found

Deception, Self-deception and Moral Disengagement

101

that bystanders, or even supporters of bullies, sometimes do express discomfort about bullying, when asked, but admit going along with it to save themselves from being the next victim. This social exclusion anxiety lies at the heart of paradigm 2 thinking and highlights that bullying involves moral dilemmas. The most extreme version of moral disengagement is the complete dehumanisation of the other person or group, as when the Nazis promoted thinking of Jewish people as rats. We need to be alert to thinking that such dangerous processes are confined to history: motorists who hold dehumanising attitudes towards cyclists are more likely to report behaving aggressively towards them [21]. The Polish anti-bullying program we mentioned previously includes a component aimed at raising students’ perspective-taking abilities, encouraging them to see connections between others’ bullying behaviour that they judge as unacceptable, and their own identical behaviour, that they feel is justified [22]. Moral disengagement has a negative effect in the longer term. As discussed by social psychologists Lydia Woodyatt and Michael Wenzel, an offender has an increased need to belong, to not be excluded, and so needs to be acknowledged by the group as a worthy member [23]. If group norms have been breached, the individual needs to re-affirm their worth as a member, and this requires acknowledging shame and accepting responsibility. This is core to processes such as restorative justice, which is aimed at reconciling offenders and victims and has been applied to school bullying [24]. Care needs to be taken, however, that power differences do not cause re-victimisation, and in situations such as domestic violence, and perhaps some bullying cases, the method may be inappropriate. Indeed, for paradigm 2 advocates, identifying specific ‘bullies’ and ‘victims’ does not reflect the reality of social complexity and risks causing further marginalisation. A consideration of self-deception highlights that many of the cognitive processes that underlie bullying occur at an unconscious level. Dixon noted this, observing that not all would agree with her, but the discussion above supports her proposition. There can be value in raising consciousness about these processes, whether in a general sense, such as through this book, or when working with young people to address bullying, as in the Polish program. However, on an everyday basis, if we attempted an ongoing analysis of our salient group memberships, norms, behaviours and cognitive biases, we would probably drive ourselves nuts! This is not an entirely alien experience, as we observed, for minorities who feel forced to code-switch in order to operate successfully in majority society. A notable example of self-deception comes from one of many articles reflecting on the death of the aforementioned writer Clive James at the end of 2019 [25]. It reproduced a section of one of his famous pieces as TV critic for the UK’s Observer newspaper. For a current affairs program in 1976, a journalist had interviewed Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments who had escaped the death penalty at Nuremberg but been imprisoned for twenty years. James wrote: He probably sincerely believes he didn’t know quite what was happening to the Jews. ‘I was only astonished by how it had happened ... the way it was done.’ If this meant anything, it meant that Speer knew the Jews were being wiped out, but thought that they were being wiped out in some acceptable way. If Speer couldn’t see that he had been self-revealing, there was no point telling him.

102

7 Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

We further discuss bullying as a moral issue, including moral disengagement, in Chap. 11.

Bullying is No Laughing Matter (or Is It?) A monk called Gerald, born in 1145, recorded his travels around Wales, noting the lifestyles, characteristics and proclivities of the people he met [26]. He made the following observation: In Wales, courtiers and even family men in their own homes are often very funny in what they say. This amuses their guests and gains them the reputation of being great wits. They make the most droll comments, some of which are very clever. They love sarcastic remarks and libellous allusions, plays on words, sly references, ambiguities and equivocal statements. Some of these are just for fun, but they can be very bitter.

Centuries later, we can easily recognise the types of humour to which he was referring, including its potential to be ‘very bitter’. The use of humour is, we believe, an important but under-researched aspect of bullying. Numbers of us researching behaviours variously labelled as bullying, aggression or sexual harassment have noted the same point: that as well as perpetrators often claiming to be ‘only joking’, they also report engaging in these behaviours for entertainment or fun [8]. Twemlow’s bullying definition presented in the first chapter included reference to the fact that bullies and their supporters often enjoy the spectacle. Bullying behaviours may be perceived by participants as just ‘banter’, while ‘teasing’ teeters on the edge of joking and ‘meaning it’ [27]. Victims, though, often don’t see the funny side. The use of humour and laughter is pertinent to our discussion of group identity processes. Humour and laughter were proposed by some of the early SIT researchers such as Tajfel to be a means of creating group solidarity. Laughter is often seen as an evolved social behaviour [28], but despite its universality in humans, social psychologist Michael Billig prioritises its social, rather than biological, underpinning [29]. He maintains that, while non-human primates laugh in response to being tickled, this response by some animals has nothing to do with human laughter and humour. Smiling and laughter in early infancy have been selected for, he suggests, because being able to convey positive and negative affect to carers has survival value, but humour, and laughter as a marker of the funny, is learned later. For example, he suggests, a child might learn that misnaming something evokes laughter in adults, and so does it deliberately, as when Rosalyn’s daughter, at a year old, insisted on naming every item in her picture book as ‘banana’, but when shown the banana picture, changed her answer to ‘Mama’. The child goes on to learn how to be humorous in more complex and sophisticated ways, with what counts as funny being culturally determined (that baby grew up to develop a love of puns!). Billig sees the common-sense supposition that humour is always a good thing as a sentimentalised view and follows instead in the footsteps of Freud and the philosopher Henri Bergson, to examine its dark side. He puts forward evidence that ‘ridicule lies

Bullying is No Laughing Matter (or Is It?)

103

at the core of social life, for the possibility of ridicule ensures that members of society routinely comply with the customs and habits of their social milieu.’ [30]. This connects humour squarely with social power. It brings some people together but also, by mockery, excludes others. Teasing is thus a form of social control and, for children laughed at by adults when they make a mistake, it is an early lesson in ridiculing others. A historical example of public ridicule is a play staged in London in 1676, making fun of a natural philosopher (proto-scientist) carrying out all kinds of crazy experiments [31]. The only man in the theatre not laughing was the polymath Robert Hooke. His inventive mind would later attract comparisons with Leonardo da Vinci, but he was physically crooked and lacked the wealth of his fellow-scientists, and so had to earn his living. Brilliant but physically and socially disadvantaged, he was easily mocked. Having to fight for credit for his ideas against the likes of his illustrious contemporary Sir Isaac Newton, it is no wonder he did not find the play funny. Such failure to laugh has social meaning and is referred to by Billig as ‘unlaughing’. We all have the experience that if we watch a comedy show with others, we laugh more than when doing so alone; that is, humour can serve an affiliative purpose. British social psychologist Anthony Chapman was the first to demonstrate experimentally, in his Ph.D., that smiling and laughter are similarly socially-driven in children. A study of a police training course studied this in process terms: when the group first came together, self-putdowns and general group putdowns (‘we police’) occurred first, and as trust was built up, putdowns of others in the group occurred, as a form of banter, this process being accompanied by increasing levels of affiliative laughter over time [32]. Ingroup bias occurs in both women and men, in relation to jokes that disparage members of the opposite sex [33]. In male school groups, sexist humour reinforces the masculine identity of the boy who initiates the humour [34]. Such humour at the expense of outgroup members becomes a potential means of marginalisation and worse. In 2015, Manuela Thomae and Afroditi Pina reviewed the literature and concluded that sexist humour does indeed promote social cohesion in male groups, acts as a form of sexual harassment in itself, and even boosts men’s self-reported tendency towards rape and victim-blaming [35]. Victims sometimes respond to bullying with humour; as one secondary school girl said, ‘Sometimes you want to be witty and intelligent and snappy when someone bullies you, you just want to have the right thing to say back at them.’ [36]. Claire Fox and colleagues examined young English adolescents’ individual styles of humour in relation to being victimised by peers, over the course of a school year [37]. In support of the transactional model of victimisation, they found that humour style predicted being victimised, and being victimised affected humour style. Specifically, selfdefeating humour was related to increasing victimisation over time, while affiliative humour was associated with decreasing victimisation. Furthermore, being victimised led to an increase in self-defeating humour and a decrease in affiliative humour, confirming the presence of a cyclical process. By contrast, Japanese children who use the most self-deprecating humour have the highest wellbeing, probably reflecting the

104

7 Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

collectivist culture and serving as a reminder that research findings may not translate across cultures [38]. Teasing has been subject to discussion about its status in terms of whether or not it is bullying [27]. It has a friendly, affiliative element whilst also mildly deriding someone. In the light of SIT, we can see teasing as something that happens at the borders of groups, where a person is being advised that they are on the margins of violating group norms, but are still welcome in the group for now. It also serves as a warning to others in the group. It is enjoyable for the teasers, as it confirms solidarity, while the person being teased experiences ambivalence, and may concede and laugh at themselves, or jump the other way, and feel upset and marginalised, and risk being accused of having no sense of humour. The judicious use of teasing parallels the careful way in which gossip must be employed by those on the periphery of groups. Dixon similarly noted the employment of ‘cussing’ by British children in order to maintain their position in the social hierarchy: this took the form of verbal tussles with a playful and passing-the-time feeling, that required skill so as not to overstep the mark into actual aggression and physicality that might attract unwanted teacher attention [39]. Indeed, it has been suggested that teasing offers children an enjoyable chance to learn about appropriate social behaviours, such as what constitutes ‘going too far’ [40]. This suggests that adults should not too readily step in, when observing such interactions. This is a widely adopted approach of Japanese teachers to young children’s conflict in general, to give them a chance for social and emotional learning through their own experience [41]. Paradigm 2 scholar Søndergaard has recently interpreted qualitative data on social relationships in schools from the Danish eXbus project, to detail the part played by humour in the social processes she sees as central to bullying, focusing on boys [42]. Although she does not explicitly reference social identity or related theories, she discusses the use of humour as a strategy for achieving various social ends: joining groups, reinforcing one’s position in groups, challenging group norms, confirming norms, and as part of processes that can destabilise groups, creating social exclusion anxiety, marginalisation, contempt and bullying. Humour can stir up rivalries, as when a leading boy in the project was hung upside-down out of a window and his friends were drawn into laughing at, not defending, him. She reports that bullied boys’ greatest fear is of being ridiculed. Laughing at oneself, having been a target of derision, she sees as potentially serving the purpose of not being labelled as humourless and therefore still being ‘cool’ but, as we have seen from quantitative research, use of this strategy promotes being victimised in the long run (though the Japanese findings are different from the Western ones). Incidents of ridicule were widespread in the eXbus data and, the young people reported, adults could not help as they didn’t understand what was going on amidst the social complexity. Some humorous exchanges took the form of brief, meaning-imbued gestures that no adult would even notice. Søndergaard documents the sheer, addictive thrill of bullying others, despite an underlying sense that it is unpleasant for the victims, and this parallels our findings on

Bullying is No Laughing Matter (or Is It?)

105

sexual harassment of girls by boys just mentioned, as well as Owens’ female participants’ reports that ‘having fun’ is a motivating factor for engaging in indirect aggression against other girls. Søndergaard interprets the enjoyment of ridiculing others as reflecting the pleasure of gaining a secure social position for oneself. Schadenfreude, delight in outgroup members’ misfortunes, is based on the same satisfaction [43]. Don’t we love it when a politician from ‘the other side’ trips up, literally or in an interview! Australian Professor of English Robert Phiddian has described ridiculing the powerful, such as politicians, as ‘an almost universal civic duty,’ distinguishable from ‘laughing down’ at those such as ethnic minorities [44]. Humour can also serve to relieve the tension of difficult situations, Søndergaard suggests, without having a bullying function, but nevertheless it forges solidarity, as when a whole class jokes about having a supply teacher yet again. The use of wit, by word or subtle gesture, she says, is a considerable art, and to use it successfully a student has to have a good understanding of changing norms and how far one can push boundary-edge humour without losing face oneself. This fits with the view mentioned in Chap. 2 that a person acknowledged by others as a wit has high status because, like the Welsh wits observed by Gerald, they are experts in understanding the nuances of a dynamic social landscape. This is the stock-in-trade of stand-up comedians, and some of us will pay good money to be entertained by their incisive observations [45].

Conclusions Working out whom to trust and cooperate with, and whom to distrust and exclude, relies on evaluative talk about others (gossip). We gain identity, status and power from the groups with which we associate, therefore group belonging is essential to self-esteem and wellbeing. Thus, we are highly motivated to defend our sense of identity and the groups with which we identify, when these are threatened. These social processes at times involve deceit, self-deception, humour and suspension of empathy for those we have marginalised, in the interest of defending our reputations and sense of self as a ‘good’ person. To quote Shakespeare’s The Tempest, ‘His forward voice now is to speak well of his friend. His backward voice is to utter foul speeches and to detract.’ While this chapter and the previous one have focused in the main on the functional nature of group inclusion and exclusion from the perspective of those doing the excluding, and while bullying others can confer the advantages of raised social status, it always comes at a price for victims. That is where we turn next, to examine some theories and research findings that help us to better understand the perspective of the marginalised.

106

7 Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

References 1. Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. A. (2014). Tell me the gossip: The self-evaluative function of receiving gossip about others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1668–1680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214554916 2. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 3. Peters, K., & Kashima, Y. (2015). Bad habit or social good? How perceptions of gossiper morality are related to gossip content. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2123 4. Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209–269). Academic Press. 5. Turcotte, D. (2012). Gossip and the group: A self-categorization perspective. Ph.D. thesis. Claremont Graduate University, California. Accessed August 4, 2021 at https://doi.org/10. 5642/cguetd/30 6. Ye, Y., Zhu, H., Deng, X., & Mu, Z. (2019). Negative workplace gossip and service outcomes: An explanation from social identity theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.020 7. Kieffer, C. C. (2013). Rumors and gossip as forms of bullying: Sticks and stones? Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 33(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.764697 8. Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982337(2000)26:1%3c67::AID-AB6%3e3.0.CO;2-C 9. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press. 10. Hall, K., & Brosnan, S. F. (2017). Cooperation and deception in primates. Infant Behavior and Development, 48, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2016.11.007 11. Reinhard, M.-A., Greifeneder, R., & Scharmach, M. (2013). Unconscious processes improve lie detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 721–739. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0034352 12. Stefanovic, S. (2017). The internet scammer who loved me (not). The Guardian, 11 February 2017. Accessed March 6, 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/11/int ernet-scams-dating-romance-money 13. von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001354 14. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press. 15. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173– 220). Academic Press. 16. Runions, K. C., Shaw, T., Bussey, K., Thornberg, R., Salmivalli, C., & Cross, D. S. (2019). Moral disengagement of pure bullies and bully/victims: Shared and distinct mechanisms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 1835–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01067-2 17. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 18. Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record, 56, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395534 19. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—on the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott, & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158, p. 152). Cambridge University Press. 20. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

References

107

21. Delbosc, A., Naznin, F., Haslam, N., & Haworth, N. (2019). Dehumanization of cyclists predicts self-reported aggressive behaviour toward them: A pilot study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.03.005 22. Wojcik, M., & Hełka, A. M. (2019). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: ABBL antibullying program during middle school transition. Psychological Reports, 122(3), 1043–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118768671 23. Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2014). A needs-based perspective on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat to moral identity as a means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restoration. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 50, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp. 2013.09.012 24. Duncan, S. (2017). Cyberbullying and restorative justice (November 28, 2016). In R. Navarvo, S. Yubero, & Larranaga, E. (Eds.), Cyberbullying across the globe. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. University of Louisville School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2017–2. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2876870 25. Ferguson, E. (2019). Clive James was the Mozart of TV criticism and we are just Salieris. The Guardian, 1 December 2019. Accessed December 2, 2019 at https://www.theguardian.com/ culture/2019/dec/01/clive-james-mozart-of-tv-critics-euan-ferguson 26. Gerald of Wales (trans. 1978). The Journey through Wales/The Description of Wales. London: Penguin, p. 243. 27. Carroll, P., & Shute, R. (2005). School peer victimization of young people with craniofacial conditions: A comparative study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 10(3), 291–305. https://doi. org/10.1080/13548500500093753 28. Ross, M. D., Owren, M. J., & Zimmermann, E. (2010). The evolution of laughter in great apes and humans. Communicative and Integrative Biology, 3(2), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.4161/ cib.3.2.10944 29. Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. Sage. 30. Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour (p. 9). Sage. 31. Bressan, D. (2011). The Last Virtuoso: Robert Hooke and his contribution to geology. Accessed May 28, 2020 at http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/02/last-virtuosorobert-hooke-and-his.html 32. Terrion, J. L., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humor and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55, 55–88. 33. Abrams, J. R., & Bippus, A. (2011). An intergroup investigation of disparaging humor. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X1039 7162 34. Kehily, M. J., & Nayak, A. (1997). Lads and laughter: Humour and the production of heterosexual hierarchies. Gender and Education, 9, 69–88. 35. Thomae, M., & Pina, A. (2015). Sexist humor and social identity: The role of sexist humor in men’s in-group cohesion, sexual harassment, rape proclivity, and victim blame. Humor, 28(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0023 36. Ellwood, C., & Davies, B. (2014). Violence and the moral order in contemporary schooling: A discursive analysis. In R. M. Schott, & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 81–95, p. 90). Cambridge University Press. 37. Fox, C. L., Hunter, S. C., & Jones, S. E. (2015). The relationship between peer victimization and children’s humor styles: It’s no laughing matter! Social Development, 24(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12099 38. Tsukawaki, R., Kojima, N., Imura, T., Furukawa, Y., & Ito, K. (2019). Relationship between types of humour and stress response and well-being among children in Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12369an 39. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 40. DiSalvo, D. (2009). Forget survival of the fittest: It is kindness that counts. (Interview with D. Keltner.) Scientific American, February 26, 2009. Accessed December 16, 2019 at https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/kindness-emotions-psychology/

108

7 Gossip, Reputations and Laughter

41. Hayashi, A., & Tobin, J. (2011). The Japanese preschool’s pedagogy of peripheral participation. Ethos, 39(2), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2011.01182.x 42. Søndergaard, D. M. (2018). The thrill of bullying. Bullying, humour and the making of community. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 48, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jtsb.12153 43. Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotypes and Schadenfreude: Affective and physiological markers of pleasure at outgroup misfortunes. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 3. Online. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611409245 44. Phiddian, R. (2017). Permission to laugh? Humour without danger and risk of offence would be an emaciated thing. The Conversation, 30 November, 2017. Accessed April 8, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/permission-to-laugh-humour-without-risk-of-dangerand-offence-would-be-an-emaciated-thing-87519 45. Pérez, R. (2013). Learning to make racism funny in the ‘color-blind’ era: Stand-up comedy students, performance strategies, and the (re)production of racist jokes in public. Discourse and Society, 24(4), 478–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513482066

Chapter 8

Being Marginalised

For 3 years [after leaving school], I would not go anywhere where I thought there may be other boys [from my school], convinced that I would be teased etc. Nightly dreams of school for nearly 17 years—now they are getting less frequent, but still a few every week. … I had no confidence which was (a) my father’s influence and (b) school took everything that I had. For years I had zero confidence with women and I would remember school comments that I would never get a girlfriend. In some ways, I have always felt a child in an adult’s world. … I still find group situations difficult. Hate being out of control … Terrified of intimacy. [1]

This is how Bill, a 38-year-old British man, described the long-term effects of being subjected daily to physical, verbal, psychological and sexual abuse over the five years he was at boarding school.1 He described himself as previously gregarious. Other participants in Nicholas Carlisle and Eric Rofe’s study used words like ‘destroyed’ and ‘obliterated’ to describe the effect of bullying on their self-esteem, while their most marked current symptoms were loneliness, shame, thoughts of revenge, anxiety and being easily stressed. Having evolved as highly social creatures who gain our sense of identity and respect through belonging to social groups, the harmful effects of social rejection cannot be overestimated. We have seen how hard people will work to remain accepted by an ingroup, even suspending their moral judgement to join in the exclusion of others, if it will save their own social skin. Words such as ‘torture’ or ‘social death’ as applied to the excluded appropriately capture the agony of victims. Involvement in bullying, especially as a bully-victim, has a strong association with suicidal thoughts and actions. While the effects of bullying are difficult to disentangle from those of other factors such as problems with mental health, family and intimate relationships, bullying is certainly a suicide risk factor, with the strength of relationship varying across countries [2]. Although Bill survived physically, he was never really able to fulfil the developmental task of forming a mature identity, remaining forever stuck with feeling like a nervous child, with his tormentors’ comments still echoing in his head. 1

In the original he was William. We have changed it to Bill to avoid confusion with researcher Kip Williams.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_8

109

110

8 Being Marginalised

There are now quantitative longitudinal studies in several countries that have followed children’s development into adulthood. Controlling for various confounding factors (e.g. socio-economic status and IQ), the ill-effects of bullying such as anxiety, depression, suicidality and generally poorer life outcomes have been found to last into the twenties and, in some cases, for decades [3], as Bill’s experience attests. Recognition of the plight of victims has been a strong driving force behind the development of school-based anti-bullying initiatives [4]. Paradigm 1 research has drawn attention to psychological issues that predispose some young people to being victimised (see Chap. 5). Pre-existing mental health and educational difficulties, and perhaps even personality traits, may be reinforced by being bullied [5]. This seems to have been the case for Maddy, who suicided in her early twenties. Her mother wrote, ‘Maddy’s insecurities were fuelled by hurtful bullies. She began self-harming in high school. I had no idea how much she had to endure or how lonely she felt until the psychological trauma became evident in later years.’ [6]. However, there may be no pre-existing mental health difficulties for some targets of bullying. The paradigm 2 proposition is that any young person might happen to fall foul of the ordinary functioning of groups. Our consideration of evolutionary and psychological theories presents a similar picture to that arrived at by the paradigm 2 examination of large-scale social processes. This means that a target of bullying could be a well-adjusted young person who happens to serve the identity-boosting needs of someone else by virtue of their ethnicity, for example, or their gender, disability, social class, appearance or some other criterion that suits the perpetrator(s). Hence, a complete understanding of bullying phenomena means considering a range of peer marginalisation processes that have traditionally been viewed as something other than bullying, such as sexual, homophobic or racist harassment, or aggression that does not meet all the Olweus criteria, but nevertheless harms those who are targeted. Valuable contributions to such topics from fields such as sociology are often neglected, or even dismissed, by our discipline of psychology [7], to the frustration of some scholars [8]. A more inclusive view allows that problems for some victims may be initiated by bullying, setting off a similar cascade of events in the form of vicious cycles as observed for those who have individual precipitating characteristics. We bring together in this chapter concepts from philosophy, sociology, psychology and neuropsychology that are relevant for understanding the experience and effects of being marginalised.

Abjection In considering the marginalised, Søndergaard draws upon Bulgarian-French philosopher Julia Kristeva’s notion of ‘the abject’, as developed by Judith Butler. Abjection is the state of being cast off or, as Kristeva put it more colourfully, ‘the repugnance, the retching that thrusts me to the side and turns me away from defilement, sewage, and muck.’ [9]. That which is impure is thrown out because of disgust and is ‘othered’. In

Abjection

111

the paradigm 2 view of bullying, the impurity takes the form of an individual selected as the target in order to relieve the anxiety of those who fear becoming excluded from the group themselves. The cast-out person becomes an object of contempt. Robbie Duschinsky has discussed the abject in relation to the human need to ‘classify’ that we discussed previously as a basic cognitive process [9]. He addressed the fact that some scholars have related abjection specifically to ambiguous or borderline situations. This suggests its relevance for understanding marginalising phenomena that occur at the periphery of social groups. However, Duschinsky proposes a different way of looking at it. In Western societies, the impurity of the abject is that which deviates from ‘self-identity’, meaning ‘a state of internal homogeneity’ (not a reference to an individual’s sense of self, though it could be) [10]. Duschinsky’s reformulation of abjection runs: ‘Ambivalent and ambiguous phenomena are only situated as impure when they are taken to be composites, in contexts in which a qualitative homogenous [sic] state is taken to be basic’ [11] [original italics]. We can tie this philosophical concept to the social psychological theory that we examined previously as central to understanding marginalisation: Social Identity Theory (which does concern the self). We can think of a social group, such as a school peer friendship group, as having a coherence; it is homogeneous in having norms that define what kind of person can belong, and which drive members to behave in certain prescribed ways. When this ‘basic’ state is disturbed because someone within the group ‘breaks the rules’ or a peripheral or outgroup member seeks to cross the border into the group, an alien element threatens its homogeneity, and the group-derived identities of its members. In Søndergaard’s terms, ‘social exclusion anxiety’ is created and, under such threat, the alien becomes ‘abject’ and a figure of contempt. The abject person faces a challenge to their belonging and identity that, if not resolved, leads to ongoing socio-evaluative stress that causes psychological and physical harm [12]. ‘Contempt’ for the marginalised does not necessarily include the repugnance originally associated with the concept of abjection, but it may. One example is that some schoolchildren in Nazi Germany were instructed to bring buckets of soapy water and scrubbing brushes to school to clean the chairs on which Jewish children had sat. Primary school gender conflicts can include references to ‘boy germs’ and ‘girl germs’. Søndergaard refers to a bullied girl being described as ‘clammy’ [13]. In adolescence, boys may disrespect girls with regard to menstruation, especially in mixed groups (where gender is more salient) [14]. As one girl wrote online: ‘When [girls] have to go to the bathroom with their purse boys start saying ew.’[15]. Indian girls (who often have no access to sanitary products) also fear menstrual-related ridicule from their classmates and, being banned from social and cultural events at that time of the month, come to regard themselves as ‘impure’ [16, 17]. Girls’ body hair is also associated with being ‘dirty’ or ‘gross’, something which has been attributed to twisted Darwin-inspired ideas, twentieth-century changes in clothing fashions and Gillette marketing campaigns [18]. The social pressure and internalised disgust remain so great that almost all girls in many cultures remove it [19, 20]. However, a girl can be bullied by boys for either having hairy legs or for shaving them; the point of sexual bullying is that the girls cannot win, as what this is really

112

8 Being Marginalised

about is keeping them in a lower position of status than males [21, 22], as an outgroup, and in this process the female body is cast as abject.

Stigma The notion of stigma has been applied to bullying by a number of writers, including Dixon (in the context of disability) [23]. Stigma is the idea that someone is ‘marked’ by belonging to a group that is debased in society, such as being of a particular ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, or having a disability. It draws on the related concepts of stereotyping (that assumes all members of a particular group have certain characteristics) and prejudice, or the holding of a negative attitude to an individual on the basis of their perceived belonging to a certain devalued social group, regardless of their actual attributes. Examples of prejudiced beliefs are ‘fat girls are ugly’, ‘feminists hate men’ and ‘young Africans in Australia form criminal gangs’. It is obvious how this can be related to Social Identity Theory, with stigmatised individuals treated as belonging to less-dominant outgroups and thus facing discrimination. As those examples illustrate, prejudice has an emotional element such as anger, fear or disgust; here we see a link with the philosophical notion of the abject. The Dalits in India are a prime example; historically this group took on the dirtiest jobs in society and were regarded as ‘the untouchables’ [24], and even with modern reforms and anti-discrimination laws, those from that social background, recognisable by their second names, are still stigmatised. More recently, the term ‘sink estates’ has been used in the UK as a stigmatising term for those living in public housing that has been subjected to deliberate policies of being allowed to deteriorate: the term carries the implication of a repository for effluent [25]. Not all bullying is based on stigma, but those belonging to devalued societal groups are at greater risk of being bullied, and the effects seem to run more deeply [26]. This perspective encourages us to focus on the functions and processes that various forms of unkindness have in common, rather than treating them as separate phenomena. Valerie Earnshaw and colleagues have recently discussed stigma as a helpful concept for understanding bullying processes, and which could be applied more widely in interventions. They consider stigma-based bullying in terms of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, with nested layers of influence on the individual [27]. Stigma is placed in the outermost (most distal) layer of community attitudes, within which are structures such as schools, classrooms and policies. At the proximal level are direct interpersonal interactions, where bullying is actually experienced, with societal dominance hierarchies playing out at a local level, such as influencing norms within peer groups. Finally, there are individual characteristics of bullies and victims that influence, and are influenced by, interpersonal relationships. Individual attributes might include, for example, having a certain personality, body

The Homo Sacer

113

type, neurological or mental health status, or self-concept. As stigma can be conceptualised as having its effects at various levels, Earnshaw and colleagues suggest that interventions for stigma-based bullying should also address multiple levels. To give a specific example of how these processes might play out, let us consider the aforementioned notion of ‘African gangs’. Although Australia is broadly a very successful example of a multicultural society, having black skin is nevertheless a stigmatised attribute. The populace once consisted entirely of black-skinned nations but was colonised from 1788 by the British, who formed the dominant, White, culture [28]. For much of the twentieth century there was a ‘White Australia’ immigration policy. Although those laws were completely abolished in the 1970s, people who are either culturally ‘Black’ or have black skin are a small minority and prejudice against them still exists [29] (n.b., the North American term ‘people of color’ is not widely used in Australia). The booing of First Nations footballer Adam Goodes out of his profession is a high-profile example. African refugees began to enter the country some years ago, many settling in Melbourne. Following some criminal activity amongst the youth, certain media outlets whipped up hysteria about ‘African gangs’ running rampant, although such gangs did not exist and most youth crime was committed by young White males [30]. Prejudice was illustrated by a Facebook comment from a police officer that sounded like a throwback to a former era: ‘… send the charcoal children back to Africa.’ The Home Affairs Minister (with an election looming) stated that people in Melbourne were afraid of going out to dinner at night, a statement that was widely ridiculed, but aimed at ‘othering’ Africans and shoring up the conservative government’s support base. The local South Sudanese community began a video campaign to create awareness that such publicity put their children at risk of being bullied in the schoolyard [31]. Racism is one of the main reasons such children are more likely than others to drop out of school [32]. While complex historical and social forces concerning stigma can be identified across society in this case, school bullying brings stigma to life for these young people and increases their disadvantage as they enter adulthood.

The Homo Sacer This concept from ancient Roman law has recently been applied to bullying by Horton, who can be considered a paradigm 2 advocate [33]. It refers to someone who is forced to live a ‘bare life’, stripped of socio-political participation, beyond laws and in a ‘state of exception’, dehumanised and at the mercy of others, who may kill them with impunity. Viewing power from a Foucauldian perspective as something that an individual does not ‘have’, but exercises strategically in specific social contexts, Horton sees bullying as an illegitimate wielding of power which is reinforced by every gesture (punch, laugh, glare, nasty comment, etc.). Resistance is constrained, but may take forms such as avoidance or ‘provocation’ of the dominators or even vengeful school shootings.

114

8 Being Marginalised

Ostracism As in the case of the homo sacer, practices of social exclusion have a long history. It has been said that, ‘Throughout human history, being banished from the group has amounted to a death sentence.’ [34]. In Ancient Greece, ostracism involved the temporary banishment of political rivals, regarded by later historians as either bizarre or as crucial, used in moderation, for maintaining political stability in Athens [35]. The British idiom ‘being sent to Coventry’ is several hundred years old and refers to punishment in the form of not being talked to by the community, even when physically present, until amends are made. Today, women in some parts of the world who become incontinent as a result of childbirth injuries are ostracised: https://www. directrelief.org/2019/01/ending-obstetric-fistula-together/. Ostracism has become a topic of social psychological research in recent decades. It developed separately from research into aggression and school bullying, but has clear relevance, particularly to a marginalisation perspective, as it is about sidelining others. Research on ostracism was boosted by an influential paper by US researchers Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary in the mid-1990s, theorising that humans have a fundamental need to belong, and that when this is thwarted, there are serious psychological and physical repercussions [36]. US social psychologist Kip Williams tells the story of how he came to study ostracism [37]. He was walking in a park when a stray Frisby hit him. He threw it back to one of the men playing with it and for a while they included him in the game. Then they went back to playing together and he felt a sense of rejection, even though he didn’t even know them. Williams went on to study ostracism via studies in which confederates of the experimenter ostracise a third person, such as in a discussion group or a ‘waiting room’. Even being excluded from a simple ball-tossing computer game (Cyberball) makes a person feel bad, as in the Frisby game. In a later study, a confederate passing people on a university campus either made eye contact with them, made eye contact with a slight smile, or looked past their ear [38]. That person was then invited by the experimenter to respond to a question about social disconnection. Those who were aware of being acknowledged, especially with a smile, reported a lower level of social disconnection than those receiving an ‘air-gaze’, with non-approached (control) subjects falling in between. The researchers acknowledged that context is relevant, though, and cultures vary in their use of eye contact. In crowded cities, it is often avoided. Rosalyn recalls passing a man standing by his front gate one day and looked at him, ready to say ‘Hi’, but he kept his gaze averted. She then remembered that she was in London, not in her local neighbourhood in Australia. Studies with Cyberball have found, through brain imaging, that exclusion causes a pattern of neural activity that is the same as that associated with physical pain [39]. So when we say rejection hurts, it really does. It has been suggested that the evolution of social pain built upon the neural architecture that originally evolved to underpin physical pain.

Ostracism

115

These ostracism studies are ‘minimalist’ studies, in the same sense as the social identity studies that have shown discrimination between groups to which strangers have been randomly assigned. They indicate that a need to be recognised and included by others is a fundamental human motivation. Rejection negatively impacts on selfesteem and motivates us to seek affiliation and acceptance, although coping efforts may sometimes be maladaptive, as we will discuss in the next chapter [40]. Responses to rejection seem to depend on expectations (or otherwise) of acceptance. Williams developed the ‘temporal needs-threat’ model of ostracism [41]. This encompasses an immediate, reflexive response to ostracism, in terms of pain and threat to four fundamental needs: for belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence. Then comes coping, when there is reflection on the meaning and implications of the ostracism, and finally, if the rejection is long term and coping responses are exhausted, there are long-term consequences such as depression and lack of selfworth. Hence, it is a process model of marginalisation, similar to Owens’ model for indirect aggression [42]. There is individual variation in sensitivity to rejection, an attribute that has been subject to a program of research by Geraldine Downey, in both adults and children [43]. Those experiencing early rejection, or even violence, from parents have attachment difficulties and become sensitised to possible signals of rejection, such that they have a bias towards interpreting ambiguous communication in those terms. It is seen as a psychological defence mechanism that protects the self against possible rejection, and the person may become socially phobic in adulthood (which sounds like the situation described by Bill). Rejection from peers in childhood also acts to increase rejection sensitivity, social avoidance and loneliness, over time. Angry responses to peer rejection elicit hostility from others and therefore promote further rejection. Rejection sensitivity thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. These findings suggest a psychological mechanism that underlies the vicious cycle between bullying and psychological difficulties of victims, as rejection sensitivity predicts the development of depression, in a way that can be distinguished from general stress sensitivity, and depression impedes social engagement. This research also shows how, for some children, bullying can add to previous trauma in a snowballing fashion. Social reputation further feeds into these processes, as others become biased in their perceptions of victims [44]. Jaana Juvonen and Elisheva Gross added a further developmental perspective to understanding the effects of rejection on victims [44]. They diverged from the previous research practice of differentiating peer rejection (not being liked) from more active bullying, on the grounds that, from the victim’s perspective, it feels much the same, and in both cases, the behaviour is functional for the rejectors. Peer relationships offer the developmental opportunity to practise social skills and develop one’s identity in a situation where power is roughly equal—what the founder of French sociology Émile Durkheim referred to as ‘relations of cooperation’ as compared to the ‘relations of constraint’ that characterise children’s relationships with adults [45]. Bullying and rejection can undermine a child’s opportunity for the social learning that occurs in peer relations, such as how to resolve conflicts and cooperate with others [46]. Juvonen and Gross compared developmental research

116

8 Being Marginalised

on rejection (such as Owens’ work with teenage girls) with the social psychological research on ostracism; they found that the former focused much more on chronic rejection, on rejection by familiar people (rather than strangers) and on group rather than individual processes. In concurrence with paradigm 1, they emphasised that bullying is not random, but more often directed at ‘misfits’, children who are more withdrawn or aggressive than average; in other words, children are intolerant of those who deviate behaviourally from the norm, so rejection is a form of social control. One of their findings was consonant with paradigm 2, in that either experiencing or witnessing bullying increased anxiety, but if both occurred on the same day the sense of humiliation from bullying was reduced; that is, when someone else ‘cops it’ our own social exclusion anxiety is relieved. Relatedly, they found the pain of victimisation was more marked when the classroom norm favoured orderliness, with victims then more likely to blame themselves for being targeted. Degree of distress, they found, depended very much on such self-perceptions, with hostile-rejected young people protecting their self-concept by blaming others, and possibly experiencing less ostracism as a result. The downside of that is that they do not learn to modify their aggressive behaviour and tend to associate with similar friends, putting them at risk of criminal involvement. Juvonen and Gross developed a model incorporating a range of such group and individual factors that lead to the psychological ill-effects of being bullied.

Shame Shame is a topic of interest to both philosophers and psychologists but has been little studied with regard to bullying. It is an unpleasant emotion associated with negative judgement of our sense of self, particularly with regard to violations of the social order [47]. Culture influences the nature of social infractions [48]. We can experience shame when our belongingness to a group is challenged or our personal attributes are attacked. It is an emotion of self-blame, and can serve the regulation of behaviour and offer a way for the repair of relationships, if we have offended, but at times it can lead to attacks on others, as a form of defence, or to self-harm or suicide. It can sometimes be seen as the consequence of being abject. Dawn Jennifer and Helen Cowie interviewed British primary school children about bullying vignettes (without using the word bullying), and found that they mostly attributed shame to followers of bullies (an interesting moral judgement), but also to victims; the boys in particular saw being victimised as shameful, perhaps reflecting that a fall from grace is greater for those higher up the social ladder [49, 50]. Children ascribed the shame to having a difference, particularly in appearance, being laughed at and humiliated (like Danish boy hung upside-down out of the window), or for having done something to upset the group. We should note that social psychologists differentiate between shame and humiliation, with the former an acceptance of submission, and the latter liable to provoke vengeful fury [51].

Shame

117

Alexandra Irwin and colleagues have recently taken further the idea that shame plays an important part in bullying [52]. Their starting point was the evidence that bullying and mental health problems can form a cyclical relationship, although they did not replicate that strongly over the year of their study with young Canadian adolescents. They examined longitudinally whether a sense of shame mediates the relationship between being victimised and mental health outcomes. They found that shame about one’s character and body mediated the relationship between victimisation and both depression and social anxiety (meaning anxiety about social situations, not ‘social exclusion anxiety’ in the paradigm 2 sense). For girls only, greater bodily shame was associated with more marked social anxiety. Bodily shame was the only type that showed evidence of a cyclical relationship with mental health, which is highly relevant for understanding the declining wellbeing of girls in adolescence, at a time when they are under increasing social pressure with regard to body image, including sexual bullying that focuses on physical appearance [7]. Behavioural shame was related to a decrease in externalising behaviour (conduct) problems, which may be due to a tendency to shamefully withdraw from interactions, but is also consistent with other findings that shame can have a behaviour-regulating function with regard to antisocial behaviour; behaviour may seem more possible to be changed than one’s character or body. Social work professor Jonathan Fast has also proposed that shame lies at the heart of not just bullying, but various types of violence, including domestic, racial and sexual violence [53]. In that regard, his approach is consistent with the idea that functionality is of more relevance than dividing up unkindness into various types. He suggests a role for restorative justice. Curiously, shame as well as pride activates the brain’s reward circuitry [54]. This may help to explain the remarkable behaviour of some young people in joining (anonymously) in abuse of themselves online; there may even be an addictive quality to the behaviour [55].

Bullying as a Stressor While our main focus here is on the harm of bullying in psychosocial terms, there has also been recent interest in addressing its effects on victims in physical terms (other than direct physical damage such as a lost tooth or a broken nose). A different level of explanation is needed to account for the fact that bullying leads not only to psychological symptoms, but to somatic ones, such as stomach aches and headaches. It has been suggested that persistent bullying becomes a chronic stressor, involving daily social-evaluative threat that outweighs available coping resources, such as social support [56], and that its effects are therefore similar to other kinds of trauma that can befall children, such as sexual abuse. As we noted previously, and as shown in other primates, threats to social rank cause stress-related physiological changes [57, 58]. For those of lower rank, this stress is greater when groups are stable, but amounts to ‘challenge’ when groups are unstable, presumably because there is

118

8 Being Marginalised

then the possibility of implementing action to take advantage of any opportunity to gain a position of higher standing. In the case of being bullied, physiological stress responses are indicated by reduced output of the stress hormone cortisol in adolescents (especially boys) [58]. Reduced cortisol output in response to chronic stressors is associated with an increase in both psychological and physical health problems, and this has been shown for the specific case of being a target of bullying, the severity of symptoms being related to the extent of bullying [59]. These cortisol changes are also related to epigenetic changes in serotonin mechanisms [60], serotonin being a neurotransmitter involved in many bodily functions including the regulation of mood and social behaviour. Bullying-related cortisol changes may also play a part in altering brain structures in boys [61]. While there may be methodological explanations for the findings of gender differences, it is also possible that boys show more marked effects because they have higher social status than girls, and therefore have more to lose. The role of biological factors is further indicated by findings of systemic inflammation in adolescents subjected to relational victimisation (inflammation being associated with mental health impairments such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder), while pre-existing biological reactivity may play a part in stress responses to victimisation [62]. Tracy Vaillancourt concludes that individual differences in biology are important for understanding risk and protective factors that help to determine outcomes for victims. A further indication that the stress of bullying causes long-term damaging health changes is research on telomere length [63]. These are structures at the ends of chromosomes, described by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Elizabeth Blackburn as being like the hard protective ends of shoelaces [64]. They gradually ‘wear away’ over the life course but do so more rapidly in some individuals than others, and are indicative of longevity. Their length is becoming considered as a biomarker for accumulated stress and may be linked with inflammation. Idan Shalev’s USA/UK team found that children exposed to more than one type of violence, such as family violence and school bullying, had telomere lengths that reduced significantly between the ages of 5 and 10, compared with other children, controlling for a range of other factors [63]. We can surmise that stress is greatest for those who cannot escape bullying. Schott’s definition situates bullying as occurring in ‘inescapable’ situations [65], and schools are places where children are generally obliged to go. In effect, ‘the system’ often traps students by failing to provide adequate help and supporting the status quo, where norms of behaviour hold sway and supersede laws and policy statements. For example, in Tanzania, children with albinism are discriminated against and bullied despite the constitution stipulating equality, and they often escape by dropping out of school [66]. In the British university sector, academic Sara Ahmed resigned from Goldsmiths University in 2016, in protest about the lack of effective action on endemic sexual harassment in that institution. A young woman responded to her online about the lack of support for harassment and assault in her days at secondary school:

Bullying as a Stressor

119

In PE it was particularly awkward coming out of the changing rooms some of the boys commenting on our bums and the size of our breasts. Occasionally I got my bum slapped. I told my mum who then spoke to the teachers. I got no apology, just a why didn’t you tell us sooner. Well it’s quite difficult because you think you’re the problem. He got called into a meeting then him and the other boys had a go at me and made fun because he was only ‘messing’. Three years on this has affected me I really don’t like people to touch me at all. My confidence has decreased. [67]

Owens noted that a desire to escape was aroused in girls who were marginalised by their friends, while the highly stressful boarding school life of Bill, with which we opened this chapter, was inescapable. Other examples of relatively ‘closed’ contexts that seem to exacerbate bullying and other forms of unkindness are military and prison settings (as at Abu Ghraib) and the traditional Japanese school homeroom. A feeling of being unable to escape may also be the case for a bullied child who does not have other friends to turn to, as alternative sources of support may be unavailable: many studies have shown that victims often feel unable to talk to parents (as they believe they will make things worse) nor to teachers (who are part of the ‘school system’) nor to school counsellors (as they don’t want to be spotted by peers going for psychological help), leaving the young person totally alone [68]. Young people who can’t see a way out and therefore feel hopeless are at particular risk of suicide [69]. Cyberbullying, including through ‘sexting’, may be especially likely to promote this situation, not just because it follows children home, but because a viral message, photograph or video is a genie that can never be stuffed back into the bottle. Unfortunately, it is not surprising that a US teenager who was videoed apparently masturbating in the school bathroom killed himself; it may not have been the only reason he decided to take his life, but was perhaps the last, shameful straw [70]. To sum up, the evidence suggests that persistent bullying has serious, and sometimes long-lasting, negative effects on young people’s psychological and physical wellbeing. For a child also exposed to other forms of violence, the effects are cumulative. The harm of bullying is suggested to result from the ongoing threat to social status that is known to cause physiological stress responses in primates, with neurological and other physical effects also seen in young humans.

Conclusions Bill, whose brief story opened this chapter, illustrates a number of issues covered here. He may have had a predisposition to being bullied as a result of his relationship with his father, which had knocked his confidence, and this was exacerbated by longterm school bullying in multiple forms, from which he was unable to escape. His mental health suffered, he missed out on opportunities for social learning with his peers and grew into a socially anxious adult. Others may be mentally healthy initially but become a convenient target for alleviating fear of exclusion within a group at some point, whether on the grounds of some arbitrary difference or an attribute that

120

8 Being Marginalised

is stigmatised in society more broadly. If bullying is prolonged, a vicious cycle of bullying and mental health (and sometimes educational) deterioration may be established. Being ignored, excluded or subject to contempt (abjection or stigmatisation) causes psychological pain, shame and stress. There are also physical repercussions as a result of prolonged stress. That brings us to the question of how targets of bullying respond to it, in terms of coping and resilience.

References 1. Carlisle, N., & Rofes, E. (2007). School bullying: Do adult survivors perceive long-term effects? Traumatology, 13(16–26), 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765607299911 2. Holt, M. K., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J. L., Wolfe, M., & Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135, 2(2), e496. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1864 3. Arsenault, L. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry, 16, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 4. Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2001). The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. Guilford. 5. Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2010). Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance across middle school grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0272431610379415 6. Break Through Mental Health Research Foundation (n.d.). Accessed February 6, 2021 at https:// breakthroughfoundation.org.au/how-you-can-help/debbies-story/ 7. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 8. Meyer, E. J. (2014). New solutions for bullying and harassment: A post-structural, feminist approach. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 209–239). Cambridge University Press. 9. As cited in Duschinsky, R. (2013). Abjection and self-identity: Towards a revised account of purity and impurity. Sociological Review, 61, 709–727.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X. 12081 10. Duschinsky, R. (2013). Abjection and self-identity: Towards a revised account of purity and impurity. Sociological Review, 61, 717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12081 11. Duschinsky, R. (2013). Abjection and self-identity: Towards a revised account of purity and impurity. Sociological Review, 61, 718–719.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12081 12. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F070674370304800904 13. Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Social exclusion anxiety: Bullying and the forces that contribute to bullying amongst children at school. In R. M. Schott, & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 47–80, p. 69). Cambridge University Press. 14. Richards, M. (2017). Talking about periods with boys—How easy is it? The Conversation, October 2, 2017. Accessed March 8, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/talking-about-per iods-with-boys-how-easy-is-it-85413 15. Anon. (n.d.). Why do boys make fun of girls’ periods? Yahoo Answers. Accessed March 8, 2020 (website has now closed down). 16. Thiagarajan, K. (2019). Millions of women in India join hands to form a 385-mile wall of protest. Goats and Soda: Stories of Life in a Changing World, 4 January, 2019. Accessed March 11, 2020 at https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/01/04/681988452/millions-of-women-inindia-join-hands-to-form-a-385-mile-wall-of-protest 17. British Broadcasting Corporation (2020). Why India must battle the pain of period stain. BBC News, 28 May 2020. Accessed May 29, 2020 at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india52830427

References

121

18. Ajaka, N. (2017). The casualties of women’s war on body hair. The Atlantic, 8 February 2018. Accessed 21 August 2020 at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/the-casual ties-of-womens-war-on-body-hair/514983/ 19. Fahs, B. (2014). Perilous patches and pitstaches: Imagined versus lived experiences of women’s body hair growth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0361684313497924 20. Chalabi, M. (2019). Peach fuzz (BBC podcast). https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00047sv 21. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 22. Williams, S. (2013). Sexual bullying in one local authority. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 61–74). Routledge. 23. Dixon, R. (2007). Scapegoating. Journal of School Violence, 6(4), 81–103. https://doi.org/10. 1300/J202v06n04_05 24. British Broadcasting Corporation (2019). What is India’s caste system? BBC News, 19 June, 2019. Accessed March 8, 2020 at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616 25. Wacquant, L., Slater, T., & Pereira, V. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1068/a46 06ge 26. Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., Poteat, V. P., & Koenig, B. W. (2012). Adolescent health and harassment based on discriminatory bias. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 493–495. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300430 27. Earnshaw, V. A., Reisner, S. L., Menino, D., Poteat, P., Bogart, L. M., Barnes, T. N., & Schuster, M. A. (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 48, 178–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001 28. Maxwell-Stewart, H., & Oxley, D. (n.d.). Convicts and the colonisation of Australia. Digital Panopticon, Accessed December 16, 2019 at https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Convicts_ and_the_Colonisation_of_Australia,_1788-1868 29. Wakatama, G. (2020). Why I will never forget the day I was racially abused in front of my young son. ABC News, 27 January 2020. Accessed January 27, 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/ news/2020-01-27/calling-out-racism-at-public-pool-changes-nsw-council-policy/11897780 30. Wahlquist, C. (2018). Is Melbourne in the grip of African crime gangs? The facts behind the lurid headlines. The Guardian, 2 January 2018. Accessed December 14, 2019 at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/03/is-melbourne-in-the-gripof-african-gangs-the-facts-behind-the-lurid-headlines 31. Eddie, R. (2018). Campaign to stop bullying of Sudanese children. The New Daily, 31 January 2018. Accessed March 8, 2020 at https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/vic/2018/01/31/cam paign-sudanese-children-bullying/ 32. Baak, M. (2018). Sudanese heritage youth in Australia are frequently maligned by fearmongering and racism. The Conversation, 11 January 2018. Accessed March 8, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/sudanese-heritage-youth-in-australia-are-frequently-malignedby-fear-mongering-and-racism-89763 33. Horton, P. (2019). School bullying and bare life: Challenging the state of exception. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1444–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1557043 34. Fiske, S. Y., & Yamamoto, M. (2005). Coping with rejection: Core social motives across cultures. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 185–198). Psychology Press. 35. Forsdyke, S. (2005). Exile, ostracism, and democracy: The politics of expulsion in ancient Greece. Princeton University Press. 36. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 37. Williams, K. (n.d.). Social Psychology Network. Accessed December 14, 2019 at https://wil liams.socialpsychology.org/

122

8 Being Marginalised

38. Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). To be looked at as though air: Civil attention matters. Psychological Science, 23(2), 166–168. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2F0956797611427921 39. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Psychological Science, 23(2), 166–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0 956797611427921 40. Sommer, K. L., & Rubin, Y. S. (2005). Role of social expectancies in cognitive and behavioral responses to social rejection. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 171–183). New York: Psychology Press. 41. Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372141140 2480 42. Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982337(2000)26:1%3c67::AID-AB6%3e3.0.CO;2-C 43. Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of affective and behavioral responses to interpersonal stress: A defensive motivational system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 131–154). New York: Psychology Press. 44. Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2005). The rejected and the bullied: Lessons about social misfits from developmental psychology. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 155–170). Psychology Press. 45. Doise, W. (1990). The development of individual competencies through social interaction. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 43–64). Wiley. 46. Foot, H. C., Morgan, M. J., & Shute, R. H. (1990). Children helping children. Wiley. 47. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 48. Casimir, M. J., & Schnegg, M. (2002). Shame across cultures: The evolution, ontogeny and function of a ‘moral emotion.’ In H. Keller & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Between biology and culture (pp. 270–300). Cambridge University Press. 49. Jennifer, D., & Cowie, H. (2012). Listening to children’s voices: Moral emotional attributions in relation to primary school bullying. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704314 50. Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2007.24351879 51. Gilbert, P., & Woodyatt, L. (2017). An evolutionary approach to shame-based self-criticism, self-forgiveness, and compassion. In L. Woodyatt, E. L. Worthington, M. Wenzel, & B. J. Griffin (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of self-forgiveness (pp. 29–41). Springer. 52. Irwin, A., Li, J., Craig, W., & Hollnstein, T. (2019). The role of shame in the relation between peer victimization and mental health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 156–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516672937 53. Fast, J. (2016). Beyond bullying: Breaking the cycle of shame, bullying, and violence. Oxford University Press. 54. Roth, L., Kaffenberger, T., Herwig, U., & Brühl, A. B. (2014). Brain activation associated with pride and shame. Neuropsychobiology, 69, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1159/000358090 55. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2017). Digital self-harm among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.012 56. Östberg, V., Låftman, S. B., Modin, B., & Lindfors, P. (2018). Bullying as a stressor in midadolescent girls and boys: Associations with perceived stress, recurrent pain, and salivary cortisol. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(2), 364. Online. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020364

References

123

57. Sapolsky, R. M. (1983). Endocrine aspects of social instability in the olive baboon (Papio anubis). American Journal of Primatology, 5, 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.135005 0406 58. Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2018). Stress and the stability of social systems: A review of neurophysiological research. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 340–376. https://doi. org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1543149 59. Due, P., Holstein, B., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt, P., & Currie, C. (2005). The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Bullying Working Group. Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: International comparative cross sectional study in 28 Countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 128–132.https://doi.org/10.1093/eur pub/cki105 60. Ouellet-Morin, I., Wong, C. C. Y., Danese, A., Pariante, C. M., Papadopoulos, A. S., Mill, J., & Arsenault, L. (2013). Increased serotonin transporter gene (SERT) DNA methylation is associated with bullying victimization and blunted cortisol response to stress in childhood: A longitudinal study of discordant monozygotic twins. Psychological Medicine, 43, 1813–1823. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712002784 61. du Plessis, M. R., Smeekens, S., Cillessen, A. H. N., Whittle, S., & Gürog, B. (2019, January). Bullying the brain? Longitudinal links between childhood peer victimization, cortisol, and adolescent brain structure. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2706. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.02706 62. Vaillancourt, T. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: The neurobiology of peer victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 64, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.64. 1.0001 63. Shalev, I., Moffitt, T. E., Sugden, K., Williams, B., Houts, R. M., Danese, A., & Caspi, A. (2013). Exposure to violence during childhood is associated with telomere erosion from 5 to 10 years of age: A longitudinal study. Molecular Psychiatry, 18, 576–581. https://doi.org/10. 1038/mp.2012.32 64. Corbyn, Z. (2017). Elizabeth Blackburn on the telomere effect: ‘It’s about keeping healthier for longer.’ The Guardian, 29 January 2017. Accessed May 21, 2020 at https://www.thegua rdian.com/science/2017/jan/29/telomere-effect-elizabeth-blackburn-nobel-prize-medicinechromosomes 65. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying. In R. M. Schott, & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46, p. 39). Cambridge University Press. 66. Ngalomba, S. (2016). Taunts and bullying drive children with albinism from Tanzanian schools. The Conversation, 11 August 2016. Accessed July 13, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/tau nts-and-bullying-drive-children-with-albinism-from-tanzanian-schools-63559 67. Ahmed, S. (2016). Speaking out. Feminist Killjoys. Accessed January 26, 2021 at https://fem inistkilljoys.com/2016/06/02/speaking-out/ 68. Rigby, K. (2017). ‘I don’t want to be teased’—Why bullied children are reluctant to seek help from teachers. The Conversation, March 16 2017. Accessed July 21, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/i-dont-want-to-be-teased-why-bullied-children-are-reluct ant-to-seek-help-from-teachers-74357 69. Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L., Hogan, M. E., Whitehouse, W. G., Gibb, B. E., Hankin, B. L., & Cornette, M. M. (2000). The hopelessness theory of susicidality. In T. E. Joiner & M. D. Rudd (Eds.), Suicide science: Expanding boundaries (pp. 17–32). Kluwer Academic publishing. 70. Dennis, J. B. (2016, July 19). Conviction upheld over tragic bathroom video. Courthouse News Service. Accessed March 10, 2020 at https://www.courthousenews.com/conviction-uph eld-over-tragic-bathroom-video/

Chapter 9

Coping and Resilience

As we mentioned in the previous chapter, from a paradigm 2 and Foucauldian perspective on power, Horton views responses to being marginalised as forms of ‘resistance’ [1]. Coming from a psychological angle, conceptualising bullying as a stressor raises another way of viewing the behaviour of targets: as a matter of coping. The most influential theory of stress and coping is that of Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman, which sees coping in terms of responses to stimuli that are appraised as taxing one’s resources [2]. A common way of considering coping is in terms of active, problem-focused or approach-based strategies, versus emotion-focused or avoidance strategies. Active strategies are often seen as the more effective, but this needs to be treated with caution. The effects of coping on mental health tend, in fact, to be rather weak and dependent on the controllability of the situation, such that avoidance might sometimes be more appropriate [3]. Furthermore, research on coping by young people has been hindered by a lack of good measures and of longitudinal studies [4]. Nevertheless, some attempts have been made to apply coping to bullying, including bypresent author Phillip in association with others including Roz MurrayHarvey and Grace Skrzypiec [5, 6]. It has also been suggested that the concept of resilience may be helpful, and we now examine research based on both these approaches.

Coping Strategies and Bullying Using psychometric means, Murray-Harvey and colleagues identified five types of strategy for coping with bullying: productive other-focused, productive self-focused, non-productive avoidant, relationship improvement and assertive/aggressive, as well as some strategies that did not fit into this factor structure. The effectiveness of the various strategies was judged by informed professionals (bullying researchers in several countries and school counsellors in Australia), and junior secondary school students reported how often they used them. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_9

125

126

9 Coping and Resilience

Seriously bullied students rarely or never used the productive other-focused strategies, which the professionals judged as most effective, such as talking to a school counsellor, teacher or parent, or using the school bullying procedures or peer support system. The professionals considered self-focused strategies such as trying to keep cheerful and finding others to spend time with as somewhat effective, and the bullied students used them sometimes. Avoidance strategies were considered very ineffective by the professionals and almost never used by the bullied students overall, although bullied girls were much more likely than boys to stay away from school, as well as being more likely to see themselves as at fault; this can be related to our discussion of shame, and to girls’ socialisation that promotes their internalisation of distress [4]. Victimised students almost never tried to improve their relationship with the bully, which the professionals considered as a somewhat effective strategy. Fighting back was considered by the professionals to be somewhat ineffective and was little used. While Juvonen and Gross’ finding that hostile responses to bullying may (in the short term) result in less ostracism, others have found that they do in fact reinforce bullying [7]. Teachers and anti-bullying researchers presumably also have moral grounds for discouraging fighting back aggressively (it is certainly against the Gandhian philosophy we outline in the next chapter), though it is something that parents often suggest [8]. Here is the story of a woman who said that one-off physical retaliation worked for her: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-01/how-dale-found-herown-worth-despite-hate-for-her-cerebral-palsy/12903586. In Murray-Harvey’s study, ‘sticking up for oneself’ was seen as somewhat effective and used often by the bullied students. It is difficult to know exactly what is meant by this, but it presumably involves speaking up assertively. ‘Getting support from others’ (which on the face of it is difficult to differentiate from ‘talking to others’) is the strategy most often recommended in the literature, and in that study it did not fit into any of the five factors. Professionals considered it effective and students sometimes used it. The study did not examine how effective the students themselves found the various strategies. It is notable that there was a considerable gulf between what the professionals would recommend and what bullied students actually did, and comments made by the professionals indicated a broad range of views, some showing insight into the barriers that students might face in attempting to cope with bullying. As the authors observed, context is crucial. Simply having a bullying policy in place will be useless if teachers, for example, are unable to implement it in a way that students find helpful. As we have seen, this is often the case when students seek help for sexual bullying, and they may, in effect, be told to ‘suck it up’ [9, 10]. For understanding coping with sexual harassment, Campbell Leaper and colleagues support the adoption of an ecological systems framework that takes account of sociocultural factors, interpersonal context, developmental level and individual factors [11]. Skrzypiec and colleagues’ finding that bully-victims’ high stress levels are moderated by number of friends, reinforces the idea that seeking social support is a valuable coping strategy. ‘Finding others to spend time with’ was only regarded as somewhat effective by the professionals in Murray-Harvey’s study, but understanding that there is a fundamental need for belonging does suggest the value of trying to find other

Coping Strategies and Bullying

127

groups with whom to identify, as well as to find support from, and it was something the bullied students in the Murray-Harvey study were willing to do. We can recall here that the number of positive groups with which one identifies (self-categorisation) is a predictor of wellbeing. Cultivating a broad range of friends was a strategy for avoiding the consequences of marginalisation suggested by adolescent girls in a study by Owens, who noted the value of girls’ own relational strengths for addressing peer conflict [12]. Haavind observed, in her qualitative study, that if an excluded child had just one friend to turn to, they were able to cope better, although more than one friend, paradoxically, could complicate relationships and stir up further social exclusion anxiety. This may be related to the suggestion that having plenty of friends does not necessarily translate into good support, as the quality of friendships matters as well [13], although Haavind interpreted her results in terms of greater group instability with more than one friend. Other studies suggest a different role for friendship than as a stress moderator. There is some evidence that social support mediates the relationship between being bullied and symptoms of depression [13, 14]. This is consistent with (though not confirmatory of) the idea that bullied children tend to lack social support in the first place, and that is what causes the depression. A speculative suggestion made is that the lack of support occurs because typical victims do not have the social problem-solving skills to garner it [14]. This may be the case sometimes, in accord with paradigm 1, but is not universal, and children have logical reasons for not seeking support from a range of potential adult providers, as we have seen. Furthermore, an ‘ordinary’ child might have gained a negative reputation among the broader peer group, as happens in ijime, or suffer prejudice because of belonging to a devalued group in society, and thus be prevented from accessing peer support at school, while perfectly able to access it in other contexts. For example, boys who are miserable at school as a result of teasing by peers (and sports teachers) because they are poor at team games may happily engage in non-competitive physical activities with friends outside school [15]. There may, then, be a variety of situations for victims affecting their ability or willingness to access support, and this suggests that a range of approaches is needed to help them. Owens’ model of indirect aggression that we discussed in Chap. 4, derived from open-ended discussions with adolescent girls, adds further information about responses to being marginalised [16]. Consistent with Williams’ temporal needsthreat model of ostracism, a process, or series of stages, is apparent. Owens reported an initial feeling of confusion that moves on to coping as reflection on events occurs. In some cases there is denial that marginalisation is happening, a form of selfdeception that may for a while uphold maintenance of those fundamental human needs that Williams identifies: belongingness, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. Owens’ participants reported, for example, that a girl who is no longer really welcome in a group will sometimes continue to hang around with them in a rather pathetic way, even though she is basically ignored but is failing to ‘get the message’. Conversely, Owens found a girl who accepts that marginalisation is happening may engage in catastrophising self-talk (‘this is terrible, I’ll never have any friends’

128

9 Coping and Resilience

etc.). This captures the paradigm 2 notion that being excluded can be a form of ‘psychic torture’. Catastrophising self-talk is well-known to cognitive therapists and has the potential to impair victims’ mental health through a downward spiral of negative thinking [17]. It is crucial to address this, as it can lead to suicidal thoughts and actions. Peers may even encourage this, face to face or online, as we observed in the opening chapter. Angela Clarke’s suggestion about teaching positive self-talk as a general coping strategy for young people is pertinent, as it may help to prevent victims of exclusion from falling into a downward spiral of despair. A risk factor for suicide that needs to be considered these days is cutting oneself, with teenage girls more likely than boys to use it as a coping response to stress; ten percent of teenage girls in the West (almost twenty per cent, in one US study) engage in this behaviour, and even more in clinically referred girls. It probably provides temporary relief from the ‘pain’ of emotional stress because of shared neural pathways with physical pain (as shown for ostracism), and is also a cry for help [18]. As mentioned earlier, the phenomenon of ‘digital self-harm’ has recently been identified, whereby adolescents (particularly boys) post anonymous derogatory comments about themselves on social media; being bullied or cyberbullied is one risk factor for this behaviour [19]. This may be an example of what Anna Freud called ‘identification with the aggressor’, which serves the function of suppressing one’s outrage at an injustice that one is powerless to defeat [20]. Alternatively, as we suggested previously, it is possible that shame plays a part, in activating neural reward circuitry, perhaps in an addictive manner; and boys may be more prone to shame than girls, when a society affords them higher status. While Murray-Harvey found the avoidance strategy of missing school as rare, this was a response reported by the girls in Owens’ study and also by participants in our sexual bullying study and that by Siân Williams, with leaving the school altogether sometimes occurring [21, 22]. Unfortunately, especially with the connectedness afforded by social media, a fresh start elsewhere may be impeded as reputational damage (gossip) precedes victims to a new school. Another reaction to indirect aggression included in Owens’ model is making plans for revenge. This is also one of four motives for bullying recently identified by Kevin Runions and associates (the others being rage, recreation and reward) [23]. Revenge is different from just ‘fighting back’ (rage) and implies deliberate plotting. Retaliative rumour-mongering by sexually harassed girls about boys (often concerning their supposedly small genitals) is another example [21, 23]. Revenge is not something adults would be likely to recommend, on moral grounds, or for fear of escalating violence. It is a response that may restore one’s sense of dignity and feel good but would only be expected to restore a sense of belonging if it also involves solidarity with others, which is sometimes the case. Extreme cases are revenge shootings, with three-quarters of USA school shooters having been victims of bullying, and over 60% motivated by revenge [24]. The murderous spree of the Santa Barbara shooter Elliott Rodger was carried out as revenge in the name of ‘incels’ (young men who blame attractive peers for their own inability to find sexual relationships) [25], and thus presumably did involve a sense of belonging. Such revenge attacks may target particular individuals but also others judged as similar (‘displaced revenge’) and

Marginalising Others as Coping

129

raise many questions not only about mental health, but models of masculinity (all shooters being male), and the gun culture of the USA. Adolescents express less desire for revenge if they believe that people can change, leading to the suggestion that education about the possibility of change could be incorporated into bullying interventions [26]. In contrast to Murray-Harvey’s results, Owens’ participants did report making efforts to repair damaged relationships, usually through one-to-one discussions such as by phoning individuals. Such repair strategies are perhaps possible at an early stage, as compared with seriously bullied students, where things have gone much too far, and the power difference has become too great, for a victim to try and patch up the relationship. Feeling a sense of shame may drive a victim towards relationship repair rather than revenge.

Marginalising Others as Coping It is of particular interest, in the context of this book, to consider one particular strategy from Murray-Harvey’s study (that was not associated with any of the five factors): ‘take my feelings out on others’. This was regarded as very ineffective by the professionals and never reported as being used by the seriously bullied students, yet according to paradigm 2, this is exactly what is expected to happen in response to social exclusion anxiety: to express contempt for certain others and to feel better as a result. The notion that marginalising others is an expected, and effective, response to being marginalised oneself creates a moral dilemma, as the rights of the new victims must be considered. One possible explanation for the absence of this strategy from Murray-Harvey’s study is that the seriously bullied students had indeed not adopted it, while their less bullied peers had done so, and therefore avoided escalating victimisation. This is consistent with the suggestion that use of particular coping responses may help determine whether a bullied child becomes a long-term victim [27]. Another possibility is that (some of) the bullied students did marginalise others but did not have insight into it, with suspension of empathy for those they treated with contempt. Such students are sometimes labelled as bully-victims and tend to have the greatest psychological difficulties although, as we have seen, this is buffered by the number of friends they have [28]. The psychology of displaced revenge, or turning on another person in response to being victimised, has been little researched, but a study in Germany found that such revenge feels satisfying, and gives a sense of justice, if the new target is perceived as being similar to the original perpetrator [29]. This may help to explain why certain ‘innocent’ children are picked out for being treated with contempt. An extreme and tragic example is a revenge shooting of Year 5 girls at a Brazilian school by a young adult who had been teased by girls when he was in that school year [30].

130

9 Coping and Resilience

Gender and Coping Gender differences in coping have emerged from numbers of studies but seem to be granted the status of marginal rather than substantive findings, and programs do not specifically address the different coping styles of boys and girls. One example we have seen is that bullied girls are more likely to stay away from school. This may reflect their more intimate peer relationships and their catastrophising thinking that Owens identified in response being marginalised by peers [16]. On the positive side for girls, they are more likely than boys to seek social support. Studies of how girls cope with sexism, including sexual harassment/bullying, are also informative and have yielded some differences from the quantitative ‘coping with bullying’ studies, perhaps in part because, as in Owens’ study, girls were asked in an open-ended way about their coping strategies. Melanie Ayres and Campbell Leaper found that Californian girls reported using both approach and avoidance, and often used multiple strategies [31]. Many did seek social support, mainly from peers and parents, but sometimes from teachers, and they often spoke to multiple people. They also sometimes confronted the perpetrator, though ethnic minority girls did so less often, possibly feeling under greater (intersectional) threat. More than half used avoidance, such as ignoring or eluding the perpetrator and avoiding the harassment context. While this could be seen as passivity, Ayres and Leaper suggest that it can represent resistance. Our research with Owens supports this, one Australian participant saying that, ‘You can’t let the guys know they’re getting to you … They’ll keep doing it … They get so much more pleasure in it’ [32]. The Californian girls often sought validation for their feelings, which has been shown to reduce distress related to discrimination. The advice they often received, in accord with the experts’ opinions in Murray-Harvey’s bullying study, was to try approach strategies such as confronting perpetrators or seeking help. This does not take account of controllability, and some of the alternative advice given to the girls was that harassment is going to happen, so you just need to ignore it, perhaps reflecting a view that it is uncontrollable (which may be why some non-interventionist teachers tell harassed students to ‘get used to it’). Some Californian girls were willing to confront the perpetrator, especially if they had good perspective-taking ability, peer support and more educated parents [11]. Our Australian girls, too, sometimes reported using assertive responses to sexual bullying: telling a teacher, hitting the boy, retorting verbally or spreading retaliatory gossip. We interviewed boys as well, and they recognised that girls use their social and ‘mental’ power to fight back [21]. The reason girls seem to have a wide range of ways of coping specifically with sexual bullying by boys, may be because of a sense of injustice and a realisation that it happens to girls in general, not just to them as individuals. Leaper and colleagues found that girls who identified as feminists were more likely to seek support [11]. Ayers and Leaper suggested that ‘critical consciousness’ groups might help young people to better appreciate the wider societal contexts influencing their personal experiences [33]. The widespread publicity given to the Me Too movement may have recently increased girls’ understanding in this regard.

Gender and Coping

131

Boys’ relative reluctance to seek help for being bullied, and the fact that more young males than females complete suicide (though many more females make attempts) also needs to be considered within the context of gender socialisation. A version of masculinity that over-emphasises self-sufficiency, and sees help-seeking as weakness, needs to be challenged [34]. Pertinent to this is Kagitsibasi’s suggestion, mentioned previously, that cultural changes along the dimensions of agency and connectedness may be adaptive for young people’s wellbeing [35].

Coping-Based Interventions Coping has been suggested as a framework for interventions, and Phillip drew upon it in his 2015 book for teachers [36]. Skrzypiec led a coping-based study into bullying in Greek schools, where the level of bullying is especially high [6]. It focused on effective and ineffective coping. Adapted from the Australian Coping With School Bullying program, it included captioned videos about coping scenarios performed by high school students. It also incorporated teacher professional development and cooperative class work, thus taking an ecological perspective extending beyond ‘coping’ itself. Seriously bullied students were more likely than others to use strategies of reduced optimism, wishful thinking, trying to improve their relationship with the perpetrator and pretending the bullying was not happening. After the eight-week program, the seriously bullied students reported less use of pretence and wishful thinking, less victimisation and a greater sense of safety. The numbers of students reporting being seriously bullied reduced significantly, and this was maintained at three-month follow-up. While the control group proved unsuitable for comparison, the study showed that the program was promising. Clarke has a particular view about effective coping, which does not assume that active strategies are superior to avoidance. She suggests a focus on teaching young people to assess how controllable a situation is, and to use a coping strategy that matches it [3]. Seeking social support, she points out, although often seen as ‘active’, can be helpful in both controllable and uncontrollable situations, and often takes the form of active problem-solving to work through suitable responses. Leaper and colleagues’ research with sexually harassed girls offers support for the idea of teaching young people to match their response to the situation; they found that girls with better perspective-taking ability were more likely to not only seek support, but to confront the perpetrator, which may have been because they had a good ability to judge the riskiness of such a response [11]. Since coping has in general been found to have only moderate effects on mental health, Clarke proposes that prevention and intervention programs should not focus on coping alone, but should also address environmental sources of stress [3]. This approach is essential when considering the mental health and wellbeing of girls, which numbers of studies have shown to fall lower than that of boys as children enter their teens [4]. In short, and as mentioned previously, this is attributable to the lower social status afforded to women and girls, and is reflected in their being subjected

132

9 Coping and Resilience

to more sexual bullying, mainly from boys, but also from other girls. Social justice demands that more needs to be done than training victims to cope or to pick up the pieces of their damaged mental health: the broader social context needs to be addressed as well, the same being true for racism and other forms of discrimination that can feed into bullying (i.e. bias-based bullying).

Resilience Resilience is a psychological term that has been adopted into common parlance and is often rather glibly used to suggest that ‘children are resilient’. The notion is particularly dangerous when it comes to bullying as it raises the old idea, still found amongst some, that bullying is ‘character forming’. As we have seen, evidence about the effects of being bullied suggests that far from being advantageous, prolonged bullying is likely to damage ‘character’, and even one-off incidents can sometimes be shattering. Nevertheless, Brian Moore and Stuart Woodcock have recently proposed that building resilience offers the best way to assist victims of bullying, though noting that there is little literature on resilience in that context. The concept is subject to much confusion [37]. Often understood to be the ability to bounce back from adversity, it is more accurately defined as ‘the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, viability or development’ taking cultural context into account [38]. Resilience is thus a process, rather than a stable trait, but is commonly measured at a particular point in time, when it might seem like a trait (‘resiliency’). Caroline Clauss-Ehlers maintains that the trait-like approach leaves ‘way too much up to the individual child’ as environmental conditions place limits on the development of resilience [39]. The route to resilience is through the cumulative operation of multiple risk and ‘promotive’ factors, the latter being considered as ‘protective’ when they moderate the effect of high-risk circumstances. Factors identified as potentially protective include a sense of mastery and a sense of relatedness [40], which are two of the four basic human needs identified by Williams as threatened by ostracism, which suggests that resilience is itself undermined by being marginalised. Girls tend to have greater resilience than boys until the teen years, when it drops back sharply, presumably becoming strained by the challenges of adolescence. It is of note that, for girls, high peer acceptance has been found to be a negative marker of resilience [41]; perhaps too high a price must be paid, in terms of the pressures to conform to stereotypes and negotiate membership of intimate peer groups [4]. Mental health policies today are often concerned with encouraging promotive factors and reducing risk factors, and this conceptualisation is sometimes used to drive universal mental health promotion programs in schools, although much work remains to be done to devise effective programs [42]. For example, a well-managed largescale mental health promotional program for schools based on boosting a range of protective factors (not aimed at bullying in particular) had little effect on adolescents’ mental health [43].

Resilience

133

In setting up their case for a resilience-based approach to bullying, Moore and Woodcock take issue with standard anti-bullying interventions, noting that their effectiveness in reducing bullying is only modest, and has even been known to increase it. In view of the wide range of bullying definitions that exist, they maintain that the central element is a power discrepancy, in the context of relationships. They acknowledge that, at times, bullying can be considered an abuse of power, but prefer the view, based on evolutionary, psychological and developmental perspectives, that power discrepancies are a normal social phenomenon, especially in adolescence. That is consistent with paradigm 2. Moore and Woodcock suggest that: ‘the term ‘bullying’ can effectively be a synonym for power imbalances in relationships, and that whether the use of power is legitimate or abusive is a subjective matter of perception.’ [37]. This reprises the concept we raised earlier that there is a range of perspectives to be considered when problematic social events arise. This can be seen as a postmodern view or, as we have discussed elsewhere, as a factor in complex social problems that are ‘hard-to-tame’ [44]. Various anti-bullying programs, Moore and Woodcock suggest, such as peer support and bystander interventions, have at their core a change in the balance of power. Their perspective implies that moral codes, government and school policies, and even the legal system may come into play in making judgements about the legitimacy or otherwise of power-based behaviours. In considering resilience promotion as a way of mitigating the effects of bullying, Moore and Woodcock propose that, while environmental factors are relevant, a focus on individual resilience factors creates a clearer target to be addressed. They examined three key attributes as potential protective factors: sense of mastery, sense of relatedness and low emotional reactivity. Lower mastery and relatedness were correlated with more depression, while greater emotional reactivity was associated with higher levels of both depression and anxiety. The strongest relationship in the study was between reactivity and anxiety, although the possibility of targeting reactivity was undermined by their suggestion that it may be related to personality and so not very amenable to interventions. Reactivity was, surprisingly, not related to being victimised, but might help to identify potential bullies, they suggest. Their consideration of a role for relatedness in bullying resilience parallels that mentioned previously with regard to coping through promoting social support. Theirs was a very preliminary study, and much more work is needed before firm recommendations about resilience can be suggested. A caution we would make is that, in choosing to focus on the development of individual assets, their approach risks losing sight of societal and social justice issues. We can also pick up on Moore and Woodcock’s point that peer support methods may work by serving to change the balance of power in favour of victims. Cowie has written extensively about the possibility of peer support acting to empower students, both as supporters and seekers of support, provided there is good training and supervision: ‘Peer support methods educate students to take responsibility for their own actions and provide training in a range of interpersonal, social and conflict resolution skills. They also provide opportunities for reflection on self and others through regular supervision.’ [45].

134

9 Coping and Resilience

A broader, explicitly social justice-based approach to resilience has been taken by Malta’s Carmel Cefai and colleagues, who have developed a program for young children and piloted it in numbers of European countries [46]. It is universal but also targeted at children from marginalised groups. It takes a strengths- and growth-based approach to issues such as bullying, prejudice, language barriers and exclusion. It is adaptable to developmental level and, in recognising the importance of context, takes a whole-school approach, involving parents and addressing school staff wellbeing.

Conclusions Young people respond to being victimised in a range of different ways, that can be considered as forms of resistance or as coping. While marginalising others is the main response to social exclusion anxiety, as identified by paradigm 2 researchers, this has not emerged from the literature that has used a coping framework for studying responses to bullying. Resilience-based approaches that address sense of mastery and relatedness have been suggested, though the concept of resilience needs to be used with caution. Promoting supportive relationships and other forms of active coping are the main ways suggested for alleviating the stress of being victimised, but there is still uncertainty about which strategies are most effective, and experts and students may have differing opinions. Coping-based programs offer one way forward for helping victims to deal with bullying and other forms of unkindness; assisting young people to analyse situations in terms of the best strategy for the context has also been suggested. However, coping-based programs are at an early stage of development and need to be considered within a systemic, ecological context, which raises issues of social justice. The idea of helping excluded children to form supportive friendships by increasing their social and problem-solving skills may be suitable for those who are lacking them, but is unlikely to do much for hapless victims who have simply fallen foul of group processes, or for those on the autism spectrum with serious social skills problems, or for those marginalised on the basis of belonging to a stigmatised group in society. Even if the grounds on which you are deemed to be ‘not one of us’ is arbitrary, you may still acquire a negative reputation that is not recoverable, like the girl who wore her hair in a ‘bushy’ style for the class photograph [47], or the boy who was pilloried for leaping around excitedly at a piece of good news [48]. While most writers suggest a focus on interventions for helping individual victims to develop skills for dealing with being bullied, those taking an ecological systems perspective remind us that broader prevention and intervention strategies are also possible. Work addressing gender socialisation, racism, school climate, peer support, social consciousness raising, group norms, kindness and morality may be fruitful. Even if bullying is common and can be regarded as an extension of ‘normal’ marginalisation, it does not occur in every school class, suggesting that contextual conditions can be created that reduce its likelihood. In considering ecological contexts, we can

Conclusions

135

note an impressive difference in bullying frequency in Italian schools depending on the proportion of minority-group children in the schools [49]. While it is important to develop better preventative methods, there is consensus between paradigm 1 and paradigm 2 researchers that it is impossible to eliminate bullying from society. Evolutionary and social identity perspectives lead to the same understanding. Hence Moore and Woodcock’s focus on resilience, and Arsenault’s recommendation that a public health perspective is needed, as there will always be victims in need of services to ameliorate bullying’s long-term effects [50]. Although this is a somewhat gloomy conclusion, we can take heart from the fact that there is a great human capacity for kindness that may be able to be harnessed as an antidote to the harms that humans can inflict on one another, and these are issues we will address in forthcoming chapters.

References 1. Horton, P. (2019). School bullying and bare life: Challenging the state of exception. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1444–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1557043 2. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. 3. Clarke, A. T. (2006). Coping with interpersonal stress and psychosocial health among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 11–24. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10964-005-9001-x 4. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 5. Murray-Harvey, R., Skrzypiec, G., & Slee, P. T. (2012). Effective and ineffective coping with bullying strategies as assessed by informed professionals and their use by victimised students. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc. 2012.5 6. Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P. T., Roussi-Vergou, C., & Andreou, E. (2018). Coping with bullying program in Greek secondary schools: An evaluation. In J. Gordon (Ed.), Bullying prevention and intervention at school (pp. 95–118). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31995414-1_6 7. Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. American Psychological Association. 8. Healy, K. (2015). Fighting back may stop some children from being bullied. The Conversation, November 16 2015. Accessed March 10, 2020 at http://theconversation.com/fighting-backmay-stop-some-children-from-being-bullied-44131 9. Jamal, F., Bonell, C., Harden, A., & Lorenc, T. (2015). The social ecology of girls’ bullying practices: Exploratory research in two London schools. Sociology of Health and Illness, 37(5), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12231 10. Meyer, E. J. (2014). New solutions for bullying and harassment: A post-structural, feminist approach. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 209–239). Cambridge University Press. 11. Leaper, C., Brown, C. S., & Ayres, M. M. (2013). Adolescent girls’ cognitive appraisals of coping responses to sexual harassment. Psychology in the Schools, 50(10), 969–986. https:// doi.org/10.1002/pits.21727 12. Owens, L. (2015). How can we help? Indirect aggression among teenage girls and what to do about it. In H. Askell-Williams (Ed.), Transforming the future of learning with educational research (pp. 259–274). IGI Global.

136

9 Coping and Resilience

13. Du, C., DeGuisto, K., Albright, J., & Alrehaili, S. (2018). Peer support as a mediator between bullying victimization and depression. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 10, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v10n1p59 14. Pouwelse, M., Bolman, C., Lodewijkx, H., & Spaa, M. (2011). Gender differences and social support: Mediators or moderators between peer victimization and depressive feelings? Psychology in the Schools, 48(8), 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20589 15. Tischler, A., & McCaughtry, N. (2011). PE is not for me: When boys’ masculinities are threatened. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367. 2011.10599720 16. Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982337(2000)26:1%3c67::AID-AB6%3e3.0.CO;2-C 17. Gellatly, R., & Beck, A. T. (2016). Catastrophic thinking: A transdiagnostic process across psychiatric disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 40, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10608-016-9763-3 18. Barrocas, A. L., Hankin, B. L., Young, J. F., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2012). Rates of non-suicidal self-injury in youth: Age, sex, and behavioral methods in a community sample. Pediatrics, 130. Accessed 18.04.2017 at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/1/ 19. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2017). Digital self-harm among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.012 20. Deutsch, M. (2006). Justice and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution, 2nd edn. (pp. 43–68, p. 50). Jossey-Bass. 21. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 22. Williams, S. (2013). Sexual bullying in one local authority. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 61–74). Routledge. 23. Runions, K. C., Salmivalli, C., Shaw, T., Burns, S., & Cross, D. (2018). Beyond the reactiveproactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 501–511. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ab.21770 24. Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson, R. L. (2014). School shooters: History, current and theoretical and empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. SAGE Open, January-March 2014, 1– 11.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014525425 25. Allely, C. S., & Faccini, L. (2017). ‘Path to intended violence’ model to understand mass violence in the case of Elliot Rodger. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 201–209. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.09.005 26. Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Adolescents’ implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1090–1107. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0023769 27. Kanetsuna, T., Smith, P. K., & Morita, Y. (2006). Coping with bullying at school: Children’s recommended strategies and attitudes to school-based interventions in England and Japan. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20156 28. Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P. T., Askell-Williams, H., & Lawson, M. J. (2012). Associations between types of involvement in bullying, friendships and mental health status Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704312 29. Sjöström, A., & Gollwitzer, M. (2015). Displaced revenge: Can revenge taste “sweet” if it aims at a different target? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 191–202. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.016

References

137

30. Grossi, P. K., & dos Santos, A. M. (2012). Bullying in Brazilian schools and restorative practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 35, 120–136. Accessed March 2, 2020 at https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ968808.pdf 31. Ayres, M. M., & Leaper, C. (2013). Adolescent girls’ experiences of discrimination: An examination of coping strategies, social support and self-esteem. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558412457817 32. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58(477–489), 485. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11199-007-9363-5 33. Thomas, A. J., Barrie, R., Brunner, J., Clawson, A., Hewitt, A., Jeremie-Brink, G., & RoweJohnson, M. (2014). Assessing critical consciousness in youth and young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12132 34. Shute, R. H. (2018). What about the boys? Chapter 8 in R. H. Shute (Ed.), Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era (pp. 107–120). Routledge. 35. Kagitcibasi, C. (2012). Sociocultural change and integrative syntheses in human development: Autonomous-related self and socio-cognitive competence. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00173.x 36. Slee, P. T. (2017). School bullying: Teachers helping students cope. Routledge. 37. Moore, B., & Woodcock, S. (2017). Resilience to bullying: Towards an alternative to the anti-bullying approach. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(65–80), 66. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02667363.2016.1233488 38. Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 85(6–20), 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12205 39. Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (Ed.) (2015). Cultural resilience. In C. S. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 324–326, p. 324). Springer. 40. Žuni´c-Pavlovi´c, V., Pavlovi´c, M., Kovaˇcevi´c-Lepocevi´c, M., Glumbi´c, M., & Kovaˇcevi´c, R. (2013). The relationships between personal resiliency and externalising and internalising problems in adolescence. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 57, 1–14. 41. Kassis, W., Artz, S., Moldenhauer, S., Géczy, I., & Rossiter, K. R. (2015). A dynamic and gender sensitive understanding of adolescents’ personal and school resilience characteristics despite family violence: The predictive power of the family violence burden level. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 6(3), 388–420 388. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijc yfs.63201513562 42. Shute, R. H. (2016). School-based responses to youth suicide. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 146–156). Routledge. 43. Sawyer, M. G., Pfeiffer, S., Spence, S. H., Bond, L., Graetz, B., Kay, D., Patton, G., & Sheffield, J. (2009). School-based prevention of depression: A randomised controlled study of the beyondblue schools research initiative. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02136.x 44. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2016). Thinking big, acting wisely. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 185–197). Routledge. 45. Cowie, H. (2011). Peer support as an intervention to counteract school bullying: Listen to the children. Children and Society, 25(287–292), 290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011. 00375.x 46. Cefai, C. (2017). ‘Surfing the waves’: Building resilience to promote children’s mental health. In P. T. Slee, G. Skrzypiec, & C. Cefai (Eds.), Child and adolescent wellbeing and violence in schools (pp. 141–148). Routledge. 47. Haavind, H. (2014). ‘Who does he think he is?’: Making new friends and leaving others behind—on the path from childhood to youth. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129–158). Cambridge University Press. 48. Lambert, R., & Millham, S. (1968). The hothouse society. Penguin.

138

9 Coping and Resilience

49. Di Francesco, G. (2017). Methodological issues for the analysis of bullying in educational environments. In A. Maturo, Š. Hošková-Mayerová, D. T. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models. Studies in systems, decision and control 66 (pp. 149–155). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-405858_13 50. Arsenault, L. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry, 16, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399

Part III

New Understandings to Guide Action

Chapter 10

Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case Study

School bullying is increasingly recognised around the world as a matter that demands attention. While research over recent decades has demonstrated the harmful effects on victims, Johnston regards the bullying literature as ‘troublingly silent’ on matters of social justice. [1] We would like to encourage efforts to rectify this. M. K. Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent social change offers a starting point for highlighting the growing international concern with children’s human rights that forms a background against which bullying interventions can be considered. However, the mixed results of program evaluations to date are cause for concern. This situation has given rise to recent global efforts aimed at deducing which factors in interventions seem to ‘work’ in reducing the prevalence of school bullying (as traditionally defined). We call here upon the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2019 report, Behind the Numbers: Ending School Violence and Bullying, and the 2018 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) report Developing a Global Indicator on Bullying of School-aged Children, written by Dominic Richardson and Chii Fen Hiu [2]. Consideration will also be given to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) PISA 2015 Results (Volume III), linking educational achievement with school bullying and wellbeing [3]. To illustrate the points made in the UNESCO report in particular, we provide a long-term case example from the Australian education sector. Now, these reports mainly rely on anti-bullying programs that have been devised on the basis of the Olweus definition and evaluated quantitatively. As we have seen, the paradigm 2 approach sees this conceptualisation of bullying as too individuallyfocused, and likely to omit some important kinds of peer marginalisation that are not necessarily considered as bullying but can be harmful all the same (see Chap. 4) [4]. Paradigm 2 scholars have also regretted the loss of valuable information by insistence on only considering as legitimate the outcomes of ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials [5]. Danish paradigm 2 researcher Hansen and colleagues, although promoting the value of qualitative methods, have also acknowledged the importance of continuing to produce quantitative research data that contribute to international

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_10

141

142

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

efforts to understand bullying, while also being prepared to challenge when necessary and to add complexity and nuance to interpretation [6]. These are concerns to which we will return in a later chapter, particularly in considering bullying from a complex systems perspective. The term ‘violence’ is often used in reports such as those we draw upon here but is not one we use much in this book. The World Health Organisation gives an inclusive definition that concerns the intentional use of physical force or power, whether threatened or actual, and that may use physical, sexual or psychological means, to cause harm or deprivation [7]. However, it has proved very difficult to gain agreement on the meaning of the term and its relationship with school bullying [8]. For example, the OECD report refers to bullying as a form of violence, while at times a distinction has been drawn, with the implication that ‘violence’ is more severe and physical (and might include, for example, severe beatings, knife crime, rape or school shootings). The matter of ‘intent’, as we have discussed previously, is also problematic. We therefore use the term violence loosely or in accord with the usage of specific writers or reports.

Gandhi’s Philosophy of Non-violence As Richard Beinecke has observed, ‘We are in a period of complexity, with unprecedented change, interconnectivity, innovations and structures [9].’ In a globally connected and culturally diverse world, addressing violence and bullying and successfully negotiating diversity, discrimination, marginalisation and prejudice is ever more critical. There are numbers of historical figures whose names are associated with the concept of non-violence as a way of dealing with aggression and promoting peace in society, including Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968), whose assassination inspired Elliott’s Blue eyes-Brown eyes classroom demonstration of prejudice, and who was in turn inspired by M. K. Gandhi (1869–1948). While aspects of Gandhi’s life and philosophy are open to criticism (he certainly failed in his responsibilities to his wife and children), [10] he has become an icon for non-violence, and his beliefs are acknowledged by the United Nations (UN) as having been influential in drawing up the Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in the year of Gandhi’s own assassination [11]. Formative in the development of Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence was his experience as an Indian lawyer in South Africa and his defiance towards the enactment of an Ordinance by the South African Government that would have required Indians living in South Africa to take out a certificate of registration (the Asiatic Registration Act). Gandhi had already experienced racial prejudice, having been violently ejected from a train he was travelling on in Pietermaritzburg because his first-class train ticket offended a White passenger arguing that coloured people could only travel third class. The evolution of Gandhi’s philosophy of ‘civil resistance’ differed from Henry David Thoreau’s concept of ‘civil disobedience’ because in his eyes Thoreau’s version failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle against the proposed Ordinance. As

Gandhi’s Philosophy of Non-violence

143

Gandhi noted, ‘Disobedience to be civil must be sincere. Respectful, restrained, never defiant, must be based upon some well understood principle, must not be capricious and above all, must have no ill-will or hatred behind it [12].’ He also wrote, ‘I object to violence when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent [13].’ Gandhi was insistent on differentiating passive resistance (the initial terminology) from his developing idea of satyagraha. Passive resistance, according to Gandhi, was the weapon of the weak because it did not exclude the use of physical force or violence to achieve one’s end goal. By contrast, satyagraha incorporated ‘truth’ (satya) and ‘love and firmness’ (agraha), creating a silent or moral force. Satyagraha was used by Gandhi in India to oppose British rule. However, it was also seen as a universal solution incorporating moral force to address social injustices and harm. Inherent in Gandhian philosophy is a belief in the essential goodness of a person. He believed that everyone has a conscience, and therefore that if a person is made aware of their mis-behaviour they are capable of seeing reason and behaving differently, rendering unnecessary the use of violence to bring about change. A feature underlying the philosophy of satyagraha is that it calls for the education of the other. Gandhi and Gandhian philosophy are frequently associated with the concept of human rights. However, the Gandhian legacy of social reform was based on duties and not rights [14]. His argument was strongly expressed in communication with the author H. G. Wells, who had sought Gandhi’s view on Wells’ draft of The Rights of Man, a document that would be instrumental in the drawing up of various human rights declarations. Gandhi emphasised that if duties were fulfilled then rights would follow. Gandhi’s emphasis on duties has been rightly criticised, particularly when the focus on duties is used by those in power to deny the rights of others (Gandhi understood duties in the context of the Indian caste system at the time). That said, Gandhi has become a symbol for human rights advocates globally. In particular, major themes of his philosophy relating to the welfare of all and his deliberations against discrimination and creating outcasts are relevant for issues of marginalisation and school bullying.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) This is the main international human rights treaty on children’s rights, and the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world, adopted by the UN in 1989 [15]. The only country that has not ratified it is the USA, although the USA was involved in drawing it up and has signed it. Broadly speaking, human rights are generally described as inter-related interdependent rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. In the words of the Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe [16].’ The same document refers to such rights as drawing upon the principles of dignity,

144

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

equality and mutual respect shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. They are ‘inalienable’, that is, they cannot be traded or lost like ordinary rights [17]. Rights express values, but carry obligations, or duties to act, which raises them above being merely utopian ideals [18]. Is school bullying a violation of human rights? We have previously mentioned that the CRC refers to security of the person and freedom from inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment. Article 19 states: ‘Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child’ https://www. unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text. If school bullying is considered a form of violence, abuse or maltreatment, then it seems that it is a human rights issue that nations who have ratified the treaty are obliged to address. Nevertheless, as readers will appreciate the matter is, in the Australian vernacular, a ‘barbeque stopper’ (i.e. it can attract a great deal of heated debate) [18]. One possible reason that ‘rights’ are controversial, according to Alison Struthers, is the embracing by some of the view that human rights may be exploited by some individuals to their own advantage, such as to escape punishment for some misdeed [19]. Another view is that children, especially primary school children, are not developmentally able to understand some of the more complex matters associated with human rights, and therefore ignore the idea that along with human rights go responsibilities (the same can be said about some adults, such as those who objected to mask-wearing in the 2020 pandemic). Some teachers may believe that the subject matter of human rights is too dry and boring to engage students, while others may worry that young children in particular might be frightened by some topics covered in discussing human rights, such as violence, poverty or discrimination. Struthers suggests that such reasons can lead to resistance to the teaching of human rights, though Alex Molnar had proposed some ways in which it might be done [20]. One is simply through experiencing the respecting of children’s rights in the school context. There is great variability around the world in terms of how aware children (8–12) are of the CRC, with Norwegian and Colombian children having the most awareness, and Italian and German children the least [21]. A version for children is available here: https://www.unicef.org.au/our-work/information-for-children/un-conven tion-on-the-rights-of-the-child. Whether or not children are directly taught about human rights, adults still have an obligation under Article 19 to uphold them. Data from the qualitative International Survey of Children’s Wellbeing show that the more of their rights children perceive as being realised, the greater their wellbeing [21]. Factors that children see as crucial for wellbeing are doing well academically, having good relationships with students and teachers, being able to study in a peaceful environment and, specifically, not being bullied [22]. The need to address bullying is now endorsed around the globe as countries and education authorities take action, on a continuum ranging from raising awareness of the issue, through introducing policy and programs into schools, to

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

145

developing and enacting specific laws to punish perpetrators. There are now clear community expectations that schools are required to deal with complex emotional and psychological problems which are part of the overall school experience, and media around the world regularly report instances where a school or education authority is being sued because of a bullying incident. As Phillip and David Ford noted in an early paper on the topic, teachers and schools are acting in loco parentis while a student is in their care [23]. This requires teachers and schools to actively intervene in any situation which comes to their attention which may involve significant risk of injury to a student in their care. This would include the risks of psychological injury, so long as that injury is reasonably foreseeable.

Highlights from the UNICEF and OECD Reports We now turn to a consideration of the insights that two major reports have provided into the global understanding of bullying. Part of the answer to the question of why bullying is receiving global attention lies in the large body of paradigm 1 research that has drawn attention to the prevalence of school bullying and the harmful physical, social and psychological sequelae arising from its extensive and widespread nature (see Chap. 8). The 2018 UNICEF report provides some very useful insights into the matter of prevalence [24]. It drew on information from six international surveys amongst 11- to 15-year-olds in 145 countries, with a special focus on 12- to 13-yearolds. Although the metrics for assessing the frequency of bullying varied amongst these data sources it approximates ‘once a month or more often’. Data available from all regions collected using the Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) and the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) research indicated that 32% of students had been bullied in some form by their peers at school on one or more days in the past month. Across GSHS countries, the prevalence ranged from about 7 to 74%. Across HBSC countries, the prevalence ranged from almost 9 to 55.5%. The global map of frequency of bullying indicates a higher risk in Western countries and lower risk in Eastern countries. Australia, the USA and most western European countries are medium risk. Scandinavian countries such as Sweden are at low risk, and African countries along with Canada are high risk. In concluding their report, Richardson and Hiu, perhaps over-optimistically, maintained that despite anomalies in the metrics it was possible to define, develop and validate a measure of bullying risk for global comparison. This global approach is an attempt to regularise and universalise the understanding of bullying in a positivist fashion, that is likely to mask local contextual issues. Nevertheless, the frequency differences across countries are very striking, and suggestive of a large role for cultural (macrosystem) differences. Another significant report, focusing on academic achievement and factors related to it, was released by the OECD in 2017 [25]. One feature of the wellbeing component focused on school bullying, as defined by Olweus. For the OECD countries:

146

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

• On average, 23% of students reported being bullied at least a few times a month • Boys and low-achieving students in reading reported being bullied more than girls and high-achieving students • 88% of respondents agreed that it is good to help students who cannot defend themselves and that it is wrong to join in bullying • Girls and less bullied students were more likely to report stronger anti-bullying attitudes than boys and frequently bullied students • Students frequently exposed to bullying felt sad, scared and less satisfied with their lives • Students in schools with more bullying were more likely to report a weaker sense of belonging at school and a worse disciplinary climate. Together, these reports serve to highlight why countries across the world are now beginning to take the issue of school bullying seriously, given its frequency and impact on wellbeing and its relationship with academic achievement, although the direction of causality in the latter case remains unclear. The true figures for peer victimisation may well be higher, in that under the traditional definition bullying is conceptualised relatively narrowly, and is likely not to include sexual harassment, which is widespread, harmful, and disproportionately affects girls (see Chap. 4). It also ignores ‘latent bullying’, which contributes to a climate of fear [6]. For example, Russell, a man interviewed by Charlotte Mathiassen, was not bullied, but recalled his schooldays as overshadowed by a permanent feeling of insecurity as a result of seeing others bullied: ‘… it was always there, at the back of your mind, that you could be called something or other [26].’

Factors in Effective National Responses: UNESCO In a further development in the field, there are now emerging some clearer indicators of the factors that countries and education jurisdictions need to take into account in developing responses to bullying. There currently exist a number of important publications documenting the issue of school bullying in a global context, such as that by Smith and colleagues in 2018 [27]. The 2019 UNESCO report is significant, though, for a number of reasons [28]. In outlining the factors contributing to a reduction in bullying and school violence, the report used case studies of eight countries with either a sustained reduction in bullying or a consistent and very low level of bullying, as indicated by data collected via the GSHS or the HBSC. The sites selected included world regions and education systems not often covered in bullying studies, thereby offering some new insights into creative and constructive responses to bullying. This adds nuance to gross figures in the way that paradigm 2 scholars have advocated. Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, the Republic of Korea and Uruguay had achieved reductions, while the Netherlands and Sweden had consistently low levels. Informants were presented with quantitative data for their country and asked to explain why the prevalence had decreased or remained low. The report

Factors in Effective National Responses: UNESCO

147

identified four key factors contributing to successfully addressing school violence and bullying, namely: • Political leadership and high-level commitment • Collaboration and partnerships • Evidence-based approaches, informed by accurate and comprehensive data and systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of existing programs • Training and support for teachers and care and support for affected students. The first factor concerns strong political leadership and a robust policy and legal framework for successfully addressing bullying. This is in accord with an ecological systems perspective, that the broad macrosystem (that includes cultural and legal systems) and parts of the exosystem within it (such as local education authorities) have a significant influence on bullying. As noted in the report, national and local leadership is required to send the strong policy and legal directive that school bullying and violence are unacceptable. Most education acts around the world enshrine the view that school should be a safe place for learning for all, teachers included. Regarding the second factor, while the issue of school bullying and its prevention is generally driven by the education sector, the report advocates for a multisectoral approach, observing that the national leadership provided in countries such as Sweden, Lebanon and Jamaica was complemented by multi-sectoral approaches, which is in line with systems thinking and complexity, on which we will elaborate in subsequent chapters. The third factor identified in the UNESCO report pertains to the importance of evidence-based programs and interventions. The two countries in the sample with sustained low levels of bullying (Sweden and the Netherlands) have both utilised evidence-based programs and evaluations of their efficacy, including through the Ministries of Health and Justice. The fourth factor relates to training for teachers on school violence and bullying and positive classroom management, a matter subject to a limited amount of research [29, 30]. One of us (Rosalyn) has long advocated for pre-service and in-service teacher education to better assist teachers in addressing school bullying, through developing skills such as effective communication, being able to recognise bullying (including subtle forms) and taking it seriously, managing classrooms well, modelling assertiveness, and dealing with school systems [31, 32]. The report also mentions the importance of active monitoring of school violence and bullying. Amongst the case studies cited, Korea and Sweden have annual national data collection, while the Netherlands has a tool for schools to use to monitor bullying. A common feature across the case study countries is a policy commitment, reflected in implementation at the school level, to promoting a safe and positive school and classroom environment. For example, policies in Jamaica, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and Uruguay refer to promoting a safe learning environment and a positive school climate or culture. We can trace this approach back to the early writings of educationalists such as John Dewey, with an emphasis on a childcentred approach to authentic learning, and understanding individuals in the context

148

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

of their environment and culture, which has informed more recent school climate research [33]. Applying his thinking about ‘pragmatism’, Dewey rejected the traditional information-imparting view of teaching, proposing instead an active, interactive problem-solving approach to matters of everyday life. This emphasised that it is the environment and culture of a school which impact on the learning and well-being of students [34]. Angelika Anderson and colleagues later identified links between classroom climate and student school engagement, attendance, self-efficacy and the overall quality of school life [35]. Hansen and her fellow-researchers found a relationship between classroom climate and the level of bullying, which they saw as a challenge to an individualised conception of bullying [6]. The provision of a safe, caring and participatory school climate is thus foundational for academic, social and emotional wellbeing [36]. The UNESCO report identified that, ‘Another factor common to all countries with an effective national response is a strong commitment to child rights, listening to children, and the empowerment and meaningful participation of students in initiatives to tackle school violence and bullying’ [37]. In our 2015 text Child Development: Theories and Critical Perspectives, [38] we discussed the idea of ‘student voice’ as having gained increased emphasis under the influence of ‘the new sociology of childhood’, [39] as well as long-standing psychological research viewing children as active participants in their own development. This reflects a move away from viewing young people as passive and vulnerable individuals to an outlook that values them as also having competencies and an ability to be active agents in the research process.

Illustrating the UNESCO Key Factors: An Australian Case Study Australia was identified as a ‘medium-risk’ country in the UNESCO report and we will now give some attention to how researchers and policy makers in our country have addressed bullying. The processes through which it came to be considered a significant issue requiring a response is an illustration of complex system change, in which present author Phillip was intimately enmeshed. Following Olweus’ research on bullying in Norway in the early to mid-1970s, Kai Björkqvist and colleagues undertook related work in Finland from the early 1980s, while Yohji Morita and Mitsuru Taki studied ijime in Japan, from the midto-late 1980s. There was a surge of research activity in the 1990s, by Peter Smith in England and several researchers in Canada, Spain and New Zealand. With Ken Rigby, Phillip was part of this burgeoning international research movement, publishing the first large-scale Australian study of school bullying in 1991. They surveyed the extent of bullying amongst 685 Australian school students aged 6–16 (and 32 teachers), and their attitudes towards victims of bullying. About one child in ten was subjected to peer group bullying [40]. Details were first released at a psychology conference in Sydney and attracted immediate media attention. As

Illustrating the UNESCO Key Factors: An Australian Case Study

149

observed by educational psychologists Monica Thielking and Mark Terjesen, until that study, little attention was paid to school bullying in Australian education settings: ‘At that time, the reaction of educational authorities and schools tended to be defensive. It was claimed that either no bullying or harassment was taking place, or the problem, if it existed, was being controlled through behaviour management practices [41].’ The reactions of school and education authorities at the time were along the lines of: ‘Bullying is part of human nature—it’s always been around’; ‘It’s growth enhancing—kids need toughening up!’; ‘It’s society’s problem—schools can’t solve everything’; and ‘Teachers already have too much to do’. Phillip recounts a personal story arising out of the media interest, which was magnified by the emergence of stories from parents reporting that their children were being bullied. At the time, he was teaching in a school of education in Australia and continuing to research the topic. One morning, just prior to a 10 a.m. lecture, I took a phone call from a senior bureaucrat from the state education authority. The tenor of the call was an inquiry as to whether I was continuing research on school bullying. Upon hearing that I was, the bureaucrat asked whether the findings were confirming that one in five students was reporting being ‘seriously’ bullied (once a week or more). I indicated that this was indeed found in the latest research, with students reporting physical, verbal, social and, occasionally, sexual, bullying. At this point, the bureaucrat aggressively asserted that this was not the case in Australian schools as strong behaviour management practices prevented such bullying. An inquiry was then made as to whether I would be continuing with my research. Upon hearing that I would, the bureaucrat abruptly terminated the phone call indicating that if I did continue, education department lawyers would see that I ‘never set foot in a school again’.

Unsurprisingly, the details of such a phone call were burned into Phillip’s memory. While he did find difficulty with establishing research partnerships for some time, in the longer term the bureaucrat’s threats came to nothing, in the face of the developing global concern about children’s rights and bullying, as well as that early Australian research. Notably, the Australian Government initiated a Commonwealth (i.e. national) inquiry into school violence resulting in the publication in 1994 of an influential Parliamentary House of Representatives Standing Committee report, Sticks and Stones: A Report on Violence in Schools, which featured evidence from both Phillip and Ken Rigby, amongst many others [42]. The report concluded that while overt physical violence was not a great issue in Australian schools, bullying was. The national inquiry raised questions regarding the frequency of bullying and identified the need for intervention programs. The report gave more than a passing nod to the view that bullying violates human rights, in stating that, ‘It is the right of every child to learn in a safe and happy environment without fear of emotional and physical abuse. It is the right of all teachers to work in an environment free from violence and intimidation [43].’ The report received evidence that gendered harassment was ‘one of the biggest unrecognised aspects of violence in schools’ (sometimes coming from teachers as well as boys) and suffered on a daily basis by girls and non-gender conforming students. Racist attitudes also contributed to a culture of violence, and popular soap operas watched by even young children were considered to promote belligerent and disrespectful attitudes.

150

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

Following the 1994 national inquiry the Australian Minister for Education of the time (the Hon. Brendan Nelson) led the development of the first National Safe Schools Framework (NSSF), which was implemented in 2003. This highlights a factor identified in the 2019 UNESCO report, namely the importance of strong political leadership at the national level and a robust policy and legal framework for successfully addressing bullying. Importantly, this was achieved in a bipartisan manner across both state and federal levels, and with all Australian states and territories agreeing to the establishment and support of the Framework, advocating for ‘sustained, positive approaches and an appreciation of the ways in which social attitudes and values impact on the behaviour of students in the school communities [44].’ Meanwhile, in the first large-scale national survey in 1999, Rigby and Slee collated data on approximately 25,500 primary and secondary students from over 60 Catholic, independent and public (state) schools around Australia [45]. The data were collected using the Peer Relations Questionnaire, which they developed in response to teachers’ requests for a standardised method for assessing the nature and extent of school bullying. In gathering data anonymously, care was taken (in accord with the Olweus definition) to differentiate between bullying in which there was a perceived imbalance of power, and other aggressive acts such as fighting and quarrelling between equals. Overall, between one in five and one in seven students reported being bullied once a week or more. Younger students in primary school testified to being more frequently victimised, and girls generally reported less victimisation than boys (raising the question of whether gendered victimisation was underreported). In secondary schools the amount of bullying was highest in Years 8 and 9 (students aged approximately 12–14 years). Subsequently, other researchers also gathered national data. For example, in 2009 public health researcher Donna Cross and colleagues reported that 27% of Year 4 to Year 9 Australian students reported being bullied every few weeks or more often [46]. An important factor identified in the UNESCO report is a multi-sectoral approach. It stresses the importance of school and community referral services, including health and psychological services. In subsequent revisions of Australia’s first NSSF the Department of Health was engaged, enabling the incorporation of student wellbeing as an important feature necessary for creating a safe and positive learning environment. In the Australian federated system, the individual states and territories respond to national initiatives but develop their own policies, frameworks and initiatives in response, reporting back to the Federal Government. A national coordinated multi-sectoral response to developing a definition of wellbeing and a national school mental health framework were initiated, bringing together the concepts of mental health, public health, wellbeing, school climate and bullying. The NSSF was subsequently revised and endorsed by all states and territories in 2011 and underwent further revision in 2018. It is now called the National Student Wellbeing Framework. Barbara Spears, with Phillip, observed in a recent book chapter that, ‘Reflected in the latest iterations of the NSSF is a significant shift in how negative behaviours are viewed and dealt with in school settings––no longer as individual or school problems but increasingly as complex community and social relationship issues that require community partnerships to successfully bring about change [47].’ Although bullying

Illustrating the UNESCO Key Factors: An Australian Case Study

151

research, policy and practice still draw heavily on the original Olweus concept of bullying, we can see that there has nevertheless been a considerable shift towards more systemic thinking. An increasingly multi-sectoral approach to school bullying was boosted by Federal Government funding for the creation and evaluation of mental health programs for young people. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) developed a National Action Plan for Mental Health (2006–2011) that prioritised action on promotion, prevention and early intervention for positive mental health, recognising the significant social and economic burdens engendered by failing to act on young people’s mental health [48]. Phillip led teams of researchers which evaluated nationally funded mental health initiatives in schools from 2007–2014, including the suite of programs known as KidsMatter [49]. This morphed into a new national education initiative in November 2018: Be You. This was established ‘to promote mental health and wellbeing from early years to 18 years, offering educators and learning communities evidence-based, online professional learning, along with a range of tools and resources to turn learning into action’, including Phillip’s P.E.A.C.E. Pack [50] https://beyou.edu.au/. These programs, which promote social and emotional health and wellbeing for students in educational settings, include Response Ability; KidsMatter Early Childhood; KidsMatter Primary; MindMatters; and headspace School Support. These are integrated into the National Support for Child and Youth Mental Health Program, which has two components aimed at the training and education of those who work with students: the Mental Health in Education Program and the National Workforce Support Program. The former focuses on educators, from early learning to the tertiary (pre-service) sector, and the latter on those outside the education sector who work with children from 0–12. Also at the national level, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority seeks to ‘support all Australians to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens’ [51] and acknowledges that some students require additional support to achieve these goals. This group of students is deemed to have ‘special education needs’ [52] and it is recognised that students with disabilities are at particular risk of being bullied. See, for instance, this heartbreaking story of one Australian First Nations boy with dwarfism and his mother, that went viral internationally and attracted both further online bullying and tremendous kindness: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-26/meet-the-realquaden-bayles-who-was-bullied-for-dwarfism/12670260. An example of a specific intervention regarding disability in South Australia was the production of a series of educational videos in 2013 aimed at a wide audience, about the difficulties, including bullying, facing students with Asperger’s; it was a joint enterprise between Flinders University and Autism South Australia [53]. The Education Council of Australia (2013) is the national peak body now driving the agenda for bullying prevention and wellbeing through the establishment of a Bullying and Cyberbullying Senior Officials Working Group. This comprises senior policy advisers to each state Minister for Education. The COAG (1992) and Education Council provide a forum through which strategic policy on school education, early childhood and higher education can be coordinated at the national level and through

152

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

which information can be shared, and resources used collaboratively, to address issues of national significance [44]. However, at the time of writing, the COAG has been replaced by a pandemic-focused National Cabinet, and it remains to be seen what the implications are for leadership on education and bullying. That brings us to the third factor highlighted in the UNESCO report: the use and evaluation of evidence-based programs, as in Sweden and the Netherlands. National resources incorporating aspects of evidence-based programs were developed in Australia, though not until a considerable time after the initial 1994 House of Representatives report calling for their development. The creation of the national website Bullying No Way https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/ represented an important first step in providing educators, students and parents with evidence-based resources. An important component of the national approach is to have a number of external agencies providing evidence-based resources to support schools and teachers. As well as the Be You resources, these include the Student Wellbeing Hub https://studentwellb einghub.edu.au/. What constitutes an evidence-based program and how well they in fact work is a matter we take further in a later chapter. The fourth UNESCO report factor relates to training for teachers on school violence and bullying and positive classroom management. In the Australian context, Phillip, a university teacher of undergraduate education students, has followed Australia’s initiatives regarding the training of teachers. Based on strong anecdotal evidence, he believes that teacher training courses across Australia do not, in large part, address the topic of bullying at any level of training. The best that can be said is that at individual institutions, if a lecturer has an interest in the field, they might include some information about school bullying in topics that typically address the educational psychology of behaviour management. Furthermore, the matter of teacher education raises difficult questions about the nature of bullying and what knowledge and skills teachers require, as the paradigm 2 conceptualisation challenges teacher education that is based exclusively on the traditional Olweus definition. We will discuss this further in due course. A supportive component of effective interventions identified in the UNESCO report is active monitoring of school violence and bullying. Australia lacks a national monitoring system, though there are national longitudinal studies which provide information about health, mental health and wellbeing and experiences of schooling. The individual states and territories also collect data regarding school violence and bullying and wellbeing. For example, in South Australia the Department for Education (DfE) collects data annually from students (Wellbeing and Engagement Collection) providing insight into students’ experiences of bullying and violence, belonging to school, and wellbeing. This information is used to inform evidence-based policy and programs addressing matters such as bullying. A further supportive component of effective interventions, the UNESCO report found, is a focus on a safe and positive school and classroom environment. Given the federated nature of Australia, whereby individual states and territories are responsible for school-based education with funding allocated by the Federal Government, each of the entities is largely responsible for their own budget and the allocation of the funding provided. The leadership of the responsible minister will assist in

Illustrating the UNESCO Key Factors: An Australian Case Study

153

determining the priorities. For example, in 2015, the South Australian Minister for Education received a report from Spears and colleagues about cyberbullying, sexting and the law [54]. In South Australia in 2019, under the leadership of the Minister for Education, the South Australian DfE released its multi-sectoral policy on school bullying based on a social-ecological framework guided by the vision that, ‘South Australian children and young people are thriving in safe environments that promote positive relationships, safety and wellbeing so that they can achieve their full potential [55].’ Its five guiding principles include: visible leadership; inclusive and connected communities; student voice; parents, educators, professionals and community members working together; and communities modelling, promoting and supporting positive and respectful behaviour. The DfE has developed the strategy through the South Australian Bullying Prevention Coalition, which includes Catholic and independent school sectors, the recently-established Commissioner for Children and Young People, government departments and leading bullying prevention researchers. The Coalition will guide implementation of the strategy. Initiatives under the strategy are driven by evidence-based research and include actions targeted both within and beyond the school gates. These include the provision of new resources and teacher education, the strengthening of policy requirements and school compliance measures, a partnership with the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia to support student-led initiatives, and the expansion of the P.E.A.C.E. Pack program. The inclusion of student-led initiatives reflects a further facilitative component identified by UNESCO: a commitment to child rights and empowerment, and student participation, drawing on the CRC: • Children have the right to say what they think about anything that affects them, and that what they say must be listened to and given due consideration (Article 12) and • They have the right of freedom of expression, and freedom to seek and impart information through any media of the child’s choice (Article 13). It is imperative, then, that schools seeking reform and change, and researchers, policy-makers and governments must now actively pursue children’s and young people’s ideas and views to support them in the decision-making processes. This does not mean seeking the views of a tokenistic student committee! The South Australian DfE’s anti-bullying policy emphasises that children and young people are viewed as active participants in their own learning and wellbeing, and aims to enable them to feel engaged and empowered to use their social and emotional skills to be respectful, resilient and safe. The UNESCO report also highlights the importance of a systemic approach to involving all stakeholders in the school community, citing examples from most of the case study countries. The South Australian DfE’s anti-bullying policy (2019) similarly highlights the significance of engaging with the community and various stakeholders. The policy document emphasises the importance of the strength and quality of social connections in a community, and argues that bullying is more likely to occur where the relationships are weakened between a child and their family,

154

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

their peers, family friends and community members. The P.E.A.C.E. Pack draws on systems theory and similarly emphasises community linkage. A two-year community intervention study in South Australia also highlighted this issue. It was funded by the Attorney-General’s Department and coordinated by the Crime Prevention Officer at a local community council. Participating organisations included schools, the police department, Catholic Education Office, Department of Education, Department of Human Services and Flinders University. Representatives met regularly to coordinate an intervention program in a primary and a secondary school, which had volunteered to be involved. Features of the program included efforts to create a safer learning environment by re-designing physical aspects of the school playground, consulting broadly with students, teachers, parents and community representatives such as the police on the issue of conflict, conflict resolution and protective behaviours, and actively engaging the community in programs. Although there was no control group, pre- and post-intervention surveys indicated a reduction of self-reported bullying in both schools, increased awareness of the issue in the school community (including teachers, parents and students), increased confidence in student awareness of how to cope with bullying, and increased awareness by students of how to report bullying. The challenges concerned how best to bring the various parties together, identify and set goals, and collect and analyse the data (n.b., we will discuss matters of collaborative planning and working, and leadership, in a later chapter). The primary school opted to continue with the program and further develop actions to address bullying. We close this section by observing that the very comprehensive UNESCO report also identified a number of ‘constraining factors’. These include implementing programs ‘at scale’, developing reliable reporting procedures, monitoring incidents, evaluating programs and a number of others. The interested reader is referred to the report for a fuller description. Although Australia, as a medium-risk country, has come a long way in responding to school bullying, the question can be asked as to whether, for example, a national monitoring system would be of value. However, there is little doubt that across the tertiary sector there is nationally inadequate preparation of pre-service teachers to address bullying.

Conclusions Since the Second World War, there has been a growing global acceptance of a moral philosophy of non-violent social change, of human rights in general and children’s rights specifically. These changes have formed a backdrop for action to understand and address school bullying. Since the 1970s, the paradigm 1 view has formed the main basis for research on bullying prevalence, harms and interventions. Several recent international reports have addressed the matter of prevalence in various countries, demonstrating large differences. The UNESCO report in particular has tried to assess some of the features of effective interventions. We have examined these in relation to anti-bullying and health-promoting measures taken in the state of South

Conclusions

155

Australia over the past thirty years. In summary, we can see how the state’s approach to school bullying has developed, from not recognising the issue three decades ago, to putting in place initiatives at state level in the context of national leadership. These initiatives, and the concept of bullying itself, have continued to evolve, becoming increasingly systemic, multi-sectoral and collaborative, and as part of a vision whereby schools play an essential part in a broad conception of student wellbeing. In coming chapters, we will pick up on some of the issues identified here, including the problems of program evaluation, teacher education, and collaborative working. Given that the enormous efforts to date have yielded only modest results at best, school bullying can be considered a problem that is proving hard-to-tame, though the UNESCO case studies offer some guidance for the future. In later chapters, we will consider some creative options that offer possibilities for the future, drawing particularly on systems thinking. Next, though we turn to considering school bullying as a moral issue.

References 1. Johnston, T. R. (2015). Affirmation and care: A feminist account of bullying and bullying prevention. Hypatia, 30(2), 403–417, 414. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12144. 2. Richardson, D., & Chii Fen Hiu, C. F. (2018). Developing a global indicator on bullying of school-aged children. UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti Working Paper WP-2018–11. Accessed August 4, 2021 at https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/979-developing-a-globalindicator-on-bullying-of-school-aged-children.html. 3. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ well-being, PISA. OECD Publishing. Accessed October 22, 2020 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en. 4. Meyer, E. J. (2014). New solutions for bullying and harassment: A post-structural, feminist approach. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 209–239). Cambridge University Press. 5. Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). From technically-standardised interventions to analytically informed, multi-perspective intervention strategies. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 389–404). Cambridge University Press. 6. Hansen, H. R., Henningsen, I., & Kofoed, J. (2014). When classroom culture tips into bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 267– 298). Cambridge University Press. 7. World Health Organization Violence Prevention Alliance. (2020). Definition and typology of violence. Accessed October 16, 2020 at https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/def inition/en/. 8. Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. T. (Eds.). (2009). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. Routledge. 9. Beinecke, R. H. (2015). Leadership for ‘wicked’ school mental health problems. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 15–26, 15). Routledge. 10. Cohen, W. I. (2009). Mahatma Gandhi and nonviolent resistance. Chapter 1 in Profiles in humanity: The battle for peace, freedom, equality, and human rights. Rowman & Littlefield. 11. United Nations. (2014). Secretary-general’s message on the international day of non-violence. Accessed October 22, 2020 at https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2014-10-02/sec retary-generals-message-international-day-non-violence-scroll.

156

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

12. Kripalani, K., & Meghani, M. (1969). Readings from Gandhi (p. 51). Lok-milap Publishers. 13. Kripalani, K., & Meghani, M. (1969). Readings from Gandhi (p. 49). Lok-milap Publishers. 14. Palakkappillil, J. P. (2014). The Gandhian concept of social justice. In Reisch, M. (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of social justice, pp. 3–23. Routledge. Accessed October 11, 2020 at https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315857534.ch3. 15. United Nations General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, November 20, 1989 (vol. 1577, p. 3). United Nations, Treaty Series. Accessed 1.02.2021 at https://www. refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html. 16. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2012–13). Annual Report, p. 1. Canberra, ACT: AHRC. 17. Bartoli, A., & Psimopoulos, Y. (2006). Conflict resolution and human rights. Ch. 27. In M. Deutsch, P. Coleman, & E. Markus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, 2nd edn, (pp. 602–622). Wiley & Sons. 18. Tasioulas, J. (2016). Human rights and moral obligations: Recovering the vital connection. ABC Religion and Ethics, May 4, 2016. Accessed January 14, 2021 at https://www.abc.net.au/ religion/human-rights-and-moral-obligations-recovering-the-vital-connecti/10097040. 19. Struthers, A. E. C. (2016). Human rights: A topic too controversial for mainstream education? Human Rights Law Review, Mar 16, 2016, 131–162. Accessed October 21, 2020 at https://doi. org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv040. 20. Molnar, A. (1986). ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’: Human rights as an educational problem. Educational Leadership, pp. 71–72, 71. 21. Soo, K., & Kutsar, G. (2019). Subjective wellbeing and realisation of rights in children’s perceptions. In D. Kutsar & K. Raid (Eds.), Children’s subjective wellbeing in local and international perspectives (pp. 51–66). Statistics Estonia. 22. Kutsar, D., Soo, K., & Mandel, L.-M. (2019). Schools for wellbeing? Critical discussions with schoolchildren. International Journal of Emotional Education, 11, 49–66. 23. Slee, P. T., & Ford. D. (1999). Bullying is a serious issue—it is a crime! Australian and New Zealand Journal of Education and Law, 4, 23–39. Accessed February 22, 2021 at http://www. austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZJlLawEdu/1999/3.pdf. 24. Richardson, D., & Chii Fen Hiu, C. F. (2018). Developing a global indicator on bullying of school-aged children UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti Working Paper WP-2018–11. Accessed August 4, 2021 at https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/979-developing-a-globalindicator-on-bullying-of-school-aged-children.html. 25. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ well-being, PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en 26. Mathiassen, C. (2014). Traces of being bullied: ‘Dynamic effectuality’. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 331–359, 340). Cambridge University Press. 27. Smith, P. K., Sundaram, S., Spears, B. A., Blaya, C., Schäfer, M. D., & Sandhu, D. (2018). Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 28. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019).Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. UNESCO. 29. Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219 30. Dedousis-Wallace, A., Shute, R., Varlow, M., Murrihy, R., & Kidman, A. (2014). Predictors of teacher intervention in indirect bullying at school and outcome of a professional development presentation for teachers. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 862–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.2013.785385 31. Shute, R. H. (2011). School bullying: The role of teachers. In R. H. Shute, & P. T. Slee et al. (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives. Shannon Research Press, Flinders University.

References

157

32. Shute, R. H. (2016). ‘Promotion with parents is challenging’. The role of teacher communication skills and parent-teacher partnerships in school-based mental health initiatives. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 64–74). Routledge. 33. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Pennsylvania State University. 34. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives. Routledge. 35. Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behaviour in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211–225. 36. Slee, P. T., & Skrzypiec, G. (2016). Well-being, positive peer relations and bullying in school settings. Springer. 37. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019).Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. UNESCO (p. 50). 38. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives (pp. 212–213). Routledge. 39. Matthews, S. H. (2007). A window on the “new” sociology of childhood. Sociology Compass, 1, 322–334. 40. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behaviour and attitudes towards victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00224545.1991.9924646 41. Thielking, M., & Terjesen, M. D. (2017). Handbook of Australian school psychology (p. 529). Springer. 42. Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. (1994). Sticks and stones: A report on violence in schools. Australian Govt. Pub. Service. 43. Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. (1994). Sticks and stones: A report on violence in schools (p. 1). Australian Govt. Pub. Service. 44. Spears, B., & Slee, P. T. (2020). Australia’s approach to addressing bullying and well-being: A national collective response. In J. Cohen & D. Espelage (Eds.), Feeling safe in schools: Bullying and violence prevention around the world. Harvard Education Press. 45. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1999). The nature of school bullying: Australia. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. Routledge. 46. Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L. (2009). Australian covert bullying prevalence study (ACBPS). Accessed August 4, 2021 at https://www.dese.gov.au/download/841/australian-covert-bullying-prevalence-studychapter-1/526/document/pdf. 47. Spears, B., & Slee, P. T. (2020). Australia’s approach to addressing bullying and well-being: A national collective response. In J. Cohen & D. Espelage (Eds.), Feeling safe in schools: Bullying and violence prevention around the world (p. 18). Harvard Education Press. 48. Council of Australian Governments. (2008). National action plan for mental health, 2006– 2011. ACT: COAG. 49. Slee, P. T., Lawson, M. J., Russell, A., Askell-Williams, H., Dix, K. L., Owens, L., Skrzypiec, G., & Spears, B. (2009). Kidsmatter evaluation. Final report. School of Education, Flinders University. 50. Slee, P. T. (2001). The P.E.A.C.E. Pack: A program for reducing bullying in our schools. Flinders University. 51. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). General capabilities. https://acara.edu.au/curriculum/foundation-year-10/general-capabilities. 52. Department for Education. (2014). Special educational needs and disability: A guide for parents and carers. Department for Education. Accessed October 22, 2020 at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344424/Spe cial_educational_needs_and_disabilites_guide_for_parents_and_carers.pdf.

158

10 Bullying Interventions—A Global Perspective and Local Case …

53. Wotherspoon, A., Slee, P. T., Bottroff, V., Martin, J., & Spears, B. (2016). Issues of bullying and Autism Spectrum Disorder. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 136–145). Routledge. 54. Spears, B., Slee, P. T., & Huntley, J. (2015). Cyberbullying, sexting, and the law. A report for the South Australian Minister for Education and Child Development. University of South Australia. 55. South Australian Department for Education. (2019). Connected: A community approach to bullying prevention within the school gates and beyond (p. 5). South Australian Department for Education.

Chapter 11

Bullying as a Moral Issue

In 1885, in a short story in his collection of What Men Live By, and Other Tales, Leo Tolstoy describes a king who has determined that he will be able to cope with any event if he has the answers to three questions: 1. 2. 3.

What is the best time to do each thing? Who are the most important people to work with? What is the most important thing to do at all times? Tolstoy, in this parable, describes the king as discovering that:

1. 2. 3.

The most important time is now. The present is the only time over which we have any power. The most important person is the individual you are with at that time. The most important thing is to do good to the person you are with.

(We might reflect on points 2 and 3 in these days when a person ringing on a mobile phone is often judged as more important than the person one is actually with!). As we established in Chap. 3, as a species humans are mostly peaceful and cooperative [1]. Indeed, altruism is crucial for survival, and its importance was pointed out by Darwin, even though he is more remembered for the competitive element of his theory of evolution by natural selection [2]. The social brain research that we outlined in Chap. 2 has been drawn upon by Paul Gilbert as a basis for compassion focused therapy, a form of psychological therapy that taps into our evolved affiliative and caring nature in order to offset our potential to be destructive towards ourselves and others [3]. Humans do inevitably have competing goals, and how to address those differences and live life in a moral way is a question that arises in considering some of the issues to which we have previously referred, including kindness, marginalising others and moral disengagement. The Macquarie Dictionary defines morality as ‘conformity to the rules of right conduct: moral or virtuous conduct … a doctrine or system of morals; ethics; duties’. Human rights, as we mentioned in the previous chapter, carry moral obligations, but questions of morality were of course subject to philosophical considerations by human societies around the world long before the existence of any internationally agreed approach to human rights. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_11

159

160

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

We have argued that bullying is behaviour that infringes children’s rights, and it certainly runs counter to Tolstoy’s standards for living. Those who have expressed the opinion that there is a moral dimension to bullying include Rosalyn and co-author Alicia Ellis [4], and Felix and associates [5]. Rosario Ortega states that bullying, by virtue of its nature, is ‘unjustified, malicious, harmful and intentional violence which makes it immoral’ [6] (though we would dispute that bullying is always intentional and malicious). Caroline Levasseur and co-authors suggest that bullying can be considered ‘morally charged conduct’ [7]. Furthermore, as we have mentioned previously, most children and adolescents disapprove of bullying. We begin this chapter with a broad overview of the matter of ethics and go on to discuss bullying in terms of moral development, moral disengagement and the promotion of prosocial behaviour. It is our contention that a discussion of these concepts is pivotal to a consideration of not just the content informing school-based interventions, but the idea that addressing school bullying is a moral enterprise in itself.

Leading the ‘Good Life’ We set the background with a very broad discussion of the nature of ethics because this overlaps with the subject of moral development and its association with bullying and human rights. Obviously, a full presentation of this topic is well beyond the scope of this book so we shall largely limit ourselves to a Hellenistic perspective, while recognising that other worldviews also comprehensively address the issue. Ethics is one of the many branches of philosophy along with aesthetics (beauty), epistemology (nature of knowledge) and metaphysics (the nature of the world). Beginning with Plato’s pupil Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (basically a collection of lecture notes), we are being asked the fundamental question that Tolstoy later addressed: ‘How should we live [8]?’ The early philosophers were concerned with broad inquiry into how one might lead the ‘good life’. Sometimes confused with the ‘happy life’, this can certainly be pursued in different ways. One of the most important terms associated with this concept is eudaimonia which, loosely translated, means ‘happiness’ and can also be understood as ‘flourishing’ (social and psychological wellbeing). It is distinct from the hedonic tradition with its focus on happiness as the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect. From an Aristotelian perspective, we all generally want things to go well for us and living well is pursued as an end in itself and not as a means to an end. As such, the proper life for an individual is to pursue happiness achieved by means of contemplation and rationality. Good habits are learned early in life and they develop from right behaviour. Emotions and desires are required to be regulated. In part this is achieved by applying the ‘golden mean’ (aurea mediocritus), whereby excess is avoided and moderation in all things is the guiding principle. In doing so, one is seeking virtues or to live the virtuous life. To better understand the importance of virtue, we now turn to the school of philosophy known as Stoicism.

Leading the ‘Good Life’

161

Zeno of Citium (Cyprus), in developing this new philosophy, broke away from Platonic thinking [9]. As a very practical philosophy, Stoicism is underpinned by a search for knowledge, and physics, logic and ethics are fundamental pursuits. The philosopher Chrysippus used a horticultural metaphor to explain the essential relationships between these three features. The fruits of the garden represent ethics, but to obtain good fruit, we must nurture plants with healthy nutrients (soil) and that comprises physics. Furthermore, to protect our garden,we should fence it off from unwanted and destructive influences which would only encourage weed growth, and the fence represents logic and rational thought. The world according to Stoic philosophy is material, rationally ordered and knowable. This raises the very important question of how we learn about the world. Stoicism is sharply at odds with reductionism, focusing rather on interrelatedness and emphasising that our actions are a product of stimuli we receive from our environment, generally referred to as the impressions (sensations) we receive. Our reactions to these stimuli are determined by the state of our mind and our character. As rational beings, one of the most important things we can do with impressions is to decide whether or not to accept them as reliable. That is, we can assent to, or withhold from, impressions. Impressions also provide the basis for general concepts and it is the internal management of our impressions that, in today’s terms, provides the foundations for a considerable body of knowledge in psychology (such as cognitive theory) and for a range of therapeutic interventions (such as Rational-Emotive Therapy). In a direct precedent to such cognitive therapies, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote: So make a practice at once of saying to every strong impression: ‘An impression is all that you are, not the source of the impression’. Then test and assess it with your criteria, but one primarily: ask, ‘Is this something that is, or is not, in my control?’ [10]

Truth is seen as the correspondence of our impressions to the world as perceived. In many respects, the fruits of the garden (ethics) represent the most distinguishing feature of Stoicism. The pursuit of eudaimonia (living life fully and deeply) is a central component of an ethical outlook and in turn virtue, or the excellence of a human being, is to be pursued in its own right. This perspective contrasts with a Sophist one that emphasises pursuing virtues for what they can provide, such as personal success and wealth. Focusing on virtue, Stoicism maintains there are four fundamental types: justice, courage, wisdom, and moderation or self-control. The virtues are tightly interlinked, such that one cannot be, for example, simultaneously wise and lacking in self-control. Virtue was considered by Stoics to be sufficient for happiness. ‘Live according to nature’ encompasses a great deal of Stoic philosophy. As Epictetus noted in Enchiridion X: ‘For every challenge, remember the resources you have within you to cope with it’ [11]. Human beings in general strive for that which is positive and good, which goes to the heart of any discussion regarding moral development. Aristotle opens his Nicomachean Ethics by stating that ‘every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good, and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim’ [12]. The Greek term for

162

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

virtue is arete which, broadly translated, refers to ‘excellence’. This quality is best pursued as an active quest for knowledge and understanding and for distinguishing between what is good and bad. We achieve this by applying reason and, in doing so, we should be acting to regulate our desires, emotions and behaviours, in accord with the aurea mediocritus: not too much, not too little; avoid excess and deficiency; moderation in all things. Properly regulated emotions are considered as virtues (and, as we have already observed, children with poor emotional regulation are more likely to be caught up in bullying). Ultimately, a person’s eudaimonia consists in continuous activity over a lifetime in accordance with virtue. A person of ‘good character’ is a person who has been able to ingrain these virtues into his/her very being. Moral virtues, then, are excellent traits of character such as generosity, kindness, thoughtfulness and concern for others which, importantly, dispose us to act towards ourselves and others in certain positive ways. We have suggested already that school bullying is a form of unkindness. Moreover, as human beings, our rational social nature is intimately linked to a desire for justice. These issues bring us to a consideration of moral development.

Theories of Moral Development There is a range of theories proposing to explain the course of moral development. Psychoanalytic theory, with its tripartite view of personality (id, ego and superego), highlights the role of the superego. In evolutionary terms, Freud argued that all humans inherit a rudimentary form of conscience present in the superego at birth. In his book Civilization and its Discontents, he proposed that there are two stages in developing a ‘bad conscience’ [13]. In the first stage, it is fear of losing love that gives rise to a sense of guilt. In the second stage the ego is seeking to balance the demands of the instinct-driven id and the exacting demands of the superego, and guilt is experienced when the ego succeeds in disobeying the superego. Psychopaths, however, use others as a means to their own ends without guilt and are exceptions to Gandhi’s belief that everyone has a conscience; in discussing the upbringing of Cold War British spy and double agent Kim Philby, Rosalyn proposes that his emotionless, instrumental and deceptive approach to the world developed in response to a domineering father and severe disruptions of his early attachments to caregivers, coupled with a harsh educational environment [14]. While humans have an evolved capacity for empathy, it needs to be nurtured epigenetically through appropriate social interactions. The social learning model, largely developed by Canadian-US psychologist Albert Bandura, highlights that moral behaviour is learned. The child’s sense of morality is learned both by watching key adults and through their interventions in shaping a child’s moral behaviour. Bandura’s most famous study showed how children would behave aggressively towards a rocking inflatable Bobo doll if they had observed an adult doing so [15]. We will return to aspects of Bandura’s theory shortly.

Theories of Moral Development

163

Piaget’s pioneering work on moral development is an aspect of his cognitivedevelopmental theory [16]. He proposed that children progress (more or less) through a series of ‘stages’ in their moral development. In stage 1 rules, obligations and commands laid down by adults are accepted by the child, if not always followed. Stage 2 sees the development of the concept of ‘justice’, focused around rule-governed behaviour. In stage 3, consideration is given to motives, intentions and individual circumstances in making a moral judgement. Lawrence Kohlberg, in advancing Piaget’s cognitive-developmental approach, elaborated on his stage theory, again with a focus on justice, with the following of universal ethical principles as the pinnacle of development [17]. Those who consistently behaved in that way proved hard to find, and Kohlberg’s theory has been subject to critique from feminist and cultural perspectives, which we consider a little later [18]. Recent theorising in the field of moral development supports the idea that a more complex perspective is needed. Jeremy Frimer and Lawrence Walker have argued that ‘moral psychology is between paradigms’ and requires ‘a new paradigm of moral personhood’ [19]. Don Reed and Riley Stoermer agree, suggesting that what is needed is a paradigm ‘that encompasses not only personality but, also, on the one hand, the brain and central nervous system and, on the other hand, interaction and culture’ [20]. In further developing such arguments, it has been proposed by Minkang Kim and Derek Sankey that a dynamic systems approach offers a way forward [21]. This is Thelen and Smith’s theory of development, that we introduced in Chap. 2, and a basic premise of its application to moral development is that it shares the same complex dynamic processes found within the whole of human development. Though sometimes understandable in a linear and quantitative way, these authors suggest, human development is also nonlinear and qualitative, continually in flux, changing and stabilising in response to experience and situation [22]. They also maintain (as we are doing in supporting a new paradigm for bullying) that this new perspective does not invalidate what has been achieved before, but it does set it within a particular historical and conceptual context.

Feminist Theory and the Morality of Bullying As we mentioned in an earlier chapter, Schott’s philosophical analysis of bullying as a process of marginalisation is partly informed by feminist theory, though she does not lay out a specifically feminist approach [23]. Feminist theorising has more often been related to sexual harassment, as differentiated from bullying, though both Duncan and Meyer have long viewed school bullying through a feminist lens [24, 25]. Nevertheless, Johnston suggested in 2015 that there had been ‘no sustained philosophical reflection on bullying, nor has there been a feminist analysis of the growing literature on bullying’ [26]. Insofar as this is true, we would suggest that it can be related to the separate fields within which the standard scientific approach to bullying and postmodernism/feminism tend to operate and with, indeed, some antagonism between them [27].

164

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

Although publishing his piece in a feminist philosophical outlet, Johnston does adhere to a standard scientific definition of bullying in terms of a power differential, intentionality and repetition (though also allowing for a single instance to count as bullying in some circumstances). He is concerned to differentiate bullying from systematic oppression such as homophobia or classism but is clear that both must be addressed, with the bullying literature ‘troublingly silent’, as we mentioned previously, on matters of social justice [28]. The field of psychology, that has dominated bullying research, is divided on such matters, with some psychologists strongly engaging with social justice issues and others fearing that such (inevitably political) involvement will taint the discipline’s claim to scientific objectivity [27]. Our perspective is compatible with Johnston’s broad view, in seeing bullying as separate from, but affected by, systematic oppressive forces, so that both local and cultural factors offer possibilities for prevention and intervention; his view adds a moral imperative for action. Johnston acknowledges that complex views about bullying can be hard to translate into bullying prevention and intervention practices but suggests that this can be done by focusing on what he calls affirmation and affirmative feedback loops in the development of the relational self. Essentially, this is the same point, using different terminology, that our independent reflections on a wide range of literatures have led us to: that is, that the reinforcement (or not) of social identity and a sense of belonging lie at the core of marginalisation and, potentially, bullying. Our lonely boarding-school writer at the end of Chap. 2 experienced a wretched lack of such affirmation: ‘I’m one of them, nobody in particular’. The moral dimension that Johnston introduces draws on the work of feminist care ethicists. Of these, readers may be most familiar with the research of Carol Gilligan, who expanded the individually based ‘rights and justice’ approach to moral understanding of Kohlberg [29]. In the progressive USA of the 1960s, she identified that Freud, Piaget, and her colleagues Kohlberg and Erikson, had focused on the development of males and considered females developmentally deficient, including in moral understanding. She went on to find that women were more likely than men to take an approach to morality that focuses on responsibility and care in relationships, though neither approach proved unique to one gender. Both care and justice orientations were later endorsed by Deutsch as essential for successfully resolving the conflicts that life inevitably throws up: one needs to remain a moral person, both caring and just, and to similarly view the other party as a member of one’s moral community, equally deserving of care and justice [30]. Drawing on the writings of US philosopher Virginia Held, Johnston focuses on the matter of caring for the emotional wellbeing of others, such caring being based on the daily building and rebuilding of human connectedness. He relates a fairness and justice moral orientation to zero-tolerance bullying policies, whereby an individual who breaks the rules against bullying is punished; this does not address the underlying factors, and the ‘enjoyment’ of bullying may outweigh any deterrence value of punishment. By contrast, an ecological perspective allows for a consideration of identity construction as being an ongoing project that is undertaken in collaboration with others, our individual traits only developing and being meaningful in relational

Feminist Theory and the Morality of Bullying

165

contexts. Identity is regularly affirmed through positive interactions with others, but bullying destroys this process and may instead reinforce for the victim their perceived negative features, promoting a shameful sense of self and undermining wellbeing. This is how, Johnston suggests, a single act of non-affirmation can constitute bullying, if it shatters the victim’s affirmed sense of self. This places the effect on the victim at the core of bullying. They may even come to believe they deserve being bullied (as when some bullied children abuse themselves on social media) [31]. He proposes that an ecological approach encourages us to seek the reasons for the non-affirming behaviour of the bully––this is part of what we have termed a functional analysis of bullying (see Chap. 5). Under an ethic of caring, affirmation becomes an ‘ethical norm’ for analysing bullying situations, though it does not offer quick and easy solutions. As moral agents, Johnston says, once we recognise that processes of affirmation exist, it becomes a moral imperative to try and understand bullying from the point of view of an ethics of care. This is in accordance with the prosocial and kindness approaches we advocate, but it goes further in explicitly involving those with the potential to intervene in bullying. Johnston acknowledges that other philosophical approaches to morality, such as utilitarianism, may also demonstrate affirmation as being a duty or having a positive effect, but that an ethics of care needs to be prioritised as it brings out the connection between epistemology and a moral obligation to not stand outside, but to participate in, affirmative feedback loops. To translate this into terms of systems theory (on which we will elaborate in the following chapter), the intervener (e.g. researcher, teacher, parent, peer, legislator) is recognised as being an active participant in a system that either sustains or undermines bullying, and their moral choices play a crucial role. Zero-tolerance can be seen as creating ‘first-order change’ that is superficial and short-term. This is not to deny that ‘justice’ may sometimes need to be invoked, for example, to reinforce a system’s moral code that has been broken. However, Johnston suggests, an ethics-of-care approach that is mindful of a broad range of ecological factors has greater potential to disrupt a pattern of non-affirmation (marginalisation or bullying) by promoting the taking of an active part in those loops, by a potential intervener, and flipping the pattern into a qualitatively different, affirmative one (known, in systems theory, as ‘second-order change’). A simple example of this process is that Rosalyn’s mother, as a child, had a stammer that was cruelly mocked by a shopkeeper and that undermined her confidence to speak up at school. A teacher took her aside one day and created a wonderful vision of a future where she would be able to speak clearly to a roomful of attentive listeners. The child hung onto the dream of this new possible self and indeed became an able public speaker. Just as a single instance of bullying can sometimes destroy a person, a single act of affirmation can sometimes have a far-reaching positive effect. May Webber has suggested the explicit teaching of moral philosophies in schools, as a form of anti-bullying intervention, and we would suggest adding the ethics-of-care approach to the list of philosophies that she has drawn upon [32]. It may have a particular resonance with girls (and some boys). Affirmation by the peer group is

166

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

also part of a primary school anti-bullying program, based on prosociality, devised by Veronica Morcom [33]. We will elaborate on both these programs in a later chapter.

Cultural Perspectives on Bullying and Morality Bullying has different names and manifestations cross-culturally. We referred previously to Japanese research on bullying, and Pacific rim researchers have made a particularly important contribution to understanding the complex nature of the phenomenon, highlighting the powerful effects of marginalisation. For example, it has been argued that the Japanese understanding of bullying is different from that of western countries. In the late 1970s, Japan had a serious problem with school violence (kounai bouryoku) in lower and upper secondary schools. This involved vandalism and physical violence amongst peers and against teachers and was recognised as largely a problem associated with boys’ physically aggressive behaviour. Although most educators and researchers focused on such school violence in this period, a small number of them had discovered a new type of aggression unlike physical violence. It was labelled ijime or yowaimono ijime which translated means to ‘ill-treat’, ‘treat someone harshly’, ‘be insensitively cold to someone’, ‘be cruel to someone’, ‘tease’, ‘annoy’ and so on. Some researchers, such as Hyojin Koo [34], noted that ijime has three characteristic features: it involves group behaviour, is of long duration and is invisible (artful, guileful or tricky). While ijime was less obviously violent than kounai bouryoku, it was nonetheless considered harmful. The Japanese research provides us with some important insight into the dynamics of school bullying as reflected in deliberate and malicious acts of marginalisation or exclusion of ‘the other’ from the group. The study of bullying in contemporary South Korean culture was not really undertaken until the beginning of 2000 [34]. In Korea, wangtta is the most popular word coined to enable a better understanding of student peer difficulties and problems. Wang means ‘entirety’, ‘all’, ‘largeness’, ‘many’, or ‘seriousness’ and tta means ‘to make outcast from peers or class’. That is, wangtta indicates total casting-out and rejection (ostracism), or the highest or worst level of bullying. It captures very dramatically the idea of marginalisation of the other which carries serious consequences for the victim. In treating bullying as a moral issue, we need to consider that perspectives on morality are intimately connected to cultural beliefs about the self. The notion of the individual self has been privileged in western philosophy and psychological research but, as we noted previously, this is not a universal preoccupation. Joan Miller pointed out that Kohlberg’s justice ethic reflects a western (or, more specifically, a USA) view that concerns how the individual makes personal decisions in weighing up responsibility to the self against that owed to others [35]. While a lack of justice (harming others) is seen as a moral vice, a lack of beneficence, or helping, is merely a lack of virtue. Beneficence is seen as going beyond that which is strictly necessary and is subject to not overtaxing one’s resources—after all, it is impossible to help all

Cultural Perspectives on Bullying and Morality

167

in need. Responsibilities are influenced by loyalty to, and norms of, ingroups, as with the student Miller quotes as saying that, ‘… you have a responsibility to kids in this school, even if you don’t like them all that much’ [36]. However, responsibility to others is seen as subordinate to justice, and there is an underlying individual rightsbased morality that prioritises autonomy, and can be seen in the views of Kohlberg, Immanuel Kant, and US philosopher John Rawls. This was exemplified by those, especially in the USA, who maintained they had a right not to wear a face mask in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, thus placing others, as well as themselves, at risk of infection [37]. Indeed, wearing or not wearing a mask became a symbol of political identity, rather than public health, in the 2020 presidential election. Gilligan’s ethic of caring, by contrast, emphasises achieving a balance between the needs of the individual self and those with whom one is connected, taking account of context. However, Miller maintains, even Gilligan’s broader perspective is based on individual choice and insufficiently accounts for cultural differences. As an example of a non-western view, Miller considered Hindus in India, whereby acting morally towards others involves an obligation. Caring for others is a duty, that depends on a person’s position in the social structure, as Mahatma Gandhi understood, but there is no implication, as in the West, that duty is somehow a restriction on the self. Rather, carrying obligations towards others is part of who one is, and the idea of ‘finding oneself’ in a western sense is totally alien. Fulfilling one’s obligations to others in accordance with one’s social roles and status constitutes an achievement of spiritual merit. It is clear, then, that morality-based approaches––or indeed any approaches–– to bullying need to be culturally sensitive. We as authors recognise that, coming from western backgrounds, we hold particular worldviews that influence the perspectives we put forward, and that thoughtless efforts to export western bullying programs to other cultures are doomed to failure. Considerable efforts must be made to adapt programs to the culture concerned, as Phillip is very aware, with his P.E.A.C.E. Pack having been translated and adapted for use in several countries, in both the West and East. We acknowledge that our personal backgrounds are western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic (WEIRD) and that the vast majority of psychological research is equally so, and not representative of the majority world [38]. For example, the emphasis on ‘intentions’ in making judgements about morality in general (and bullying in particular) is a western concept, with many cultures focusing instead on actions, so that killing someone either intentionally or accidentally reaps the same level of punishment (Piaget, a western researcher, regarded a moral focus on outcomes, rather than intentions, as being a developmental stage of young children). Cross-cultural dialogue can be enlightening. Toda speaks of the adaptation of western bullying programs to the Japanese context as being like anpan (beanpastefilled bread rolls): western on the outside but Japanese in the middle [39]. The converse is reflected in the philosophy of Irish/British writer Iris Murdoch, which has undergone a recent resurgence of attention in terms of ‘unselfing’ [40]. This interest may be related in part to the twenty-first century popularity of Buddhist and mindfulness approaches to mental health in the West; this includes the burgeoning use of mindfulness programs in schools, despite a lack of strong evidence for their efficacy in that context and of attention to developmental issues [41, 42]. Murdoch

168

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

was interested in Buddhist philosophy and, for her, unselfing is similarly the process of respecting and cherishing that which is not the self, including other people and the world at large. It represents a shift along Kagitcibasi’s dimension of relatedness. Terry Hyland makes a link between unselfing and Aristotle’s idea that we become just by acting justly, Hyland [40] proposing that unselfing has both educational and moral implications. Hyland points out that the use of mindfulness programs in (western) schools tends to be instrumental: to improve individual mental health or academic attainment. By contrast, he exhorts a consideration of unselfing as offering a broad view of education as concerning character and morality. Such an approach places bullying prevention as part of a greater moral endeavour.

To Help or Not to Help? To use the words of Susan Blakemore, ‘Humans are an exquisitely social species’ [43]. Indeed, as we discussed at some length in Chap. 2, ‘no component of our civilisation would be possible without large-scale collective behaviour’ [44]. From a relationships perspective, extreme marginalisation, or bullying, is a painfully hurtful social act no matter the culture or context. We have highlighted that having evolved as highly social creatures who gain our sense of identity and respect through belonging to social groups, we underestimate at our peril the effects of social rejection. Research, including the cross-cultural work of Japanese researchers, highlights poignantly the emotional anguish of being marginalised. An important challenge then arises related to understanding how the capacity of human beings for demonstrating prosocial behaviour exists alongside the demonstrable fact that we can on occasion also marginalise the other, deliberately or otherwise. It is a question of significant import, particularly in designing interventions, how it is that individuals can disengage from humane acts and instead commit inhumane, harassing, harming and plain unkind actions against others. A great deal of research has focused on the relationship between bullying perpetrator and victim, something that has been subject to considerable critique by paradigm 2 scholars as simplistic. Even within paradigm 1, it became understood that this relationship also incorporates the bystanders who witness the bullying and who have a very active role to play in encouraging or discouraging the bullying. From a social psychology perspective, the ‘bystander effect’ is a long-researched topic. Those wondering why others do not assist those in danger or in emergency situations have proposed a number of explanations including a breakdown in the ‘moral fabric of society’, ‘dehumanisation’ or ‘anomie’. Following the New York street murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, when reportedly none of 38 witnesses assisted or called the police, social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané examined this phenomenon and found that in an emergency situation people may not assist for any number of reasons including fear of physical harm or public embarrassment [45]. (In fact, several witnesses in that case had attempted to call the police.) Darley and Latané’s Situational Decision Model of Bystander Intervention suggests that

To Help or Not to Help?

169

victim distress awareness triggers a situational analysis based on the presence of others and how the witnesses think these others present want them to react. Their research showed that the more people that were present at an incident the less likely or the more slowly a bystander would intervene (diffusion of responsibility). An alternative model, the Cost-Reward Model, proposes that distress awareness triggers an evaluation of the costs and rewards of (non)intervention [46]. According to that model, people seek to maximise personal gains and minimise personal losses. Both may apply in the case of bystanders to bullying. The Situational Decision Model considers the expectations of others, such as the norms of the peer group: in deciding whether to intervene, I consider whether my salient ingroup is pro-bullying or antibullying. And applying the Cost-Reward Model: How big a social price will I pay by intervening (how great is my social exclusion anxiety)? Of course, the challenge here is to explain many instances in which the models do not hold and ‘heroes’ intervene. Even in non-human species, there are illustrative cases of ‘selflessness’, such as African Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus) that have been shown in experiments to ‘happily’ help each other to acquire treats at some cost to themselves, though reciprocation may later occur. Humans will sometimes go to great lengths to help others, even at enormous personal cost and with no expectation of reciprocation or reward. Louis Slotin was a nuclear physicist working on the atomic bomb project in 1946 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, USA. At one crucial point in an experiment, Slotin badly mishandled the apparatus and a chain reaction involving plutonium ensued, causing a burst of dangerous radiation. Slotin ended the reaction by removing a critical piece of apparatus with his bare hands, knowingly exposing himself to a very large dosage of radiation. He then had his seven co-workers mark their exact positions in the room so that measurements could be made of their degree of exposure to the radioactivity. Slotin subsequently died from his exposure but his companions recovered (at least, in the short term). It may strike some as ironic that this selfless act occurred in the context of making bombs capable of killing thousands. Another selfless hero was Arland Williams, who in 1982 was a passenger on a plane that crashed into the freezing Potomac River in Washington D.C.; he drowned after helping the other five survivors (total strangers) to each escape in turn via a rope dangling from a helicopter [47]. In focusing on bystander behaviour, another complexity is that it changes over time in any one individual. As Frits Goossens and colleagues have observed, defending others becomes less frequent during the transition into adolescence, with ‘outsider’ behaviour becoming more frequent; it is therefore important, they suggest, for research to focus on methods for engaging bystanders to intervene [48]. This especially holds true for the development of successful intervention programs. Phillip conducted a study on why students would not intervene in bullying [49]. The research involved over 5000 students from 5 to 16 years with a mean age of 11, from a range of schools around Australia. The students responded to the question, ‘What would stop you from helping a child who was being bullied?’ Amongst those aged six years or less (junior primary), their strong belief was that it is the teacher who should put a stop to any bullying, followed by a fear of being picked on in return if they did attempt to intervene. Those aged 6–12 still believed that the teacher should put a

170

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

stop to any bullying, but there was an increase in the number fearing being picked on, and in the number believing, it was none of their business. Secondary school students were more likely to believe that it was none of their business, followed by a fear of being picked on in return. Most notable was a significant linear increase over the years in students reporting that it is ‘none of my business’ from approximately 17% to 39%, and in ‘fear of being picked on in return’ from 20 to 31%, as well as a decrease in the belief that the ‘teacher should stop it’ from 49 to 16%. On the face of it, then, this research supports a developmental perspective on the issue of supporting or helping others. Laura Lambe and associates have recently reviewed the literature on the defending of bullied peers, using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model [50]. Fewer than 20% of witnesses of offline bullying intervene, while there is great variability in online defending, with up to a half intervening, in a context where there can often be anonymity. When defending occurs, it is effective in reducing bullying and raises victims’ sense of peer acceptance and self-esteem. There are large differences in defending between different peer groups and classes, with norms playing a part. They found similar profiles of defenders in both traditional and cyberbullying. Those most likely to defend others are girls, those with high empathy and low moral disengagement, those who are popular, well-liked by their peers, socially skilled and with warm relationships with their families. Boys are more likely to defend by physical aggression directed at the bully, while girls are more likely to intervene with victims, such as by comforting them, especially if the bullying was verbal. Physical, longer lasting and sexualised bullying were more likely to be reported to teachers. The authors concluded that defending is a complex behaviour, with little known as yet about how factors at these various ecological levels interact. Further complexity arises from a study by Michael Levy and Thomas Gumpel, in Israel, who found that bystanders have different styles that lie on a continuum and are fluid rather than fixed [51]. Some defend overtly, while others (help-seekers) aid the victim indirectly by calling on others to help. The authors suggest the value of such indirect interventions, which may preserve the defender from retaliation.

Moral Disengagement: How Can Good People Do Bad Things? According to Larry Nucci, when it comes to the matter of attending to the welfare and wellbeing of others, morality refers to ‘conceptions of human welfare, justice, and rights, which are functions of the inherent features of interpersonal relations’ [52]. In his social cognitive theory of moral agency, Bandura outlined the idea of moral disengagement as a social-cognitive mechanism whereby an individual will justify their conduct (such as hurtful or harmful behaviour) towards another [53, 54]. Simply put, people have two choices: to act humanely or inhumanely. Inhumane, unkind or harmful behaviour becomes possible when a person can justify such behaviour.

Moral Disengagement: How Can Good People Do Bad Things?

171

Psychologist Gregg Henriques suggests that the language-enabled capacity to justify our actions is the very thing that makes humans unique; that Homo sapiens is the ‘justifying animal’ [55]. As Bandura describes it, there exist various psychological mechanisms by which good people may justify doing bad or even horrible things to one another, and this may also help us to understand why they may not intervene in observed bullying. The process known as cognitive restructuring refers to beliefs and arguments that serve to frame harmful conduct in a positive light. The first mechanism involves rendering the act as personally and socially commendable while morally justifying the behaviour as serving an honourable or worthwhile cause and protecting values and beliefs. For example, the victim ‘deserved’ to be bullied because their behaviour was inconsistent with the group’s behaviour or beliefs. A second mechanism Bandura calls ‘advantageous comparison’ and involves the individual justifying the act, such as violence preventing an even greater act of violence from occurring. A third, which we have mentioned previously, involves the use of euphemistic language; for example, in a recent series of killings of people of colour in the USA, newspaper headlines depicted the events as ‘officer involved shootings’ which concealed the police department’s own aggressive actions. Displacement or diffusion of responsibility occurred, for example, when Nazi officers in World War II justified their own genocidal acts as merely ‘following orders’ (an issue also current in Australia in the context of alleged murders of civilians by Australian SAS soldiers in Afghanistan). A fifth mechanism involves denying that the behaviour had an injurious effect, such as claiming bullying was ‘just harmless fun’. Still another involves attributing blame to the other individual, such as saying that a victim of bullying ‘asked for it’. Here, Swedish research provides some further insight. Thornberg and Delby, in a qualitative study of students’ explanations for bullying behaviour, identified the idea of ‘victim construction’: ‘in bullying, a victim’s appearance, personality and behaviour are socially interpreted and co-constructed as odd, different or “deviant”’ [56]. Also observed by numbers of other paradigm 2 researchers, this facilitates the attribution of blame to the victim, allowing for moral disengagement from the act of bullying. Levasseur and colleagues found that both moral disengagement and moral judgements about bullying scenarios were related to the bullying roles that Canadian adolescents were identified by peers as having taken [7] ‘Bullies’ displayed greater disengagement than defenders of victims, and defenders were harsher judges of bullying than others, but such judgements depended on context. ‘Bullies’ regarded perpetrators as more deserving of punishment, possibly on the basis of their own experience. Bully-leaders were more likely to use personal justification for bullying, such as ‘just having fun’, as well as authority-figure-based judgements (‘socialconventional reasoning’), while bully-followers also displayed social-conventional reasoning, but in terms of following peer group norms. The authors suggest that the results support the notion that moral reasoning is domain-related, and that antibullying programs should take this into account, in putting forward the idea that moral principles are universal and not dependent on the reactions of others. The confronting fact is that there is all too frequently a yawning gap between our attitudes, intentions and beliefs about what is the right thing to do and our behaviour.

172

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

A question which then arises concerns whether the ability to reason morally is sufficient to illuminate an individual’s moral explanations for engaging in an act such as bullying. Bandura suggested that it is not, and that the translation of moral knowledge or reasoning into moral conduct is primarily achieved through self-regulatory mechanisms based on moral standards and self-sanctions [57]. It is here that the concept of moral emotions has been proposed as a substantial source of motivation for moral conduct. Moral emotions represent an important but often overlooked element of our human moral apparatus, yet they may be critically important in understanding people’s behavioural adherence (or not) to their moral standards. Jonathan Haidt defines moral emotions as those ‘that are linked to the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent’ [58]. Those commonly identified in research are empathy, sympathy and guilt [59]. The significance of moral emotions is their role in enabling an individual to do good and avoid doing bad [60]. These emotions respond to moral violations and motivate moral behaviour. Kurt Grey and Daniel Wegner propose that moral emotions are dyadic in nature, requiring an agent (who performs an act) and a patient (who receives an act). The act can be helpful of harmful. This can be mapped onto a two dimensional space, and this configuration is what they suggest is unique about moral emotions [61]. The first dimension is that of ‘help-harm’ and the second is ‘agent-patient’ as experienced by an external observer [61] (Fig. 11.1). This orthogonal arrangement places moral emotions into four quadrants that give rise to four moral exemplars, or ways in which people divide up the moral world, and associated emotions. • Agent provides help (heroes/heroines)—elevation (inspires inspiration or awe in others). • Patient receives help (beneficiaries)—evokes relief and happiness. • Agent does harm (villains)—produces anger and disgust. • Patient receives harm (victims)—results in sympathy or sadness. Emotions in different quadrants are said to be mutually exclusive so that, for example, feeling anger towards someone makes it difficult to also experience Fig. 11.1 Structure of morality and moral emotions. (Adapted from Grey and Wegner [61])

Help Beneficiaries

Hero(in)es

Agent

PaƟent

VicƟms

Villains Harm

Moral Disengagement: How Can Good People Do Bad Things?

173

sympathy for them, while emotions aroused by agents and patients are complementary. For example, a bystander might feel anger towards a bully, and sympathy for the target of bullying. Conversely, they might side with the bully and see them as the ‘hero’ who rightly attacks the target, who is the villain who deserves to be bullied. Philip Zimbardo, in revisiting his Stanford prison experiment, used the notion of heroes. He suggested that, while most people will allow themselves to become swept along by a tide of abuse resulting from group social forces, a few are prepared to stand out against it [62]. They potentially put their own ingroup status on the line because of a moral view that what is happening is wrong and needs to be resisted. Prime examples are the various people across Europe who hid Jewish people during the Second World War to save them from extermination, at the risk of their own lives, and recent attempts by an Australian army whistleblower to report atrocities by troops in Afghanistan (for his trouble, potentially facing life in prison) [63]. On a smaller scale, we have seen that most children and adolescents do not approve of bullying, and some will stand up against it.

Empathy as a Moral Emotion Research on children’s prosocial behaviour, empathy and cooperation has been around for several decades [64, 65]. Since the Positive Psychology movement began to emerge in 1998, [66] the field of psychology more generally has moved from an almost exclusive focus on dysfunction to also consider a range of human behaviours such as helping and forgiveness, empathy as an evolved human capacity, emotions such as compassion and gratitude, and happiness as a state of being [67]. The development of a children’s kindness scale, as noted in a previous chapter, is a recent reflection of this shift [68]. Neurological and physiological underpinnings have also been studied, such as the fact that the breastfeeding hormone oxytocin is produced in both males and females, acts as a neurotransmitter (with specific receptors in the brain) and promotes social bonding. It fosters the favouring of ingroups, including one’s own nation [69, 70]. Oxytocin is not just a ‘positive’ hormone, therefore, but is associated with exclusionary processes too. Within the field of school bullying, especially in relation to school-based interventions, empathy has been the focus of considerable research. We have argued that Homo sapiens has evolved as a highly social species, with pressures to both compete and cooperate with others, and with group belonging central to wellbeing. At times, this results in ‘good people doing bad things’ to others, and this evokes moral justification which serves the purposes of maintaining self-concept and reputation as ‘a good person’. However, on the other side of the coin, we can also consider the role of empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour in humans and other animals, whereby sensitivity to the suffering of another, in combination with a drive to support their welfare, promotes helping behaviour and positive group living [71]. This can be considered from a strengths based perspective and the capacity for individuals to

174

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

change and develop new (‘better’) behaviours. As Bandura has said, in the context of Positive Psychology, ‘A society in which individuals strive to maximise their wellbeing with little regard for others would become an egocentric and divisive one. In contrast, a society in which individuals invest their well-being in the well-being of others as well would function more humanely, equitably, and with a sense of civic commitment’ [72]. The concept of empathy is commonly understood as the capacity to feel for another. Broadly, empathy motivates people to help others and stirs a desire for justice. For example, teachers who are highly empathic are more likely than others to take indirect bullying between students seriously [73]. Researchers including Mark Dadds and associates distinguish between cognitive and affective empathy [74]. Generally understood, cognitive empathy is the awareness and understanding of another person’s perspective and feelings, while affective empathy is the ability to share the feelings of others. Tait Shanafelt and colleagues have described the difference between the two components [75]. An individual has an emotive response to the feelings that another is experiencing when exercising the affective component of empathy, but must renounce being completely self-orientated to gain insight into another’s perspective and the effect it has on feelings, in order to have cognitive empathy. This distinction is important as there is some evidence that possessing advanced ‘theory of mind’ skills enables some who bully to better target their victims [76]. There are mixed findings on the relationship between empathy and bullying [76– 78]. A meta-analysis has found that overall, being low in both affective and cognitive empathy is associated with bullying others (especially for bully-victims), but the relationship is stronger for affective empathy [79]. Those with psychopathic traits (mainly males), who lack affective empathy but have very good cognitive empathy, may use it to manipulate others [80] or even to deliberately hurt them, including by engaging in online trolling [81]. Defenders of bullying victims score highly on both types of empathy. Developmentally, it has been claimed that there is a consistent negative correlation between aggression and affective empathy in adolescents but not in children [82]. To assume, then, that the development of empathy will reduce bullying is simplistic. Nevertheless, high levels of empathy have been associated with prosocial behaviour, and that is where we turn next.

Prosocial Behaviour and Bullying As zoologist Timothy Clutton-Brock has observed, it is puzzling from an evolutionary standpoint that members of a species sometimes help others to obtain benefits, even at a cost to themselves [83]. As we saw previously, an African Grey Parrot will voluntarily and spontaneously help familiar parrots to achieve a goal, without obvious immediate benefit to themselves and further, unlike primates, will display no anger or envy if one of their friends receives favourable treatment. While much remains to be learned about such complexities, we outlined in Chap. 2 some of the evolutionary

Prosocial Behaviour and Bullying

175

theories proposed to account for prosocial behaviour. This podcast is also helpful: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b0639wy3. Prosocial behaviour includes sharing, helping, cooperating, showing sympathy and kindness, and taking the perspective of another person [49]. It is ‘voluntary, intentional behaviour that results in benefits for another person’ and if there is no expectation of reward it is also regarded as altruistic [84]. Its relation to school bullying is important because of the link with moral emotions. A meta-analysis has indicated that moral emotions predict high levels of prosocial and low levels of antisocial behaviour [85]. Moral emotions therefore play a regulatory role in social interaction, promoting or inhibiting behaviour and attitudes that may be harmful to others. Loes van Rijsewijk and co-authors studied adolescent prosocial behaviour using network analysis, asking participants ‘Who helps you?’ [86]. The findings are informative in relation to the importance of peer groups, as would be expected in the light of Social Identity Theory. Amongst their findings was that low- and highpopular adolescents less often helped each other, which was also the case amongst popular adolescents, where one might expect more intense jockeying for status. There was reciprocation between helping groups, though while rejected adolescents received help more often, they tended not to help their less-rejected peers. Boys and depressed young people were less helpful, while low academic achievers received help from higher-achieving peers. The authors concluded that in considering prosocial behaviour, it is important to take account of the particular others who receive, or do not receive, benefit. Abrams and associates carried out studies to assess the circumstances under which children will help outgroup peers [87]. In a context of ‘minimal group allocation’ (as in the social identity studies in Chap. 6), competition between groups lowered prosocial intentions. In a real intergroup competitive situation, being prosocial was associated with having lower competitive motivation and being more empathic. Social perspective taking ability was also a factor, becoming more strongly positively associated with prosociality, with age, while prosociality became more strongly negatively associated with competitiveness. The authors also observed a carry-over effect, in older children, after engaging in a competitive scenario, to being less prosocial when subsequently participating in a non-competitive one. Given the overall emphasis on the study of antisocial rather than prosocial behaviour to date, a limited amount of research has examined the link between prosocial behaviour and attitudes towards violence and bullying [88]. Like other researchers, Phillip has found girls to be more prosocial than boys at all ages (3–16), with a steady decline in both genders from ages 3 to 12, and with primary school children more prosocial than those in secondary school [49]. He found a small but significant relationship between the tendency to be less prosocial and the tendency to bully others He suggests the possibility of harnessing moral emotions in the early adolescent period in anti-bullying interventions. However, one study found that a program aimed at increasing empathy in adolescents served, rather, to prevent its reduction over time; although this was a worthwhile effect, the authors suggested that being empathic is ‘not cool’ in adolescence [89]. Here is another, more positive, opinion

176

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

about teen empathy: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-emp athy-your-teen/201209/is-it-normal-teenagers-lack-empathy. Worrying, though, is research from the USA showing that empathy in college-aged students reduced drastically over the decade from 2000 to 2010, which is evidence for a cultural change that Maia Szalavitz attributes to both the ‘self-esteem movement’ (‘love yourself’) in that country and to children spending less free time interacting with other children and missing opportunities to learn how to ‘read’ others [90]. Although there is no simple relationship between empathy and bullying, various authors suggest enhancing empathy as a way of increasing prosocial behaviour and a more positive school climate. For example, the authors of a New Zealand study of 8–13-year-old children concluded that ‘Teachers can foster empathy in young children, not only through direct instruction but through example’ [91]. Claire Garandeau and colleagues in Finland compared two different strategies for teachers to address bullying by talking to an identified perpetrator in either a confrontational or nonconfrontational way: perpetrators who either felt their empathy had been aroused or that their behaviour had been condemned expressed an intention to change their behaviour, but if both these things were true, they were less inclined to change [92]. This may be related to the mutually exclusive nature of certain moral emotions that we discussed earlier and suggests that a teacher’s response will be most effective if they use one strategy or the other. A German program aimed at reducing cyberbullying amongst adolescents by addressing empathy had some success, but changes in empathy were not in fact found to be the mechanism by which cyberbullying was reduced [92]. Much more research is needed on whether and how empathy can be harnessed in addressing bullying, but its promotion is sometimes considered to be a part of broadly based programs. For example, influenced by a different, group-based, theory of the evolution of cooperation from that of Smaldino, David Wilson and colleagues devised and implemented a program in New York for students raised in difficult, high-risk environments. It was based on the provision of a benign, rather than a harsh, educational environment that not only discouraged bullying and stereotyping, but addressed gender issues and promoted caring, cooperation, abundant praise, kind words (and sometimes touch) from staff, and the promotion of empathy [93]. The students, who under ‘business as usual’ were expected to fail educationally, came up to the average standards obtained by students in regular school environments. Would we not wish every child to have such an educational experience?

Conclusions Although human beings are basically cooperative and prosocial creatures, the profound need to belong can at times lead to exclusionary behaviours. It is a confronting fact that individuals do sometimes commit unkind and even heinous acts towards others. In examining bullying as a moral issue, we began by using a wide-angle lens. The Greek philosophers asked questions about how to lead ‘the

Conclusions

177

good life’, with the concept of eudaimonia, or flourishing, being based on seeking virtue for its own sake, as something to become entrenched as a way of being as we move through life. Tolstoy’s parable concluded that the most important thing is to do good to the person you are currently with. Eastern philosophy that focuses on the needs of the other rather than the self is now being advocated in the increasingly individualist West. Context is important, as competitiveness can reduce prosociality. Children’s moral understanding is now seen as developing through learning from others, in terms of both justice and caring. Caring specifically for others’ emotional wellbeing, through affirmation, has been put forward as relevant for intervening in bullying, whether one is a peer or teacher. Witnesses often face a moral dilemma in terms of whether or not to intervene. Moral emotions such as empathy help to regulate our behaviour and drive prosocial actions, but when we break a moral code, such as by bullying someone or not helping a victim, we may use moral disengagement to justify our actions and maintain a positive self-concept. These processes are important to understand when considering school bullying, as they have been found to operate in the behaviour of young people towards peers. It is being recognised that these are complex social and cognitive processes that unfold over time in a dynamic manner in relation to context. The question arises as to whether incorporating moral understandings into bullying programs can help to reduce bullying, with some evidence that it is possible to promote empathy and prosociality, though the relationship with bullying is not straightforward. In Chap. 16, we will examine further the possibility of morality-based interventions. While intervening to address bullying can be seen as a moral imperative, it is also worth reflecting on the opposing view of Kalman that the morality of the entire anti-bullying enterprise needs to be questioned [94]. He concludes this on the basis that purportedly well-designed programs have had results that are variously modest, minimal, not significant or even harmful, and often at enormous effort and expense. Does a (western moral) view that the good intentions of those who develop and implement programs constitute a justification to keep trying? Do we keep attempting to improve, or follow the view that kids just have to learn to deal with bullying, and we can try to pick up the pieces of those who can’t? Perhaps all these avenues can be followed (help young people to deal with it, provide mental health services as needed, and keep trying to improve prevention and intervention programs). While there is no doubt that marginalising others is a deep-seated human tendency that is inherently difficult to address, it is also possible that our approaches to date have been too simplistic, consistent with the proposals that a new, dynamic systems conceptualisation of morality is called for, that encompasses neurological, personality, emotional, relational and cultural influences. In the next chapter, we turn our attention to complex systems theories as potentially providing a new framework for considering the many facets of bullying and their interrelationships. We found a wonderful video, an example of ‘heroes’, to finish this chapter: a group of fifth-grade boys from the USA who, after noticing a classmate with learning difficulties being bullied, decided to include him in their friendship group. His mother reported that he was transformed. Sadly, the video has now been removed from the

178

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

internet. So in its place, here is a video of ‘Kid President’ giving tips on things we should say more often: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5yCOSHeYn4& feature=emb_logo.

References 1. de Waal, F. B. M. (2012). The antiquity of empathy. Science, 336(874–876), 874. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1220999 2. DiSalvo, D. (2009). Forget survival of the fittest: It is kindness that counts. Scientific American, February 26 2009. Accessed December 16, 2019 at https://www.scientificamerican.com/art icle/kindness-emotions-psychology/. 3. Gilbert, P. (2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 6–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12043 4. Ellis, A. A., & Shute, R. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 649–663. https:// doi.org/10.1348/000709906X163405 5. Felix, E. M. R., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Narbero, R. S., & Falla, D. (2019). How do you think the victims of bullying feel? A study of moral emotions in primary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1753–1764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01753 6. Ortega, R. (2010). Agresividad injustificada, bullying y violencia escolar. Alianza Editorial. 7. Levasseur, C., Desbiens, N., & Bowen, F. (2017). Moral reasoning about school bullying in involved adolescents. Journal of Moral Education, 46(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057240.2016.1268113 8. Aristotle. Nicomachean ethics. Simon & Schuster. 9. Garvey, J., & Stangroom, J. (2013). The story of philosophy: A history of western thought. Quercus. 10. Higginson, T. W. (2018). Enchiridion. Amazon Books. (Enchiridion 1:5). Amazon. 11. Matheson, P. E. (translator) (2017). Epictetus. Manual on the art of living (p. 33). Airora Press. 12. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. (Note 25). Simon & Schuster. 13. Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents. W. W. Norton. 14. Shute, R. H. (in press). Was British Cold War spy and double agent Kim Philby a successful psychopath? In Mayer, C. H. et al. (Eds.), Psychobiographical illustrations on meaning and identity in sociocultural contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. 15. Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through Imitation. University of Nebraska Press. 16. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. Free Press. 17. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive developmental analysis of children’s sex role concepts and attitudes. In E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). C.A. Press. 18. Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., Grime, R. L., & Snarey, J. R. (2007). Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Developmental Review, 27, 443–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.001 19. Frimer, J., & Walker, L. (2008). Towards a new paradigm of moral personhood. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 333–356, 333. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057240802227494. 20. Reed, D., & Stoermer, R. (2008). Towards an integrated model of moral functioning: An overview of the Special Issue, Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 417–428, 419. https://doi. org/10.1080/03057240802227643. 21. Kim, M., & Sankey, D. (2009). Towards a dynamic systems approach to moral development and moral education: A response to the JME Special Issue, September 2008. Journal of Moral Education, 38(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240903101499. 22. Kim, M., & Sankey, D. (2009). Towards a dynamic systems approach to moral development and moral education: A response to the JME Special Issue, September 2008. Journal of Moral Education, 38(3), 284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240903101499.

References

179

23. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying: Philosophical reflections on definitions. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46). Cambridge University Press. 24. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying. Routledge. 25. Meyer, E. J. (2008). A feminist reframing of bullying and harassment: Transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43, 33–48. Accessed June 21, 2020 at https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/coe_dean/10. 26. Johnston, T. R. (2015). Affirmation and care: A feminist account of bullying and bullying prevention. Hypatia, 30(2), 403–417, 404. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12144. 27. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 28. Johnston, T. R. (2015). Affirmation and care: A feminist account of bullying and bullying prevention. Hypatia, 30(2), 403–417, 414. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12144. 29. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. 30. Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (2nd ed., pp. 23–42). Jossey-Bass. 31. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2017). Digital self-harm among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.012 32. Webber, M. A. (2017). Bullying: University students bring a moral perspective to middle school students. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n 3p157 33. Morcom, V. (2015). Scaffolding social and emotional learning within ‘shared affective spaces’ to reduce bullying: A sociocultural perspective. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 6, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.04.002 34. Koo, H. (2007). A time-line for the evolution of school bullying in different social contexts. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 8, 107–116. Accessed December 21, 2020 at http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768971.pdf. 35. Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus duty-based moral codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 3–39. 10.1177%2F106939719402800101. 36. Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus duty-based moral codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 6. 10.1177%2F106939719402800101. 37. Marcus, J. (2020). The dudes who won’t wear masks. The Atlantic, 23 June 2020. Accessed August 17, 2020 at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/dudes-whowont-wear-masks/613375/. 38. Siliezar, J. (2020). How the West became WEIRD (Q & A with Joseph Henrich). Harvard Gazette, 16 September 2020). Accessed November 10, 2020 at https://news.harvard.edu/gaz ette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/. 39. Toda, Y. (2009). Personal communication to Rosalyn Shute. 40. Hyland, T. (2020). Unselfing, suffering, and morality: Cultivating non-narrative approaches to ethical development. International Journal of Social Policy and Education, 2, 71–79. 41. Shute, R. H. (2018). Schools, mindfulness, and metacognition: A view from developmental psychology. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 7. Online. https:// doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1435322. 42. Shute, R. H. (2019). School-based mindfulness interventions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.979 43. Blakemore, S. J. (2010). The developing social brain: Implications for education. Neuron, 65(6), 744–747, 744. Accessed August 6, 2021 at https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S08966273(10)00173-X.pdf. 44. Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(693–716), 693. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514 45. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander interventions in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

180

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

46. Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency intervention. Academic Press. 47. Burgess, J. (1983). Mystery hero of air crash is identified. Washington Post, 7 June 1983. Accessed August 5, 2021 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/06/07/ mystery-hero-of-air-crash-is-identified/d5cba0a5-e885-421b-9086-4df0405d7b97/. 48. Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. H. (2006). New participant role scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20133 49. Slee, P. T. (2017). School bullying. Teachers helping students cope. Routledge. 50. Lambe, L. J., Cioppa, V. D., Hong, I. K., & Craig, W. (2019). Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 54, 51–74. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.007. 51. Levy, M., & Gumpel, T. P. (2018). The interplay between bystanders’ intervention styles: An examination of the “bullying circle” approach. Journal of School Violence, 17(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1368396 52. Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain (p. 7). Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605987. 53. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322 54. Bandura, A. (2012). Moral disengagement. In D. J. Christie (Ed.), The encyclopedia of peace psychology, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell. 55. Henriques, G. (2013). On human exceptionalism. Psychology Today, 2 January 2013. Accessed January 11, 2021 at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201301/ human-exceptionalism. 56. Thornberg, R., & Delby, H. (2019). How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational Research, 61(2), 142–160, 150. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/ 00131881.2019.1600376. 57. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). Guilford Press. 58. Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt, (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289, 276). Am Psychol Assoc. 59. Bierhoff, H.-W. (2002). Prosocial behavior. Psychology Press. 60. Kroll, J., & Egan, E. (2004). Psychiatry, moral worry, and moral emotions. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 10, 352–360. [PubMed: 15583516]. 61. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Dimensions of moral emotions. Emotion Review, 3, 258–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402388 62. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn bad. Random House. 63. Xenophon, N. (2020). If moral courage matters, this whistleblower needs defending. The Age, 18 November 2020. Accessed November 23, 2020 at https://www.theage.com.au/national/ifmoral-courage-matters-this-whistleblower-needs-defending-20201116-p56ey4.html. 64. Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S., & Shea, C. (1991). Prosocial development in adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 849–857. https://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.849 65. Foot, H. C., Morgan, M. J., & Shute, R. H. (1990). Children helping children. Wiley. 66. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 67. DiSalvo, D. (2009). Forget survival of the fittest: It is kindness that counts. Scientific American, 26 February 2009. Accessed December 16, 2019 at https://www.scientificamerican.com/art icle/kindness-emotions-psychology/. 68. Binfet, J. T., Gadermann, A. M., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Measuring kindness at school: Psychometric properties of a school kindness scale for children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21889

References

181

69. Shalvi, S., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(15), 5503. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400724111 70. De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S., & Handgraaf, M. J. (2011). Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(4), 1262–1266. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015316108 71. Decety, J., Bartal, IB-A., Uzefovsky, F., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371:20150077. Accessed 23.12.2020 at http://dx. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077. 72. Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Expecting the best in people (Vol. 1, pp. 167–196). Praeger. 73. Dedousis-Wallace, A., Shute, R., Varlow, M., Murrihy, R., & Kidman, A. (2014). Predictors of teacher intervention in indirect bullying at school and outcome of a professional development presentation for teachers. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 862–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.2013.785385 74. Dadds, M. R., Hunter, K., Hawes, D. J., Frost, A. D. J., Vassallo, S., Bunn, P., Merz, S., & El Masry, Y. (2008). A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 578-007-0075-4 75. Shanafelt, T. D., West, C., Zhao, X., Novotny, P., Kolars, J., Habermann, T., & Sloan, J. (2005). Relationship between increased personal well-being and enhanced empathy among internal medicine residents. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 559–564. https://link.springer. com/article/10.1007/s11606-005-0102-8. 76. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: A critique of the ‘social skills deficit’ view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development, 8, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00083 77. Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.avb.2015.01.007. 78. Skrzypiec, G., Askell-Williams, H., Slee, P. T., & Rudinski, A. (2015). IB Middle Years programme (MYP). Student social-emotional well-being and school success practices. Unpublished Research Report. Flinders University. 79. Zych, I., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2016). Empathy and callous–unemotional traits in different bullying roles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 20, 3–21. 10.1177%2F1524838016683456. 80. Shute, R. H. (in press). Was British Cold War spy and double agent Kim Philby a successful psychopath? In Mayer, H., et al. (Eds.), Psychobiographical illustrations on meaning and identity in sociocultural contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. 81. March, E. (2017). How empathy can make or break a troll. The Conversation, 13 July 2017. Accessed August 13, 2021 at https://theconversation.com/how-empathy-can-make-or-breaka-troll-80680. 82. Lovett, B. J., & Sheffield, R. A. (2007). Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and adolescents: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cpr.2006.03.003 83. Clutton-Brock, T. (2009). Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature, 462, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08366 84. Lay, J. C., & Hoppmann, C. A. (2015). Altruism and prosocial behavior. Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-080-3_69-1. 85. Malti, T., & Krettenauer, T. (2013). The relation of moral emotion attributions to prosocial and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 84, 397–412. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01851.x 86. van Rijsewijk, L., Dijkstra, J. K., Pattiselanno, K., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2016). Who helps whom? Investigating the development of adolescent prosocial relationships. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000106

182

11 Bullying as a Moral Issue

87. Abrams, D., van der Vyver, J., Pelletier, J., & Cameron, L. (2017). Children’s prosocial intentions towards outgroup members. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33, 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12085. 88. Hemphill, S. A., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. (2005). Predictors of violence, antisocial behaviour and relational aggression in Australian adolescents: A longitudinal study. A report for the Criminology Research Council. ACT: Criminology Research Council. 89. Garandeau, C. F., Vartio, A., Poskiparta, E., & Christina Salmivalli, C. (2016). School bullies’ intention to change behavior following teacher interventions: Effects of empathy arousal, condemning of bullying, and blaming of the perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17, 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0712-x 90. Szalavitz, M. (2010). Shocker: Empathy dropped 40% in college students since 2000. Psychology Today, 28 May 2010. Accessed January 16, 2021 at https://www.psychologyto day.com/us/blog/born-love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000. 91. Raskauskas, J. L., Gregory, J., Harvey, S. T., Rifshana, F., & Evans, I. M. (2010). Bullying among primary school children in New Zealand: Relationships with prosocial behaviour and classroom climate. Educational Research, 52(1–13), 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318810 03588097 92. Garandeau, C. F., Vartio, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). School bullies’ intention to change behavior following teacher interventions: Effects of empathy arousal, condemning of bullying, and blaming of the perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17, 1034–1043. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-016-0712-x 93. Wilson, D. S., Kauffman, R. A., & Purdy, M. S. (2011). A program for at-risk high-school students informed by evolutionary science. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27826. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0027826. 94. Kalman, I. C. (2013). Why psychology is failing to solve the problem of bullying. International Journal on World Peace, XXX(2), June 2013, pp. 71–97, 73.

Chapter 12

Complexity, Schools and Bullying

In the preceding pages, we have travelled through a diverse range of theories that may help us to come to a new, complex, conceptualisation of bullying. We have devoted quite a bit of space to establishing that sociality based around small groups, within a broader social landscape, is fundamental to human existence, and that ongoing processes of group inclusion and exclusion are integral to this, and raise human rights and moral issues. Advocates of the paradigm 2 approach to bullying, as being an extreme version of these ordinary processes, have criticised traditional bullying research as narrowly and wrongly focused on the characteristics of individuals. This is rather an oversimplification of the field, as more complex perspectives have been emerging from the traditional literature for some years. One sterling example is Nesdale’s program examining school bullying in terms of group processes concerning social identity, [1] while ecological systems theory has been used by numbers of researchers to capture the layers of factors that can be involved in bullying, such as Earnshaw and colleagues’ suggestion that stigma can be considered at various ecological levels [2]. Olweus’ own program has components at individual, classroom, school and community levels, [3] and the international and Australian case studies in Chap. 10 showed an increasingly ecological approach being taken in practice. Another recent attempt at broadening perspectives on bullying is the Developmental Intergroup Framework (DIF), proposed by US academic Melanie Killen and colleagues [4]. This takes on board theories about group processes but also incorporates several other concepts, including ecological systems; for example, they point out that parental norms of negative attitudes to outgroups are reflected in adolescents’ willingness to socially exclude others [5]. The DIF also accepts, as does paradigm 2, that more account needs to be taken of power at a macrolevel, and not just in the immediate (proximal) environment. Social and moral reasoning regarding social exclusion is also included. Killen and colleagues have found, for example, that youth may give moral, rather than social, reasons for not engaging in exclusion, because they believe it is not fair, or that people must be treated equally. Finally, as the name suggests, the DIF posits that children’s developmental level needs to be considered. There is any number of aspects that could be included here, but one example would © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_12

183

184

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

be children’s developing moral understanding, on which there is a sizeable literature [6]. Alaina Brenick and Linda Halgunseth have recently suggested a number of ways in which the DIF can guide anti-bullying programs [7]. We would also particularly like to draw attention to a 2018 paper by Maunder and Crafter, which we came across in the final stages of drafting this book [8]. It was most encouraging to find numbers of the ideas we have put forward also proposed by these authors as relevant for a new, integrative understanding of bullying; however, they do not take an evolutionary perspective and refer to Bronfenbrenner’s theory rather than the complex systems theories that we will cover in this chapter and beyond. They used Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as a unifying framework, which we referred to in Chap. 2 as foundational for understanding how individual cognition and culture co-create one another (Rosalyn is especially pleased that Lev Semyonovich, her favourite psychologist since undergraduate days, is still providing valuable theoretical inspiration!). It is particularly interesting that although we and Maunder and Crafter identify numbers of common issues, they make no reference at all to the paradigm 2 writings that have been central to our considerations. As the bullying zeitgeist continues to shift, we use this chapter to examine some process-orientated theoretical approaches that may prove useful for capturing the more complex perspectives that are emerging. This involves bringing together concepts from a diversity of literatures.

Paradigm 2 Approaches to Complexity Kofoed has explored cyberbullying in the socially dynamic terms proposed by Schott and Søndergaard [9]. In doing so, she adopts Gilles Deleuze’s metaphor of the ‘rhizome’. Like the rootstock of irises, from which new plants may pop up unexpectedly at some distance from the original, she proposes that new and unexpected, but nevertheless interlinked, entities may appear at some distance (in time, space and personnel) from the original site of focus (of bullying). Another way of capturing the social complexity of paradigm 2 has been suggested by political sociologist Carsten Lausten, another contributor to Schott and Søndergaard’s 2014 book. He applies Foucault’s concept of the dispositif to bullying. He translates a definition of this as follows: an apparatus that consists of numerous parts arranged in a certain way in relation to one another so that they work together to determine the field of action that the apparatus is processing. A dispositif denotes an arrangement that determines its own environment through the introduction of certain dispositions in it [10].

Put another way, a dispositif is a group of disparate entities held together in a network, which has a specific nature with reference to a certain domain; it is not causal, but offers a possibility for understanding that domain [11]. It is open to the introduction of some new element that can change the existing order, as when a final

Paradigm 2 Approaches to Complexity

185

judgement is made in a court of law or a tool is applied to fix a car [11]. The dispositif is ‘[t]he world as it is just before an intervention changes everything’ [12]. Both the rhizome and the dispositif are used as ways of broadening the concept of bullying in terms of multiple entities in dynamic interaction, which can lead to unexpected outcomes. Perhaps you find these helpful as ‘thinking technologies’ (to use Kofoed’s term), especially if you come from a philosophical or sociological background. An alternative we favour, as developmental psychologists, is systems theory, whereby multiple entities are seen to interact and change in a dynamic fashion over time, with effects moving back and forth and potentially settling into a new pattern, for a time at least (n.b., we have chosen not to follow Schott and Søndergaard’s practice of replacing the common term ‘interaction’ with ‘intra-action’ [13] and suggest that systems thinking itself serves a similar, if not identical, purpose in ‘draw[ing] attention to the mutually transformative effects of the many entangling forces that are involved in the enactment of bullying practices’) [14].

Systems Theories Open Systems Concepts Over fifty years have passed since Austrian-Canadian Ludwig von Bertalanffy published his seminal book General Systems Theory [15]. He and his fellowtheoretical biologist, Hungarian Ervin Bauer, both developed theories of open systems. An open system has a sense of wholeness but also exchanges matter and energy (and the information these convey) with its environment or with other systems. Bauer’s theory aimed to account for the fact that living organisms actively organise their bodies in ways that maintain them in the face of chemical and physical forces that would otherwise destroy them (i.e. they work to defeat entropy, or the tendency towards disorder and randomness) [16]. Von Bertalanffy focused on the developmental processes of living systems. Open systems theory, broadly considered, has been adopted by workers in various fields and is seen as a force for promoting interdisciplinary understanding [17]. It is about processes and transformations, has spawned a family of systems theories (such as Bronfenbrenner’s aforementioned ecological systems theory) and promoted thinking about human psychology in biopsychosocial terms [18]. The underlying concepts are several [19]: • A natural system is one that has emerged over time, is able to self-organise and has been able to withstand challenges to its integrity. • It has a sense of being holistic. • It involves communication/information exchange. • The focus is on dynamics of a system rather than components; circularity and feedback loops (cybernetic circuits) are of interest rather than linear causality. • Repeated patterns of activity can be discerned.

186

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

• Systems involve control but have distributed rather than centralised hierarchical control, as an outcome of self-organisation. • Emergent properties arise from the system and cannot be predicted from the constituent parts (known as entities or agents). • Systems have a hierarchical structure (subsystems within systems within environments). The concept of a system is quite similar, in general terms, to the idea of the dispositif , but perhaps less so to that of the rhizome: while emergent properties have new, unpredictable qualities, when new irises appear at some distance from the original plant, they are still irises! The concept of emergence is regarded by some as the most important aspect of systems and has been illustrated by considering a traffic system on a busy highway [20]. The vehicles travel forwards, and occasionally laterally, in changing lanes, but a traffic jam propagates from front to back, and is not predictable from the behaviour of the individual cars. Origami has been used as another metaphor: while the laws of chemistry and physics can be applied at a microlevel to the nature of the paper itself, these laws cannot predict the various forms that can emerge from a diverse series of folds [21]. Peter Checkland and Jim Scholes differentiate natural systems from designed and from purposeful systems, the latter being relevant when human beings aim to achieve some end, such as a more peaceful school. They pointed out in 1990 that confusion in the systems literature had been caused by what may seem like a pedantic distinction [22]. This is the difference between a system being portrayed as existing in the world (‘hard systems’) and treating a phenomenon as if it were a system (‘soft systems’). An aeroplane is a designed, hard system, but an education system is soft. These writers proposed the alternative word ‘holon’ for a soft system, but as the years have passed, we still seem stuck with the general word ‘system’. The ‘soft’ term refers to a method of inquiry into human affairs that provides a useful conceptualisation of a phenomenon for a particular purpose. The confusion between hard and soft systems stems from the implication in von Bertalanffy’s writing that systems are there to be ‘discovered’ (consistent with an objective, scientific approach), while on the other hand, he also stated that systems must be conceived of from the point of view of a particular observer [23]. This perspective could perhaps resonate with a postmodern outlook such as Schott and Søndergaard represent. Kelly’s theory too reminds us that our understanding of both the physical and the social world is filtered through our particular personal constructs. However, Gordana Crnkovic argues that a system’s being ‘observer-dependent’ is not necessarily the same as being ‘subjective’, illustrated by considering the concept of information exchange [24]. This is predicated on the priorities and processing capacities of individuals. An example might be that, while the information that a flower conveys to a honeybee is very different from that which it conveys to a human, the flower remains a real, not an imagined, entity. Readers familiar with the concept of ‘affordance’, based on the relationship between an organism and its environment, will recognise its relevance here.

Systems Theories

187

There are various such philosophical discussions surrounding systems theorising. For example, its role in understanding human development is debated, one conclusion being that ‘emergence’ and ‘construction’ (as in neuroconstructivism) are ‘likely to be essential elements of any comprehensive theory of psychological development’ [25]. Another issue is whether social systems are better seen as closed, but that debate need not concern us here [17]. We adopt the view that open systems theory is useful as it is intuitively graspable and pragmatic [17]. Consider the Western Lowland Gorillas that we met briefly in Chap. 2 [26]. Each troop can be seen as a system that interacts with its environment, accessing matter, energy and the information these convey (e.g. identifying and eating food), and changing the environment in turn (such as by removing plants and leaving faeces). A troop may also make exchanges with other systems in the form of other troops: recent research has revealed that troops often meet up in places where food is abundant (and therefore competition is low), with up to a hundred animals congregated at a time. While there may be occasional aggressive displays, the animals basically spend time peaceably, for example, eating side by side, grooming across family boundaries, and play-fighting (juveniles). Just as for humans, other primates, and at least one bird species, these gorilla troops have a looser association with the broader social world and exchange information with it. It is presumably on the basis of such information that troops develop a preference to spend time with some groups rather than others. Each gorilla troop (system) has been changed by acquiring new social information. Furthermore, individuals sometimes move between groups and not just at sexual maturity, as previously thought. These gorilla systems are therefore more socially open than previously appreciated.

Schools as Ecological Systems Schools, too, have been characterised as open, complex (soft) systems. They use human, financial, physical and informational resources from the environment, which transform the school system [27, 28]. Within the school, subsystems include classes, staff, clubs, teams and student friendship groups. Entities within a system or subsystem may be material, conceptual or semiotic in nature [29]. Interactions between staff, students and learning materials and technologies create outputs such as new knowledge and skills, attitudes and values, and the mental health status of students and staff which, in turn, feed back into society beyond the school. Some schools are more open to external input, such as those that encourage partnerships with parents, [30] and day schools are reasonably open as students go home each night. By contrast, to return to our 11-year-old lonely writer in his 1960s British boarding school, parents in such schools were encouraged to keep away so that the child would ‘settle’ better, and this contributed to children’s distress and inability to seek outside help if bullying occurred; boys were so hungry for information from outside the system that if a student did not receive a letter from home himself, his friends would often share theirs with him [31]. Japanese classrooms have also been

188

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

described, at least in the past, as being kept as closed as possible, almost prisonlike, to maximise control of students by teachers, and this is suggested to promote bullying [32]. In recent times, we have seen how the Catholic Church has closed ranks when widespread clerical abuse of children has been revealed, protecting offenders and resisting external efforts to change the established system [33, 34]. This is an example of how strongly a social system, especially a powerful one, will often work to not change, something which can present a challenge for the introduction of antibullying and wellbeing programs into schools. Ann Lendrum and colleagues have discussed how programs need to be adapted to the particular requirements of a school, but without compromising their integrity—a tricky balancing act [35]. The idea of applying systems theory specifically to school bullying is not new [36]. As we have seen, one version uses Bronfenbrenner’s ecological (later, bioecological) systems theory [37]. This has been adopted by some researchers as a way of thinking about the nested systems within which bullying occurs (though, as an aside, whether the systems should actually be considered as ‘nested’ has been questioned) [38]. In brief, Bronfenbrenner’s theory is that the child’s most proximal influences occur within microsystems including the family and school, where mutual exchanges or interactions occur between the child and parents, siblings, peers and teachers. The mesosystem consists of interactions between microsystems, while the exosystem beyond it consists of elements that do not directly impinge on the child, such as community services and parents’ workplaces. All lie within a macrosystem of laws and cultural and subcultural values. Although mutual interactions between elements of the system are assumed, both within and between levels, that lead to change over time, the application of ecological systems theory to bullying has been rather static. It has, nevertheless, expanded thinking about bullying beyond the bully-victim dyad. For example, in the Korean context, Huh and colleagues found that bullying and victimisation experiences were affected by factors at various ecological levels [39]. Espelage has used Bronfenbrenner’s theory as a way of pulling together the findings of a diverse range of studies on bullying which, as she observes, generally only focus on the relationship between a couple of variables [40]. She has shown that proximal social factors generally mediate the relationship between broad cultural and individual factors to influence bullying outcomes. Her review identifies a range of ecological risk and protective factors for engagement in bullying, as perpetrator or victim. With regard to gendered victimisation, Rosalyn has developed an ecological model that encapsulates the layers of influence that contribute to gendered socialisation [41]. A modified, sociological, version of ecological systems theory has been developed that incorporates symbolic interactionism, or the creation and communication of meaning via language and symbols (we can see links here with both Vygotskian child development theory and Communication Accommodation Theory). Power is then seen as arising from a complex range of sources, based on interpersonal interactions and social acknowledgement, and not as an individual attribute [42]. Thornberg has applied the modified theory to a qualitative study of bullying, which showed that Swedish children’s primary concern at school is about fitting in socially. This is in line with the evolutionary and social identity perspectives we have discussed,

Systems Theories

189

placing belonging at the centre of human existence. Children reported that the worst thing that could happen at school would be to be alone and friendless, echoing Søndergaard’s writings about social exclusion anxiety and Owens’ about indirect aggression. Thornberg’s bullying victims were described by students in language of othering and abjection such as ‘disgusting’, ‘fat’, ‘ugly’ and ‘stinking’. He interpreted bullying as dynamically constructed through the selective application of oppressive normativities at various systemic levels, including norms about race, gender and heterosexuality that teachers often do not detect as they are cultural and taken for granted (again, goldfish in water). This recent study provides a snapshot of social life at school that illustrates many of the theoretical issues covered in the foregoing chapters.

Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) Thornberg’s approach moves the application of ecological systems theory to bullying in a more truly dynamic direction. Another systems theory we find particularly useful in that regard is Dynamic Systems Theory (DST), as applied to children’s development by Thelen and Smith. As mentioned in the second chapter, they examined in fine detail how motor abilities and cognition develop. They found that what looks like a smooth developmental progression from a distance, in close-up is characterised by regressions and reroutings, which they memorably likened to a teeming mob rather than a marching band [43]. Information is exchanged between elements of a hierarchically organised system, and these become synchronised into a repetitive pattern of function, known as an attractor state. As new input is assimilated into the pattern, this is called first-order change, which is minimal and the system remains intact. A tipping point might be reached, however, when a disturbance occurs that causes the pattern to change qualitatively and abruptly (a repeller state), and second-order change occurs, with new properties emerging. (The term ‘tipping point’, used in common parlance, is derived from systems theory.) An example is Sapolsky’s baboon troop discussed in Chap. 3 [44]. The established social order was drastically changed when the most aggressive animals died, and more peaceable relationships predominated thereafter (second-order, transformational change). Subsequently, new members who joined the troop were assimilated into the new culture (first-order change, that maintains the status quo). In Piagetian child development theory, first-order change can be seen to occur when a child assimilates new information into its current level of understanding, while second-order change occurs when it has to accommodate that understanding in a transformative way, thus reaching a new developmental stage and a (temporary) state of equilibrium. A DST approach has been explicitly used to conceptualise the processes involved in the development of gendered play, resilience and eating disorders [41]. It has also been applied somewhat to educational systems, including pedagogy, [45] and in terms of discussing transformative changes to school cultures through leadership, sometimes in response to external demands for accountability [46]. DST has also

190

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

been applied to the process of psychotherapy [41]. The study we cited previously, of family therapy with boys who were bullying others, was one such example. Another psychotherapeutic case further serves to illustrate the difference between first-order and second-order change. The latter is the aim of psychotherapy when, for example, a client is brought to a new understanding of their situation (they gain insight––the ‘aha!’ phenomenon). Social workers Kathleen Van de Vijver and Rebecca Harvey faced the task of trying to protect at-risk young teenage girls who had been groomed by men into exploitative sexual relationships. Strategies such as explaining the risks and removing phones achieved only short-term, firstorder change, with girls defending their belief that they were in loving, consensual relationships. The professionals changed their approach, engaging in careful, nonjudgemental conversations with their clients, centred on the function that these relationships were serving, namely fulfilling the girls’ need for love and belonging. It then became possible for the girls to arrive at their own understanding that these relationships were not actually about love, but power, and this enabled them to escape the abusive drug- and alcohol-fuelled social systems into which they had been sucked. Targets of bullying may similarly have ‘paradoxical ties of loyalty … with their persecutors’ [47]. In a comparable vein, victims of media mogul and convicted rapist, Harvey Weinstein, were pressed by the media and in court to explain why they had maintained relationships with him, if he had been abusive; they sometimes recalled flashes of insight even at the time that they were being manipulated (‘I felt like such an idiot’) [48]. These examples do not necessarily attract the bullying label but are apposite, given the view of Duncan and Rivers that bullying can be thought of as a kind of psychological entrapment [49]. A victim might feel confused about what is happening (as Owens found in his indirect aggression research) or feel bound by a peer group norm of ‘not telling’. They may, with justification, fear the repercussions of disclosing to others, as exemplified by this online comment by a self-identified bully: ‘If someone had reported me and I’d been hauled in front of whoever to account for my actions then I doubt it would have affected me in any way other than to feel excited at the prospect of going after the one who told’. Children also report a feeling of being trapped by bullying when they do not think teachers will be responsive [50]. Furthermore, Duncan and Rivers say, a relationship that is based on a power differential can sometimes have an elusive emotional quality. In the school setting, this is exemplified by experiencing disdainful looks, backs being turned and small humorous gestures that are hard to pin down or explain to outsiders as being a problem, as they seem minor but convey something sinister, concerning power, to the victim; ostracism researcher Williams suggests that humans are exquisitely sensitive to even small signs of exclusion, so great is our need to belong. This implies that teachers need to take seriously children’s reports of feeling upset by ‘minor’ incidents. For bullying to end, a victim’s sense of being trapped needs to be terminated and a new order of things achieved (second-order change). Thirteen-year-old Vijay Singh found his own escape: ‘Monday: my money was taken. Tuesday: names called. Wednesday: my uniform torn. Thursday: my body pouring with blood; Friday: it’s ended. Saturday: freedom’. Sunday: he hanged himself [51].

Systems Theories

191

Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) There is no agreed definition of ‘complexity’, but the term ‘complex adaptive systems’ is increasingly being applied to social intervention research. CAS can be seen as a metatheory, an umbrella beneath which various theories can sit. A number of authors have pointed out that there are different levels or categories of systems. One such classification, devised by Dave Snowden while working for IBM, identifies four groups of systems, namely simple, complicated, complex and chaos systems [52]. This is known as the Cynefin framework (a Welsh word for habitat, pronounced ‘kunevin’). Although ‘grey systems theory’, as we mentioned in the opening chapter, holds that human knowledge of any system is inevitably incomplete, simple and complicated systems have a greater degree of cause-and-effect predictability and are kinds of ‘hard system’; simple systems are rules-based and procedural, while complicated systems require expertise, enabling, for example, feats of engineering to be accomplished, such as building vehicles capable of travelling to Mars. An example of a chaotic system would be when multiple small cracks and movements in the earth suddenly become coordinated to produce an unpredictable earthquake or a house of cards collapses as one extra card is added. Open, complex systems are where natural and social phenomena (rather than artificial systems) tend to be placed. It has been said that building a car is complicated, but driving a car is complex [53] (perhaps the same can be said for controlling a vehicle on Mars, with many diverse experts working together to problem-solve). DST, as applied to children’s development, is one version of CAS, and whichever name is used, the underlying principles that we listed previously are the same. While some have suggested dividing complex systems into adaptive and nonadaptive, [54] others have argued that all complex systems are adaptive [55]. This concept comes from biology and refers to the idea that the system learns a new pattern of behaviour after recognising that the environment has changed and the old pattern is no longer successful. Two feedback loops allow the system to learn and to adapt: one, used frequently, makes small adjustments and enables learning (first-order change), while the other, used less frequently, senses the need to replace obsolete information with new information, thus enabling adaptation (second-order change). It has been proposed that natural selection favours systems that exhibit order, rather than those that devolve into chaos [56]. ‘Adaptation’ suggests that improvement has occurred, and in an evolutionary sense, the ultimate improvement is one that has survival value. A good example of an adaptive complex system from the animal world is a colony of the Army Ant, Eciton burchellii [57]. Colonies can contain over half a million workers varying considerably in size and shape. Nomadic group predators, they alternate between hunting and resting (bivouac) phases, with foraging raids generally containing about a third of the colony. The raid structure itself has been described as generated via self-organising processes, with prey captured at the raid front or ‘swarm’––a continuous carpet of ants that can be over ten metres wide. ‘Self-assemblages’ of Army Ants have been described, when they come together for

192

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

purposes such as defence, thermoregulation, or colony survival in extreme conditions such as flood. They therefore adapt to the ecological conditions in novel ways. Assemblages comprise ants of differing size and shape, each being an individual component in terms of its morphology and behaviour. These components interact and are functional at a group level, displaying properties that do not exist at the individual level. For example, while any single ant may be too small to cross an obstacle, the marching ants may together form a bridge, with the group self-organising to achieve this end. These research findings illustrate the conclusion of Ilya Prigogine and Isobelle Stengers that, ‘… our vision of nature is undergoing a radical change towards the multiple, the temporal, and the complex’ [58]. There have now been over three decades of research into complex systems in the physical and social spheres, but recently there has been a greater elaboration of complex systems theory in the field of public health, to incorporate an understanding of how systems such as hospitals adapt to circumstances. Application to the field of education is also relatively recent [59]. Schools (and their subsystems) can be seen as in a continuous state of adaptation. For example, a child’s stressful life at home (one microsystem) may lead to their beginning to bully another child at school (another microsystem), who may stop attending school to avoid being bullied; teachers adapt by attempting interventions with both the child who is bullying and the victim, which has knock-on effects to peer groups and the affected families. As there is no central control in a complex system, change in one part may resonate throughout the system (and beyond) in a large or small way, [60] resulting in unpredictable change. In the context of understanding underperforming schools in the Netherlands, Martijn van der Steen and colleagues have observed that policy-makers generally think of interventions and their consequences in linear terms, yet their interaction is better represented in terms of self-reinforcing loops and circular patterns that often give rise to unexpected consequences [61]. At times, these loops may be vicious, causing a deteriorating situation, while a happier outcome is the virtuous circle, where results exceed those hoped for. However, the question that is raised when it comes to human systems such as schools is: what counts as an ‘improvement’ or otherwise? Relevant here is a critique of a paper by Nastaran Keshavarz and colleagues that had sought to understand, by interviewing relevant parties, why health-promoting projects in schools often fail [55]. Tamsin Haggis maintained that while their study claimed to be based on CAS, it fell uneasily between realist and relativist positions [62]––exactly the confusion in the systems literature to which Checkland and Scholes drew attention. Haggis sees the authors as, on the one hand, hankering after a traditional scientific (regularised) explanation for why health promotion projects so often fail, while also realising that participants have various perspectives that are context-dependent, and it is this latter approach that is consistent with a CAS conceptualisation, although providing no easy answers. While the designers of a program or study may have a particular perception of what will count as an ‘improvement’, this may become contested by other involved parties. Understanding the impact of the introduction of a program into a school is perhaps best addressed by asking questions about the functionality of change for various agents in the system.

Systems Theories

193

In the UK, the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research has recognised the need for taking greater account of complexity and, in 2019, published revised draft guidelines for developing and evaluating complex interventions. In later chapters, we will consider the implications for the evaluation of bullying interventions in the complex environments of schools and classrooms.

Complex Systems Modelling of Bullying CAS has yet to gain real traction as a way of exploring the interchanges between elements of the bullying system, including self-organisation and emergent properties. Promising, though, is George Mudrak and Sudhanshu Semwal’s use of computerised simulations of social processes as an investigative tool for studying bullying (complex systems modelling or CSM, also known as agent-based modelling, or ABM), although such simulations are inevitably closed, rather than open, systems [63]. They adopted a bottom-up view of complex systems as having three properties: entities (or agents) that, in response to a few simple rules, engage in complex and changing collective behaviours; communication and consumption of environmental information by agents; and adaptation, in which the changed behaviour increases the agent’s chances of survival or success. We can see how this approach fits with the evolutionary view of social groups (the following examples are ours). Entities include resources (e.g. food, social support) and individuals who interact according to rules (e.g. food must be shared equitably, teachers and friends must provide social support). Information is provided by changing environmental circumstances and processed by the individual (e.g. there is a food shortage and you feel hungry, you see a teacher snap at another student and conclude that he is in a bad mood today, your friend did not smile as usual at your joke and you feel perplexed). Adaptation occurs to increase success or survival (physical or social) (e.g. you hoard food for yourself, you decide not to ask the bad-tempered teacher for help that day and try out your joke on another person). The simulations that Mudrak and Semwal set up were scenarios that concerned individuals motivated to seek resources in the form of food. Each individual was given a defined field of vision and a metabolic rate and energy balance that regulated their appetite. They were also randomly given attributes concerning aggression, strength, tolerance and defence, which were impacted by their level of hunger. The simulation was able to take account of how ‘similar’ or ‘different’ individuals were to one another based on these traits. The system also included a passive food entity and a coercive agent with some level of authority to enforce good behaviour (i.e. not bullying) (from no authority up to 100%). The ‘people’ had algorithms that enabled them to move around (expending energy) and access food (gaining energy). In the process, they might chase or prey on other individuals, or flee from attacks. All simulations created aggressive behaviour and bullying (defined in traditional terms as repeated aggression from a more powerful individual). By increasing the

194

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

defensive ability of a victim after each bullying incident (empowerment), the population reformed into numbers of ecosystems that did not interact with one another and which contained bullies and victims. Eventually, these ecosystems broke down and a general population reformed. In the ‘empowerment’ scenario, ‘bullies’ initially preyed on individuals who were different from themselves, and as the victims were empowered, their numbers initially reduced (there was less bullying). But after further time, as the bullies became hungrier, they became increasingly likely to bully individuals similar to themselves, and the rate increased again, but slowly. Mudrak and Semwal concluded that a range of bullying-related behaviours emerged that were not coded for, including preying, stalking, group aggression, and passing and then returning to bully a victim. In addition, no-bullying zones developed around high-authority coercive figures, with bullying pushed to the margins. While this research project was presented as preliminary and promising for studying bullying experimentally, it does suggest that bullying behaviours can usefully be considered in terms of dynamic systems, within which bullying is an emergent property. With a few particular basic rules of human behaviour in place, it seems that bullying is likely to emerge, that ‘bullies’ preferentially target those different from themselves, and that groups are likely, over time, to form and reform, which fits with the paradigm 2 approach. It would be useful to run simulations that include cooperative and supportive traits, in addition to aggression. This would be of particular interest in light of Smaldino’s use of evolutionary theories of cooperation to account for how human groups of unrelated individuals form to undertake particular activities, such as for commerce, airline flights, sport or other cultural activities [64]. On this view, grouping is seen as an emergent phenomenon arising from processes of self-organisation in association with feedback from the environment and, in the course of these processes, grouplevel traits (norms) may also emerge. We can further regard the social identities that are the subject of Social Identity and Self-Categorisation Theories as emergent from group processes, in accord with Schott’s Hypothesis 2 (see Chap. 4) and the results of Jones and colleagues’ ‘black sheep’ study (see Chap. 6) [65]. Guttormsen has critiqued the self-categorisation approach to identity as being about self and other as ‘typologies’, whereas identity and othering are dynamic and co-constructive [66]; in fact, we authors have always interpreted Self-Categorisation Theory in such dynamic terms, and the DST approach to bullying (including a role for identity processes) encapsulates this. In the simulations, the individuals were given ‘personalities’, such as degrees of aggressiveness and tolerance, but Schott discounts the relevance of these. Simulations could potentially test individual traits versus social processes or, as we would guess, show how these can work together to promote or reduce bullying and determine the roles taken by participants (e.g. who becomes a ‘bully’, and who remains an uninvolved outsider?). It would also be valuable to see under what circumstances ‘bullies’, victims and other participants (or non-participants) change roles, and what circumstances reduce bullying, other than having a high-authority coercive figure (in life, maybe a committed teacher or a high-status student). It would be interesting to see what factors promote the emergence of groups of varying status, thus simulating

Systems Theories

195

the hierarchical structure of informal social groups often found in classrooms, and additional attributes such as institutional power and peer group norms could be examined, in accord with Schott’s hypotheses. It would also be useful to run simulations that examine the fascinating finding of Gabriele di Francesco, across a large number of Italian schools, that the frequency of bullying as reported by principals is strongly related to the proportion of ‘different’ (minority) students in the school [67]. Whether considering foreign students, those with disabilities or those of a minority faith, reported bullying frequency increases as the minority increases from 0.1% to around 15–20% of the population, but 20% is a critical point, when bullying drops to below the level when there are no such students in the school at all (when, presumably, other types of difference are associated with bullying). Di Francesco hypothesises that this pattern reflects the ‘rules that govern the dynamics of the group and the formation of mergers and alliances within the class group’ [68]. The differences in levels of bullying in relation to the different proportions of minority students are remarkable. In round figures, the maxima and minima for reported bullying frequency in the schools are: 73% down to 42% (in relation to the proportion of students from outside the European Union), 66 to 17% (EU foreign students), 69 to 50% (students of different faiths) and 88% down to 33% (students with disabilities). Any anti-bullying program that achieved such drops in bullying frequency would be judged highly successful, but it seems likely that the determining factor here is the demographic make-up of the school that influences how student social relationships play out. This is strong evidence in favour of paradigm 2. Apart from simulations, real-life applications of CAS to study bullying are an option, although not easy, as research would require ongoing fine-grained tracking of behaviours involving multiple participants. Experimental manipulations (if ethically possible) or tracking of cyberbullying (such as through analysing Twitter accounts) might offer possibilities. While the current value of CAS mainly lies in offering a thinking technology, we will examine new methodological possibilities in a later chapter.

Dixon’s Application of Systems Thinking to School Bullying The most detailed application of dynamic/complex systems thinking to school bullying that we have found is presented in a 2011 book by Dixon, with an introduction by Smith [28]. Dixon outlines some basic systems principles that are in accordance with CAS. For example, concerning circularity, she suggests that recursive patterns of behaviour occur that can be revealed by skilful questioning about ‘what happened next’. On the basis of her qualitative inquiry, she presents complex diagrams, including recursive patterns, to capture a broad range of factors within the system she was studying. An example of a recursive pattern would be a stable bullying relationship between certain individuals, which develops over time from some initial marginalising behaviour. Relevant here is the finding of Morita and colleagues that

196

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

the more frequently bullying occurs, the longer it tends to continue (it becomes an entrenched pattern, an attractor state) [69]. This systemic approach can also encompass findings of transaction, whereby individual factors promote victimisation and victimisation promotes changes in the individual, such as depression [70]. Dixon makes the important point that systems theories are not, in themselves, explanatory. Essentially, the same point has been made about the dispositif : that it almost makes no sense to talk about ‘the dispositif ’ in the abstract, as it has to be about something specific [71]. Similarly, this means that in applying systems theories to conceptualise processes, we need to draw upon theories from elsewhere to understand content. For example, Dixon uses theories of ostracism and stigma to explain bullying, which were amongst those we covered in Chap. 8. Systems thinking provides a way of conceptualising complexity, interactive and transactional processes, and change although, as Dixon notes, it has been applied more to clinical practice than to research. As she points out, a systemic approach entails a shift from a focus on behaviours to a consideration of functionality in light of the underlying structure of the problem, and this may require a reconceptualisation of bullying, which is what paradigm 2 advocates and this book are attempting to do. Dixon also emphasises the importance of aiming to be a neutral observer of a system in order to understand the functions of the behaviours of the various actors; she gives the example, from her study, of not reacting against the views of the specialist teachers about the hearing-impaired students, which seemed to be prejudiced, in order that she could understand how their beliefs had arisen. This notion is familiar to anyone who has worked professionally to address family difficulties from a systemic perspective, though it is also important to be aware that in researching, or working professionally within, a system, whether a family or a school, one also becomes a temporary part of it, bringing certain behaviours, beliefs and values and being viewed in certain ways by other participants. There may also be times when it is necessary to advocate for certain individuals, even while understanding the perspectives of others, as couples therapist Neil Jacobson recognised in working on marital relationships when one partner was violent [72]. Here is a statement about bullying behaviour that Dixon presents as arising from her research: Sometimes bullying behaviour may be understood as the unfortunate, temporary by-product of developmental or maintenance processes within dyadic or group systems. However, such processes may take a more pathological form, resulting in more serious or enduring problems. Factors at other levels of the system will interact with these dyadic and group processes, impacting upon the form, intensity and duration of the bullying behaviours. For example, factors within the individual child, the family or the school may have a significant impact on the genesis, maintenance or management of bullying in any given case [73].

This statement has a clear similarity to the definition proposed by Schott and Søndergaard, in conceptualising bullying as something that arises when normal group processes become extreme, although they presumably would not endorse the word ‘pathological’. Where Dixon’s description differs significantly is in specifically recognising the potential impact of many other factors that the paradigm 2 proponents either do not cover or consider largely irrelevant, such as characteristics

Systems Theories

197

of individual children and families (they do recognise the power of individuals, but as resulting from the social roles they hold, not from individual attributes). Dixon’s inclusion of individual attributes is supported by the available evidence (see Chap. 5). Paradigm 2 proponents seem too ready to discard the many research findings under paradigm 1 that have contributed to an understanding of a broad range of factors relevant for bullying.

Conclusions We began this chapter by outlining some ways in which paradigm 2 researchers have sought to capture complexity and nonlinearity in school bullying. Our preferred theoretical framework for achieving this is in terms of systems. While ecological systems theory has been applied by researchers into bullying for some time, the possibilities of Dynamic Systems Theory and the related concepts of complex adaptive systems are only beginning to be explored as offering alternative ‘thinking technologies’, or even new methodologies. In the next chapter, with Dixon’s statement and the idea of bullying as marginalisation as starting points, we will attempt to pull together, in a systemic framework, the broad range of issues that we have established in the previous chapters as relevant for bullying. We finish this chapter by reintroducing a human face into our systems theorising, by quoting from an autobiographical book by US singer and music teacher miroslav manovski [74]. He gives readers insight into the crushing weight of being marginalised and unable to escape, whichever of your social microsystems you turn to. He is chastised for his effeminacy at home and at school, and later sexually harassed by ‘mentors’ during his tertiary studies, but is finally able, through affirming experiences with a particular singing teacher and a loving partner, to build his identity, accepting his sexuality and fulfilling his artistic ambitions. He was the boy mentioned in Chap. 1 as subject to humiliating naked press-ups in his teens by a teacher and a class of boys. This is part of his description of his experiences of school bullying: Were you ever the center of every prank that classmates would create? Were you the negative target of the humiliating initiation processes when other new kids came to your school (new kids who would have to do something negative to you or else)? … Have you ever gone to your principal, an assistant principal, a counselor, a teacher, and been told, “You just have to learn how to get along. I doubt this is exactly what’s happening. That’s not what the other four boys (and their parents) have said. Well, have you thought about not acting that way? What could we do to butch you up?” … I still remember my mother’s screaming, calling my aunt, holding my wrists and smacking me, “Why did you do this? What the hell am I going to do with you?!” as I was crying, wincing, declaring, “I didn’t mean to. It was an accident. I didn’t think anything would really happen––I’m okay, it’s nothing––it was just sharp … it hardly touched my skin!” … could you imagine what it would have taken for any parent to confront and deal with those people who had been so [unl]awful to me, including my peers’ parents, administrators––the whole majority who were normally cruel to me on a daily basis?

198

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

References 1. Nesdale, D., & Dalton, D. (2011). Children’s social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 895–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02017.x 2. Earnshaw, V. A., Reisner, S. L., Menino, D., Poteat, P., Bogart, L. M., Barnes, T. N., & Schuster, M. A. (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 48, 178–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001 3. Olweus, D. (2002). Bullying at school. Blackwell Publishers. 4. Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84(3), 772e790. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cdev.12012. 5. Brenick, A., & Romano, K. (2016). Perceived peer and parent outgroup norms, cultural identity, and adolescents’ reasoning about peer intergroup exclusion. Child Development, 87, 1392e1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12594. 6. Ma, H. K. (2013). The moral development of the child: An integrated model. Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 1, Article 57. Online. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2013.00057. 7. Brenick, A., & Halgunseth, L. C. (2017). Brief note: Applying developmental intergroup perspectives to the social ecologies of bullying: Lessons from developmental social psychology. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.05.018. 8. Maunder, R. E., & Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010 9. Kofoed, J. (2014). Non-simultaneity in cyberbullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 159–184). Cambridge University Press. 10. Lausten, C. B. (2014). Dispositifs of bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 97–126, 101). Cambridge University Press. 11. Callewaert, S. (2017). Foucault’s concept of dispositif. Praktiske Grunde. Nordisk tidsskrift for kultur- og samfundsvidenskab, nr., 1–2, 29–52. 12. Callewaert, S. (2017). Foucault’s concept of dispositif. Praktiske Grunde. Nordisk tidsskrift for kultur- og samfundsvidenskab, nr. 1–2, 29–52, 45. 13. Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Introduction: New approaches to school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 1– 17). Cambridge University Press. 14. Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Introduction: New approaches to school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context, (pp. 1–17, 48). Cambridge University Press. 15. Bertalanffy, L., von (1968). General systems theory. Braziller. 16. Brauckmann, S. (2006). The organism and the open system: Ervin Bauer and Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1749-6632.2000.tb06288.x 17. Roth, S. (2019). The open theory and its enemy: Implicit moralisation as epistemological obstacle for General Systems Theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2590 18. Bausch, K. C. (2003). The emerging consensus in social systems theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 19. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives (p. 179). Routledge. 20. Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0013189X19826958 21. Allen, P. (2018). Complex, evolving social systems: Unending, imperfect learning. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 18–44). Edward Elgar Publishing.

References

199

22. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley. 23. Van Assche, K., Valentinov, V., & Verschraegen, G. (2019). Ludwig von Bertalanffy and his enduring relevance: Celebrating 50 years general system theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36, 251–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2589 24. Crnkovic, G. D. (2012). Information and energy/matter. Information, 3, 751–755. https://doi. org/10.3390/info3040751 25. Moore, D. S. (2013). The babies, the representations, and the nativist–empiricist bathwater. Commentary on “Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist ‘debate’” by J. Allen & M. Bickhard. Cognitive Development, 28, 148– 153, 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.006. 26. Forcina, G., Vallet, D., Le Gouar, P. J., Bernardo-Madrid, R., Illera, G., Molina-Vacas, G., Dréano, S., Revilla, E., Rodríguez-Teijeiro, J. D., Ménard, N., & Bermejo, M., Vilà, C. (2019). From groups to communities in western lowland gorillas. In Proceedings of the royal society B: biological sciences, 286 (1896). Online. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2019. 27. Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Schools as open systems. Schooling, 1, 1–5. 28. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 29. Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00461520.2018.1469411 30. Shute, R. H. (2016). ‘Promotion with parents is challenging.’ The role of teacher communication skills and parent-teacher partnerships in school-based mental health initiatives. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 64–74). Routledge. 31. Lambert, R., & Millham, S. (1968). The hothouse society. Penguin. 32. Morita, Y., Taki, M., & Hata, M. (1999). cited in Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(3), 315–330. https://www.jstor.org/sta ble/3593327. 33. Davey, M. (2017). Catholic church dismisses key recommendations from landmark inquiry into child abuse. The Guardian, 15 December 2017. Accessed March 12, 2020 at https://www.thegua rdian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/15/royal-commission-final-report-australia-child-abuse. 34. ABC News (2020). Disgraced former American cardinal Theodore McCarrick misled popes about sex crimes, Vatican says. ABC News, 11 November 2020. Accessed November 11, 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-11/uk-catholic-church-inquiry-child-sex ual-abuse-vatican-mccarrick/12869800. 35. Lendrum, A., Humphrey, N., & Greenberg, M. (2016). Implementing for success in schoolbased mental health promotion: The role of quality in resolving the tension between fidelity and adaptation. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee, Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 53–63). Routledge. 36. Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives. Routledge. 37. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. Ch. 17. in R. M. Lerner (vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development, 5th edn. Vol. 1 (pp. 993–1028). Wiley. 38. Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018 39. Huh, S. H., Park, J. S., & Jung, T. Y. (2009). A longitudinal study of the effects of bullying on the self-image and self-esteem of adolescent victims. Studies on Korean Youth, 55, 279–299. 40. Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014. 947216 41. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge.

200

12 Complexity, Schools and Bullying

42. Thornberg, R. (2017). School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. British Journal of Sociology of Education. Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/014 25692.2017.1330680. 43. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press. 44. Sapolsky, R. M., & Share, L. J. (2004). A pacific culture among wild baboons: Its emergence and transmission. PLOS Biology, 2(4), e106. Accessed March 7, 2017 at https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387274/. 45. Cheney, A. W., & Terry, K. P. (2018). Immersive learning environments as complex dynamic systems. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 277–289. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/. 46. Taylor, R. T., & La Cava, G. S. (2011). Urban principals’ second order change leadership. Planning and Changing, 42(3/4), 224–240. 47. Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). From technically standardised interventions to analytically informed, multi-perspective intervention strategies. In Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014) (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context, (pp. 389–404). Cambridge University Press. 48. Hayes, D. (2020). Harvey Weinstein trial: Former ‘Project Runway’ PA Mimi Haleyi testifies about sexual assault claim – update. Deadline, 27 January 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020 at https://deadline.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-trial-project-runway-mimi-haleyi-120 2842589/#!. 49. Duncan, N., & Rivers, I. (2013). Introduction. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 1–9). Routledge. 50. Kutsar, D., Soo, K., & Mandel, L.-M. (2019). Schools for wellbeing? Critical discussions with schoolchildren. International Journal of Emotional Education, 11, 49–66. 51. Marr, N., & Field, T. (2001). cited in Minton, S. J. (2016). Marginalisation and aggression from bullying to genocide (p. xi–xii). Sense. 52. Kurtz, G. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483. 53. Carmichael, T., & Hadžikadi´c, M. (2019). The fundamentals of complex adaptive systems. In Carmichael, T., Collins, A., & Hadžikadi´c, M. (Eds.), Complex adaptive systems: Understanding complex systems, pp. 1–16. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-203 09-2_1. 54. Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. Basic Books. 55. Keshavarz, N., Nutbeam, D., Rowling, L., & Khavarpour, F. (2010). Schools as social complex adaptive systems: A new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1467–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsci med.2010.01.034 56. Kauffman, S. (1995). cited in Dodder, R., & Dare, R. (2000). Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory: Inter-related knowledge domains. Research seminar in engineering systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 31 October 2000. Accessed September 12, 2020 at http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/ComplexityKD.PDF. 57. Ackerman, J. (2020). The bird way: A new look at how birds talk, work, play, parent, and think. Penguin. 58. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature (p. 292). Flamingo. 59. Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Towards a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963 60. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge. 61. Steen, M. V., Twist, M., Fenger, M., & Le Cointre, S. L. (2013). Complex causality in improving underperforming schools: A complex adaptive systems approach. Policy & Politics, 41(4), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655800

References

201

62. Haggis, T. (2000). Approaching complexity: A response to Keshavarz, Nutbeam, Rowling and Khavarpour. Social Science and Medicine, 20(10), 1475–1477. 63. Mudrak, G., & Semwal, S. (2015). Modeling aggression and bullying: A complex systems approach. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 2015, 187–191. 64. Smaldino, P. E. (2019). Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution. Behavioural Processes, 161, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.11.015 65. Jones, S., Haslam, S. A., York, L., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). Rotten apple or rotten barrel? Social identity and children’s responses to bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X200385. 66. Guttormsem, D. (2018). Advancing otherness and othering of the cultural other during ‘intercultural encounters’ in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 48(3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1480874 67. Di Francesco, G. (2017). Methodological issues for the analysis of bullying in educational environments. In A. Maturo, Š. Hošková-mayerová, D-t. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models, Studies in systems, decision and control 66 (pp. 149–155). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40585-8_13. 68. Di Francesco, G. (2017). Methodological issues for the analysis of bullying in educational environments. In A. Maturo, Š. Hošková-mayerová, D-t. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models, Studies in systems, decision and control 66 (pp. 149–155,154). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40585-8_13. 69. Morita, Y., Taki, M., & Hata, M. (1999), cited in Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01425690301894. 70. Snyder, J., Brooker, M., Patrik, M. R., Snyder, A., Schrepferman, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (2003). Observed peer victimization during early elementary school: Continuity, growth, and relation to risk for child antisocial and depressive behavior. Child Development, 74, 1881–1898. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00644.x. 71. Lausten, C. B. (2014). Dispositifs of bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 97–126). Cambridge University Press. 72. Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women. Simon & Schuster. 73. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model (p. 202). Cambridge University Press. 74. manovski, P. M. (2014). Arts-based research, autoethnography, and music education: Singing through a culture of marginalization (pp. 20–21, 87). Sense.

Chapter 13

Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

Schott and Søndergaard raised the possibility of combining bullying paradigms 1 and 2 by including social interactions within an individualised approach, but concluded that such a simple ‘add-on’ is not good enough [1]. Some of the bullying research that adopts a broader framework, such as that based on social identity theories, they would perhaps classify as such. Rather, they say, new understandings are needed, especially concerning power, as something that is created through social interactions, and influenced by dominant social and moral orders. We believe our systems approach addresses these matters. To provide a philosophical underpinning for such an integrative approach, we return to the idea we mentioned in Chap. 4, of unifying ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches to social phenomena. A systems approach, and the concept of emergence, is helpful here. Emergence has been subject to much philosophical debate, but an analysis by Italy’s Raffaele Mascella is especially pertinent for our current project [2]. We will not attempt to outline the in-depth argument, which seeks to reconcile the concept of social emergence with a particular theory of ‘downward causation’ in systems. Rather, we will make some simple points that follow from it. The evolutionary and psychological perspectives we have outlined are bottomup, building on the behaviour of individuals. Individuals have properties that may be either manifest or latent (the latter only becoming apparent in social contexts, as with the Army Ants). The properties of individuals give rise to emergent social phenomena such as the formation of groups and bullying that are not apparent when considering the individual in isolation. Social structures, such as social constructions of gender and race, are also emergent from the subjective states of individual actors. Those structures are not reducible to the causal powers of individuals, but nevertheless place constraints on individuals (‘downward causation’). To take our traffic jam example again, although the jam cannot be predicted by the behaviour of individual vehicles, once it occurs, those vehicles are prevented from moving forward. Using the example of European industrialisation, Joseph Henrich has spoken about how societal change (industrialisation) caused changes in family structures (becoming more nuclear), which led individuals to think differently about the world (more © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_13

203

204

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

individualistically), which in turn translated into laws and institutions focused on individual rights and obligations that then placed constraints on individuals, in a coevolving process [3]. Mascella’s ‘hybrid’ systemic explanation for social phenomena thus holds that both isolated individuals and social structures have distinct causal influence. As such, Mascella’s argument can be seen as a complex systems version of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, whereby individual cognition and culture create and recreate one another in an ongoing, dynamic process. In accord with the concern of Schott and Søndergaard, the social power of individuals can be seen as emergent from their group belonging, while those groups, and individuals within them, are also constrained by cultural norms concerning the social and moral orders, which serve to oppress some members of society and may be reflected in bullying, as in, for example, racist or dis-ableist bullying. Consistent with complex systems thinking, such hegemony has itself been characterised as ‘a temporary and fragile configuration of power relations’ [4] that, like the dispositif , only exists until the next version comes along, though the timescales for change may vary considerably. Here, we put forward an Integrated Bullying Framework (IBF) that unites topdown and bottom-up approaches to bullying. We do so in two forms: firstly, as a narrative statement, and then as a complementary diagrammatic version, adding some remarks about implications for research and practice. We end the chapter with an illustrative case study.

The Integrated Bullying Framework: A Statement We are putting forward here, for consideration, not a definition, but a lengthy (threeparagraph) statement for creating an understanding of bullying and other forms of unkindness that draws upon the discussions in the previous chapters. It takes an evolutionary starting point and directly incorporates aspects (including some of the wording) of several of the bullying statements considered so far. It expands on Schott and Søndergaard’s already lengthy definition but is also in keeping with Dixon’s integrated approach. Homo sapiens is a highly social primate species in which biological and cultural evolution are interwoven. Humans are subject to selective pressures to both compete and cooperate with others, but with peaceable co-existence as a basic state. Individuals have close emotional ties with a small number of others, but also maintain relationships with broader groups in large-scale societies. Individuals strive to coordinate with those most likely to help them meet their goals, leading to the emergence of groups which provide to members a sense of identity, belonging, status, power and a meaningful existence, attributes which are necessary for human thriving. Groups may be widely recognised as formal institutions (e.g. schools), or be informal (e.g. friendship cliques), and can be considered as systems or subsystems. Individuals categorise themselves, often subconsciously, as belonging to multiple groups, which are shaped by dynamic social processes of inclusion and exclusion that may interact with a range of factors within or beyond the system. These include individual, group, institutional

The Integrated Bullying Framework: A Statement

205

and cultural characteristics that may have a significant impact on the genesis, maintenance or management of social situations that some deem problematic. If, in the course of social interactions, an individual’s feeling of group belongingness is reinforced, then their power, social status and sense of having a meaningful existence will be upheld. However, threats to the social status quo, as individuals attempt to cross system boundaries, create a threat to belonging that causes anxiety about the risk of exclusion. Actual exclusion causes pain and distress. The stress of threatened or actual exclusion triggers coping responses, which may be effective or ineffective in restoring a sense of belonging. In particular, there is a strong tendency for social exclusion anxiety to be alleviated by defining some individual(s) as ‘the other’ and treating them with contempt. Contempt may be expressed by behaviour that, for example, humiliates, trivialises or makes a person feel invisible or ashamed, involves threatened or actual harm to a person, their property or those they care about, abuses social-media profiles or disseminates humiliating messages via technological communication. Contempt is based on attributes such as behaviour or appearance, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, religion, nationality, or any other material or symbolic attribute nominated by those doing the excluding. The selected attribute(s) may be widely stigmatised in society, and the marginalising behaviour may attract labels such as racism, sexual harassment or homophobia. Marginalisation may be low-grade or temporary, but if it is extreme or a recursive pattern of marginalisation becomes established, it constitutes bullying, regardless of whether such exclusion is experienced and/or intended, and it raises concerns about human rights and morality. Although marginalisation processes are functional, and some members of the social group may experience them as positive, robbing individuals of the social recognition that is necessary for dignity can be a form of psychological torture for those who are targeted. This is especially so if the targeted individuals are unable to easily escape the contemptuous behaviours or to gain access to any alternative groups which provide support and a sense of belonging, identity, status, power and a meaningful existence.

On this view, bullying is a marked form of marginalisation that may be based on any criterion deemed to differentiate one group from another in a way that draws contempt. A light-hearted example is that, in the world of classical music, viola players and their instruments are the regular butt of jokes by the other orchestra members (e.g. ‘What’s the difference between a viola and a coffin?’ ‘A coffin has the body on the inside!’). Viola players seem to take it stoically (some even love the jokes), and they are certainly not excluded from the orchestra, being a necessary component of it. But if anyone wishes to make a case that this is a form of bullying, we could not really argue. After all, ‘I was only joking’ is often the response of one accused of bullying. The term ‘racist bullying’ has already entered public discourse, as in the previously cited media report about increased racist bullying in British schools [5]. ‘Sexual bullying’ (Neil Duncan’s term) we mentioned before as capturing, for example, the harassment of girls by boys (such as denigrating their bodies) as a way of maintaining their own superior group status (as males) relative to females [6]. A generic term, bias-based bullying, has been introduced to include any form of bullying that is based on a victim’s minority or oppressed status, and ‘hate speech’ is one form that this can take [7]. We have introduced to the statement the reference to harming someone a person cares about, to leave open the possibility of applying the statement, or a version of it, to domestic violence, where men have murdered children as a form of revenge

206

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

against their partner (a shocking example of familicide occurred in Australia as this very chapter was being drafted, with a mother and three children burned to death in a car on a suburban street) [8]. The final sentence of the statement is relevant not just for students unable to escape bullies in the school context but for women (and occasionally men) trapped in abusive relationships. Such extreme violence is largely beyond the scope of matters discussed in this book. However, it is worth noting that direct bullying behaviours can carry over, in time, into dating violence [9], while homophobic teasing established in the early teens is predictive of later sexual violence [10]. Like Tremblay’s research mentioned in Chap. 2 [11], these studies indicate that there is a developmental trajectory, for some children, from bullying through to teen and adult violence, which underscores the importance of prevention and early intervention. Under paradigm 2 and our IBF, there is no helpful dividing line between ‘bullying’ and ‘not bullying’, but a spectrum of marginalisation. However, in practice, it was never straightforward to identify bullying even under paradigm 1, as Si’erra’s case illustrated (see Chap. 4). Despite specific definitions, teachers, parents and students have their own ideas about what bullying is, and whether it has occurred––there were the various opinions of Si’erra’s classmates, for example, and the difficulties of differentiating ‘bullying’ from ‘banter’ that Skryzpiec and colleagues observed. Dixon noted the problems teachers have in working out ‘what really happened’, and Kofoed found that, while a school principal and others may give a linear account of a cyberbullying event, in terms of who started it, what happened, who was involved and how it was resolved, interviews with various parties reveal a much more complex story, with no clear beginning or ending, no obvious villains or victims, nor a clearcut cast of characters. She suggests that an adult trying to work out ‘what happened’ amidst a maze of cryptic and often encrypted electronic messages is on a hiding to nothing. Paradigm 2, a complex systems perspective and the IBF accept such difficulties and the fact that various viewpoints exist; while some may deem a situation problematic, others may not. For example, a targeted young person and their treating psychologist may regard a situation as constituting bullying and harmful, while the ‘bullies’ may suspend empathy and claim entitlement to choose their own friends. When Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape, he found it confusing and said he considered that he was in consensual sexual relationships with the women who testified against him. As Kofoed has said, even ‘unreliable accounts’ are informative [12]. Systems thinking suggests the value of a search for functionality to understand the complex nature of the social processes of marginalisation that may constitute bullying. This does not rule out that, at times, responsibility for actions may have to be taken [13]. Weinstein may have felt entitled and confused, but the justice system eventually brought him to account.

A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying …

207

A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying Framework Broad Principles Our statement about the IBF is one way of attempting to bring together the many elements relevant for bullying that we have identified, in the form of a coherent narrative. Another way is to present a proposed diagrammatic scheme of bullying in complex dynamic system terms and that complements, rather than simply reproduces, the narrative statement. It is impossible to capture all aspects of the IBF in a single diagram, but Fig. 13.1 is an attempt to include those that are central to the arguments put forward in this book. Systems exist as hierarchical layers (subsystems within systems within environments), and there are various perspectives that can be taken. The entire scheme could be considered as a bullying system (or even as a dispositif of bullying), or as a collection of interrelated systems (or subsystems), the definition of system borders depending on the interest of a particular user (such as the present reader), and provided that each system or subsystem can be conceived of as having the properties we identified in the previous chapter (a sense of holism, feedback loops, etc.). If a part of the framework is considered as a system, then the remainder constitutes its environment, which may include other systems (as with our troop of gorillas within an environment that includes other systems in the form of other troops). From a human development point of view, Jennifer and Zachary Neal propose that any system needs to be considered from the perspective of a particular agent: ‘the specific nature and configuration of ecological systems influencing the development of an individual depends on, must be considered from, the perspective of the focal individual’ [14]. A similar conclusion has been reached by Zoltán Dörnyei, in suggesting that an individual (or collective) agent in a dynamic social system provides an indispensable reference point for delimiting context [15]. Therefore, whether we consider the individual as an agent within a system, or as a system in their own right within an environmental context, then that individual provides the perspective for viewing what lies beyond. Here, our focal individual is a school student (though other perspectives are possible and might be preferred in certain contexts, disciplines or cultures). This individual is shown as a shaded area, and as a system in their own right, composed of a complex of interrelated entities relevant to peer group marginalisation and bullying. The individual is depicted as existing within an environment composed of other systems with which the individual has relationships, at various ecological levels, in accord with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. It is important to note that though this scheme includes ‘boxes and arrows’, it is not a traditional ‘model’, testable by standard quantitative methods, although parts of it could be used to help develop such models. Nor is it a ‘network’ as understood in complex systems terms, although it could be used for developing a network approach or computerised simulations that would take account of emergence. It could also be used to guide qualitative or mixed-methods research. All these possible approaches

208

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

Fig. 13.1 Schematic representation of the Integrated Bullying Framework

will be outlined in the next chapter. Here, the IBF is presented as an overarching and flexible framework that draws together in a holistic fashion many of the entities and processes that evidence to date suggests are relevant for a comprehensive understanding of school bullying.

A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying …

209

Attention is centred on the individual student’s psychological processes that are involved in social identity and school peer group belonging, being marginalised and marginalising others. A basic philosophical question is whether it is possible to conceive of cognitive representations (such as identity and self-esteem) at all within a complex, dynamic systems framework. David Moore has convincingly argued that it is, and we refer interested readers to his paper [16]. The framework is consistent with Jonathan Hilpert and Gwen Marchand’s complex adaptive systems (CAS) approach to identity development as ‘theorised to be shaped by intra- and interperson processes that are mediated by sociocognitive and cultural forces’ [17]. Cultural influences are shown at the top of the diagram (Bronfenbrenner’s macrosystem), in accord with paradigm 2 perspectives. The inclusion of the family microsystem and individual characteristics (such as personality and mental health problems) acknowledges their role according to paradigm 1; they may affect, and be affected by, bullying. Biology is included, in the form of the physiological stress, physical symptoms and stress-related epigenetic changes that occur in response to being bullied in the longer term. The whole framework can therefore be taken as biopsychosocial in nature and in keeping with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems view. However, the scheme is not represented as a nested hierarchy, in the way that Bronfenbrenner’s theory is generally depicted, with the individual at the centre, enclosed Russian doll like within microsystems, mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. The Neals have argued that this standard representation is misleading. For example, concentric circles would suggest that the individual’s interactions with school peers take place within aspects of the exosystem, such as parental workplaces or health care facilities, but this is generally not so. While the exosystem is sometimes relevant for bullying, as when a local government education department hands down directives to schools, it would be misleading to interpose it as a necessary link between the macrosystem and microsystems, so we have depicted it as connected to the macrosystem but otherwise free-floating. The Neals also contend that the ‘settings’ in a social system are not so much about spatial structures (e.g. the school, the home) as about the sets of interacting people in those physical spaces. For example, a microsystem, in their view, is ‘a set of people engaged in social interaction—that includes the focal individual’ [14]. Although for convenience, and in accord with standard psychological practice, the individual is shown as separate from other individuals in the microsystems, they are inevitably intertwined, which is why we have labelled those microsystems in interactional terms.1 We can include other relevant entities in the microsystems, such as school climate and policies, though ultimately these will affect the individual via interpersonal interactions. 1

This has resonance with the paradigm 2 term ‘intra-action’ that we mentioned in the previous chapter, as well as a concept called ‘constitutive relationalism’ that sees the human mind as only existing in relationship to other entities with which it is in transaction. Also relevant are our discussions in Chaps. 2 and 4 concerning the impossibility of conceiving of the self as existing in isolation from other humans. See Shute, R. H. & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Thinking about theories. Hove: Routledge, pp. 136–137.

210

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

Michael Jacobson and colleagues say that those who have considered educational systems as CAS have paid relatively little attention to the behaviour of individual agents and how these interact with other agents in a parallel fashion by sending and receiving signals [18] (speaking, listening, playing, joking, etc.). These occur between children in the school peer microsystem and encompass the communicative behaviours that can sometimes constitute bullying. The focal person is an inherently socially orientated system that is necessarily engaged in making meaning of its interactions with others [19, 20]. In our specific case, this focal individual is a student who is undertaking social identity processing in relation to interactions with school peers. Family, peer, and non-peer school-related microsystems may be mutually influential (in Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem, not labelled as such here), and each also interacts with the focal individual’s characteristics. A reasonable question to ask would be: ‘But where are the various peer groups on which these processes are said to crucially depend?’ This again concerns the matter of perspective in considering systems. In the simulations described in the previous chapter, we had a bird’s eye, objective, view of multiple agents with particular characteristics, with groups forming and reforming. In the present case, the focus is not on the groups as entities, but on the focal individual’s social categorisation processes. What matters here is not objectively defined groups; for the individual, these are dynamic, ever-shifting and dependent on context, as in Self-Categorisation Theory, and the central issue is whether or not these categorisation processes result in a sense of belonging. The dynamic nature of the scheme is indicated, with transactional influences apparent. It is not devised from the point of view of being ‘a bully’ or ‘a victim’. Rather, as one traces through the individual’s possible range of psychological processes in relation to exclusion, and back to peer interactions, it becomes possible to take paths consistent with any role, either repeatedly (forming a discernible pattern) or consistent with changing roles, such as when a targeted child turns to excluding another to relieve their own social exclusion anxiety. This is consistent with the findings that both role fluidity and role stability exist. According to our formulation, the path taken depends pivotally on whether ingroup belonging is reinforced or threatened. Bronfenbrenner identified the importance of the ‘chronosystem’, but timescales will vary. Cultural change is generally slow, while for the individual, change is more rapid. Over time, patterns will become ingrained (learning will occur), as personality characteristics or as habitual ways of thinking and behaving. Some entities, such as gender and personality, will tend to remain relatively stable over long timeframes, while others, such as salient self-categorisations and emotions, will be subject to more rapid fluctuations. In turn, the individual’s characteristics will influence their peer interactions.

A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying …

211

Marginalisation Pathways Role of the Macrosystem To break this scheme down in more detail, at the top is the macrosystem: laws, governments and aspects of culture such as community attitudes and values and the status and stigmatisation of certain societal groups that can contribute to bullying. As Chilean anthropologist Marcela Román has pointed out, ‘schools reflect what is going on in society’ [21]. The Neals see the macrosystem as a set of social patterns that govern the formation and dissolution of the social interactions between individuals––for example, the tendency for individuals to associate with similar others (homophily), such as those of similar status, gender or values. The focal individual, family members and peers, as well as school personnel and policies, will all be affected by cultural attitudes about gender and disability, for example, and be subject to legal and political influences. In the course of development, the individual will acquire certain cultural biases (in accordance with Vygotskian theory) that may be conscious or unconscious and will influence interactions with others, including social identity processes (e.g. in making meaning of identity markers). The crucial role of culture in understanding bullying has recently begun to be discussed. Taking a broad theoretical overview informed by Vygotskian theory, Maunder and Crafter have discussed how conceptualisations of bullying, and related discourses, vary between cultures and evolve over time, influencing the meanings that people make of situations that some may interpret as bullying [22]. In the US context, Stjepan Meštrovi´c has examined bullying within a sociological and philosophical framework that sees it as a symptom of a culture that promotes it––specifically, within a twenty-firstcentury ‘postemotional’ culture that encourages bullying through turning emotions crucial for social bonding into something that is personal, inauthentic and ‘managed for effect’ (e.g. in entertainment) [23]. Individuals can sometimes have a significant effect on culture or subcultures–– consider social-media ‘influencers’ or Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg speaking persuasively to the United Nations about climate change! [24] However, in general, the focal individual, peers, families and school personnel will have relatively weak effects on culture and other aspects of the macrosystem (indicated by light arrowheads). Such change often requires group efforts and a long timescale. Community beliefs about gender are an interesting case in present historical times, showing a slow and contentious shift as more (or no) genders are proposed and same-sex marriage becomes legal in some countries. Cultures do change, but there is often strong resistance in the face of challenges to the sense of self of members of powerful groups. For example, when women first began to enter the medical profession in the UK in 1867, at the University of Edinburgh, there were riots by men who attempted to prevent them from taking their examinations, literally slinging mud at them [25]. A legal challenge by powerful men at the university was successful, and it was judged that the women should not have been awarded degrees, which were withdrawn; women were not admitted to the university again until 1892. Resistance to

212

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

cultural change is evidenced today by abusive comments by radio ‘shock jocks’, online trolling of outspoken minorities and women, and the stance of some conservative political parties (e.g. the Polish government moved, in 2020, to withdraw from a European treaty on violence against women) [26]. Another recent example harks back to our previous reference to the Catholic Church as a powerful institution resistant to change: Pope Francis himself, in a speech to Vatican administrators, cited a nineteenth-century Belgian diplomat as saying that reforming Rome was like trying to clean the Sphinx with a toothbrush (notably, the audience did not laugh––an instance of Billig’s ‘unlaughing’!) [27].

Role of Microsystems Closer to the individual child in the diagram are the family and the school-related microsystems (both peer-related and non-peer-related) which are all mutually interactive. Non-peer school-related entities include teacher beliefs and behaviour towards students, as well as anti-bullying policies [28]. Many other entities could be included here, such as pedagogy and curriculum, which have been identified as influencing ijime, for example. These may themselves be in transactional relationships with one another, such as teacher behaviour contributing to school climate and vice versa, though it is not possible to show this amount of detail (the same may apply elsewhere in the diagram where multiple entities are listed). In comparison with cultural change, individuals have more opportunity to influence this non-peer school microsystem; however, their power to do so may still be relatively weak. For example, parents who report to the school that their child is being bullied often feel disempowered, as school personnel tend to blame the targeted child or imply that the family background is the cause [29]. Teachers are often reluctant to accept reports of bullying that they have not personally witnessed, and parents may initially doubt their own judgement but, over time, become more assertive, with the home-school relationship becoming antagonistic [29]. Also, some individuals do succeed in marshalling others to create change, such as an activist parent, teacher or student; take, for example, former secondary school student Chanel Contos’ headline-creating petition for the introduction of sexual consent education into private schools in Sydney, Australia [30]. On the left below the macrosystem, we see the school peer microsystem, which encompasses social behaviours (such as prosocial behaviours, humour and gossip) that help students to make decisions about the groups to which they would prefer to belong, and the other behaviours we discussed previously that are involved in getting closer to, or more distant from, others, such as choice of dress, nonverbal behaviour and language, which can change from day to day or even moment to moment as interactions with others unfold. These behaviours in turn interact with the individual’s peer-related social identity (top left corner of the shaded area): in the course of exchanges with peers, students categorise themselves and others, make comparisons and identify with certain groups (this in turn affects behaviours such as gossip, humour, cooperation and adhering, or not, to group norms).

A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying …

213

Some peer groups and their norms may be culturally pre-defined, such as gender and how to behave in accordance with it. Guttormsen criticises Social Identity and Self-Categorisation Theories for taking little account of the strong anchoring of ‘othering’ in cultural and historical factors which, as a result, can only be changed by events that are greatly disruptive to the self [31]. As we have already indicated, the present view accepts that culture is a powerful player in othering, in concert with more local entities, which may also be considered emergent; for example, particular peer group cliques and their prescribed or typical ways of behaving (norms). Teachers also play a crucial part, in terms of their shaping of, and responding to, student peer group interactions. For example, according to Constance Ellwood and Bronwyn Davies, teachers can play a role through their attributions: they are more likely to label a behaviour as ‘bullying’ if the child has previously been seen as ‘a bully’ [32]. Teachers also vary in how seriously they consider different types of bullying, and this contributes to whether and how they respond to incidents [28].

Role of the Individual In the diagram, the focal individual’s social identity processes in relation to peer interactions are shown as leading (down the left) to one of two possible outcomes: ingroup belonging is either reinforced or it is threatened. If it is reinforced, it is expected to continue to fulfil those basic human needs identified by various theories that we have discussed, including one’s social standing (whether conceived in terms of status, dignity or self-esteem), power or control, and the sense of meaningful existence that arises from connectedness with others. This in turn leads to positive emotions which, in interaction with other personal attributes, contribute positively to wellbeing. Children themselves perceive positive feelings as integral to their wellbeing [33]. Alternatives to ‘wellbeing’ could be ‘happiness’, ‘flourishing’, ‘quality of life’ or some other concept such as eudaemonia that captures a broad sense of how far one is thriving or doing well in life. Notable at this point is evidence that a strong sense of belonging to a range of groups (not mere contact with them) has a positive effect on young people’s wellbeing [34]. The existence of other social identities is acknowledged in the list of ‘other individual characteristics’. These might include, for example, an identity as a member of a community sports team, or a follower of a certain Twitter account. These would arise from interactions within microsystems that are additional to the three we have shown. An example, analysed by Viala from a complexity perspective, is the experience of Linda, a Danish adult who recalled her experiences of being bullied at her new school after her family relocated; after years of this treatment, she finally stood up for herself after involvement with the Girl Scouts, a context where she experienced acceptance, encouragement and a sense of belonging that enabled her to see the school bullying as unacceptable and empowered her to challenge it [20]. We can further observe here that self-esteem has been described as acting as a ‘sociometer’, in other words, as a measure of how one’s relational value is faring

214

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

[35], recalling that children’s self-esteem is related to both their sense of social support and their network size [36]. Self-esteem is proposed to act as an index of how far a person feels included and protected by the group. If self-esteem is low or dropping, it is a sign that group belonging needs attention in order to avoid a decline in wellbeing (and it is the focal person’s perception of inclusion or exclusion that matters, whatever alternative views might exist) [37]. In one of Phillip’s favourite British comedies (set in a bookshop in London––Black Books), the main character Bernard in one episode describes how an acquaintance had ‘blanked him’, reflecting on the pain and anguish that he experienced. In addition, we should note that the socially derived benefits of recognition (such as self-esteem and control) are not independent of other individual characteristics. For example, repeated patterns of social recognition over time influence the individual’s cognitive biases, such as how they interpret social signals in peer interactions [38]. The possibility of some individual characteristics directly affecting self-esteem, sense of control, etc., is indicated in the diagram, but the arrowhead is stronger in the other direction to indicate the precedence that must be given to social recognition, given humanity’s essentially social nature (see Chap. 2). Now, to return to peer group social identity processing (top left box in the shaded area), let us consider that it leads to ingroup belonging being threatened. We see firstly that this has a negative effect on self-esteem and those other basic human needs that are nurtured by belonging, which will in turn lower positive emotions and put downward pressure on wellbeing. In addition, we follow the paradigm 2 path (down the left), via two possible routes. One is that the student experiences social exclusion anxiety, which is stressful; although not actually marginalised, they fear becoming so (maybe having been teased or observing someone else being bullied). The other possibility is that they are actually excluded or made abject, which in some cases entails being stigmatised. This is an even more stressful outcome than threat, and the student experiences psychological pain and possibly shame (or humiliation). Just as children regard positive emotions as essential for their wellbeing, they regard experiencing such negative emotions as harmful to their wellbeing [33]. The stress of either threatened or actual exclusion triggers coping responses, and a wide range of possible ones has been included here, although the list is not exhaustive (see Chap. 9). It was an option to simply group these as ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’, but we decided against this. For one thing, as we discussed previously, it is not always clear which are, in fact, most effective. It is also a circular argument to define these responses in terms of their outcome (effective or not). It is more helpful, we think, to spell out various responses evident in the literature and make our best guess, at this time, about the likely outcomes. Specifying the various possible coping responses may also help to alert adults to a range of different behaviours that may be involved in bullying scenarios and which may require specific responses from adults. One way of considering coping responses is in terms of problem-focused versus emotion-focused strategies. Here, the problem-solving ones involve addressing relationships directly, and they are shown as feeding back into peer relationships, at the left of the diagram above the individual (shaded) box. The first strategy we have listed, deliberately, is ‘excluding others’. This is the primary response to the threat of

A Diagrammatic Representation of the Integrated Bullying …

215

being marginalised, according to paradigm 2, and supported by evidence that we have overviewed concerning the operation of social groups. This can sometimes constitute bullying, either by direct participation or by supporting others who are bullying, such as by egging them on or laughing at their behaviour towards the victim. Although we have conceptualised such exclusion as a coping response, it is not so designated by the paradigm 2 scholars that we have cited and, as we have discussed previously, it may not be recognised or acknowledged by students themselves as occurring. The outcome of this behaviour is that the excluding student will reappraise their identity (i.e. return to the top left box in the shaded area), which is expected to restore their sense of belonging, along with the advantages that flow from it. Phillip and Ken Rigby suggested in 1993 that bullying others could serve the purpose of raising self-esteem (as later demonstrated in pre-adolescents) [39], and that this might in turn reinforce bullying behaviours [40]. Our current recursive conceptualisation is consistent with this, expanding on the psychological processes that may be involved (such as the implication that sense of belonging will act as a mediating variable between social identity and self-esteem). A reassessment of identity we suggest will follow from the implementation of most of the coping responses. The next possible coping responses listed are finding another group and seeking social support, which are related. For example, the student may turn to another group, where they find support and experience a new sense of belonging to that group. This could be another group at school or outside or even an online community. Or they may turn to an adult for support (not shown in the diagram), which may or may not ultimately help them to restore their position in the old group or find a new one. Relationship repair is another potential route back to the original group. Some students may make a hostile, retaliatory attack on the marginalisers, although their ingroup belonging would not be expected to be improved by that. Revenge, as we discussed previously, is expected to lead to restored dignity, but may or may not do so via a new sense of belonging, depending on the circumstances concerning association with others; whether it leads to ‘meaningful existence’ is moot in the extreme case of school shooters, as they don’t seem to see a future beyond the mass murder event [41]. ‘Rage’ (hot retaliation) and ‘revenge’ (cold retaliation) have recently been identified as potential motives for bullying, especially for those identified as bully-victims [42]. So-called emotion-focused coping consists of cognitive strategies aimed at damping down unpleasant emotions. One such strategy is avoidance. We have assumed this will not lead to identity reassessment, as it does not involve engaging with the issues, and therefore, it may tend to simply lead to negative outcomes; however, it should be borne in mind that there are arguments in its favour too, such as when a situation is uncontrollable. Denial, too, is an emotion-focused strategy that may work for a while and will be successful if things blow over, but if not, other coping strategies will be called for. The final emotional response is catastrophising, which does not cause social identity to be reassessed, and has the potential to lead to serious mental health difficulties. We have cautiously indicated that these three responses are likely to take a path that contributes negatively to wellbeing.

216

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

We have separately added a positive cognitive coping strategy that of reappraisal. This does not seem to have emerged from the literature on coping with bullying, but it is a coping mechanism that has been identified more generally, is associated with good psychological functioning and is a focus of cognitive therapies [43]. Recognised by the storyteller Aesop and later the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, it involves recasting thoughts about a difficult issue in a more helpful way. A well-practised Stoic is able to reappraise the situation thereby lessening its power, suppressing any negative emotion (emotional regulation). For example, an excluded student might decide that the old group was not a desirable one anyway, and that they are better off spending their time with others (this may be a form of Aesopian sour-grapes self-deception, but that does not matter as it is functional). We have assumed that this strategy will engender positive emotions and thus contribute positively to wellbeing. A student may select a range of coping responses, either simultaneously, or consecutively if their original efforts are unsuccessful. One possible outcome is a recursive pattern whereby a threat to belonging leads to being excluded, experiencing stress, and using ineffective coping that undermines wellbeing in a downward spiral; this is in accordance with studies that have shown cyclical effects. We can note here evidence for the existence of a path in adolescence from being victimised, to a lowered sense of belonging to school, and on to reduced academic and non-academic adjustment [44]. The student may become chronically stressed––remember Bill whose story opened Chap. 8—and suffer the physiological changes we noted in that chapter. There is a connection shown between individual characteristics and coping, to indicate that the coping responses a student selects are expected to be influenced by their individual attributes [45]. For example, a person with poor emotional regulation may make a direct attack on the marginalisers (and be considered as a bully-victim), while one with good social skills may try repairing the relationship. We have not attempted to list individual attributes in terms of ‘risk factors’ and ‘protective factors’ but have simply indicated (by a plus and a minus sign) that these may either enhance or undermine wellbeing. What constitutes a risk or protection may be culturally influenced. A classical and tragic example was the differential survival in an African drought of babies who had been assessed for temperament according to western standards: the ‘difficult’ babies were more likely to survive [46]. We can also recall that the type of humorous response to being teased that contributes positively to wellbeing differs between western and Japanese students [47]. It would be theoretically possible to draw up a culturally specific version that lists individual risk and protective characteristics. Finally, one might ask where resilience lies in this scheme. It is not listed here as an individual attribute as it is considered a dynamic process involving multiple risk and protective factors [48] such as cultural and family characteristics, social skills and whether one is subject to bullying. Hence, resilience resides across the system as a whole, although some researchers have identified a few individual attributes as markers of resilience, including in the bullying context, as we discussed in Chap. 9 [49]. A recent study that measured resilience as an individual attribute is of particular interest with regard to the IBF as it focused on social identity: resilience increased in adolescents (especially those who initially scored low) following a sailing course

Implications for Research

217

that gave them a new social identity and sense of belonging to a group of sailing companions [50].

Implications for Research Complex systemic theories cannot be tested in their entirety [51], at least, not by standard statistical methods. Indeed, they cannot be predictive because the pre-existing state of affairs may suddenly give rise to unexpected second-order change. Complex systems are said to be ‘softly assembled’ rather than rigid [17]. The IBF statement and Fig. 13.1 are intended to act as heuristics for thinking about the complexity of entities involved in marginalisation in general and bullying in particular. The framework is inclusive of phenomena considered racist, sexist and so forth. It is process-orientated and offers many options for researchers, policy-makers and practitioners to focus on parts that they consider most helpful for prevention and intervention or most in need of study. Although some of the concepts and processes in Fig. 13.1 are fairly welldefined, others are quite loose and only examples of relevant entities are given. This is in keeping with the grey systems concept that we can never fully know a system, and it is always subject to change in the face of new knowledge. While the framework does not have the status of a predictive model, it could be used to guide the development of more specific models testable quantitatively, qualitatively, or through mixed methods. One example of the kind of research that might be prompted is a recent Australian study by Isobel Turner and colleagues, the novel aspect of which was that it took an integrative approach to elucidate the processes leading to aggression and being victimised in school. It incorporated social identity (as a member of the school), school climate (group support and academic support) and student mental health [52]. They found that social identity partially mediated between group support and aggression. They also found a reciprocal relationship between mental health and aggression. While that is an example of a study that took an ecological perspective on peer victimisation, cutting across individual and contextual factors, it used standard quantitative methods. Jacobson and colleagues have pointed out that taking a CAS approach to a phenomenon does not rule out such well-established, linear, methods, as systems will have parts that behave in a linear fashion and others that are nonlinear [18]. They also, like paradigm 2 scholars, support the use of qualitative methods for investigating the meanings that people make of their experiences. In addition, though, they consider the possibility of applying a more radical, truly systemic, approach to analysis in educational research that takes account of emergence, which suggests that systems thinking may not be destined to remain useful only at the level of metaphor. This is a matter that is only beginning to be addressed by scholars, and we take it up in the next chapter.

218

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

Interventions Our IBF statement and diagram illustrate what Turner’s paper concluded: that there are multiple possible points for prevention or intervention [53]. Rigby, in discussing the lack of an overarching theory of bullying, points out that developmental, individual difference, sociocultural, peer group pressure and restorative justice theories all suggest different pathways to change, and that their strengths and limitations need to be considered in selecting programs [54]. We will discuss this in more detail in later chapters, but broadly, the possibilities include: cultural change; legislative and broad educational policy change, and media campaigns; addressing school climate, policy and teacher education; interventions within peer groups, with families or individuals; or some combination of these across or within different ecological levels. For example, Turner and associates emphasised the value of incorporating ready access to mental health services within schools as an early intervention measure for bullying. A model for implementing family therapy within the school context, connecting with various systems such as peers, siblings, teachers and facilities beyond the school, has been usefully described by Allison Rayburn and colleagues, and we will say more about that later [55]. Interventions might be multifactorial or focus on a small area within a broader understanding of how that fits into the greater scheme. Social identity, which lies at the heart of the IBF, is increasingly being accepted as a crucial determinant of wellbeing, under what is being termed the Social Identity Approach to Health [56]. Furthermore, the IBF framework is consistent with a public health perspective on bullying, that encompasses multiple points for prevention. With a particular focus on minorities, Lori Walton has summarised the evidence that their being bullied has long-term health and educational consequences that amount to an enormous economic cost to the public (two trillion dollars in the USA alone in 2015; [7] in Australia in 2018, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated the costs associated with bullying as $2.3 billion, incurred while the children are in school and for 20 years after). Walton identifies the need for a comprehensive cognitive-social-ecological framework to address bullying by making investments in factors that range across a broad ecological spectrum, from individuals’ self-worth and educational attainment, student–teacher relationships and connection to community groups, to marketing programs addressing racism. A fresh impetus to the latter type of campaign has been given by grass-roots community protests, internationally, supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. At all levels, a functional approach can be taken. These principles are in accordance with multisystemic therapy, which has been applied in particular to serious youth antisocial behaviour [57]. This therapy insists that if an intervention does not work, it is never the client’s fault, such as ‘not being ready for change’! An alternative must be tried. The social work case with abused girls is a good example of this, whereby a change of approach moved the situation from first-order to second-order change. This perspective perhaps also captures the concerns of New York’s Julie Work-Slivka and Chrysanthe Gianiotis that many anti-bullying interventions, such as zero-tolerance policies, and even kindness curricula, are teacher-imposed and have

Interventions

219

only a temporary effect. What is needed, they say, following a Japanese model of collective responsibility, are teachers who role-model prosociality while children are allowed space to work through their own relationship issues (with occasional teacher guidance) to foster internalised, long-term change [58]. That leads to the matter of what level of change is aimed for (or, in retrospect, judged to have been), within a defined system or subsystem. Is it assimilated into the system as first-order, incremental change? Or is it rejected by stakeholders (‘closing ranks’) as the system strives to maintain its integrity? Or is it a matter of transformative, second-order change? Tim Waters and colleagues have discussed this in terms of leadership for change in the educational context [59]. They point out that whether a change is ‘first-order’ or ‘second order’ is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Making the assumption that a change is first-order (i.e. in keeping with existing practice) for a particular stakeholder or group will create difficulty if that stakeholder actually perceives it as second order, for example, in seeing it as conflicting with established norms and values and requiring new skills to be learned. One person’s solution can be another’s problem. The Waters paper and a book chapter by Richard Beinecke on transformative leadership are helpful for addressing these issues [60], and we will consider them further in due course, in the context of exploring the possibility of taking a more radical, truly CAS, approach to bullying prevention and intervention.

Bullying and Complexity: A Case Study We can take as an integrative case study recent events concerning St. Kevin’s College, an elite Australian boys’ school. This is the one we mentioned before, whose students were videoed singing sexist chants on a Melbourne tram, huddled together in their distinctive striped uniforms. This is affiliative behaviour that marks them out as having a strong identity as members of the school. Meeting Guttormsen’s concerns about the importance of placing social identity in historical and cultural context, historian Martin Crotty’s analysis of the St. Kevin’s case is informative. Such institutions were set up as a system in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, to enforce hyper-masculinity at a time when the British colonial ‘race’ was seen as under threat [61]. The school climate at such institutions was marked by the valuing of sport, militarism and denigration of the weak and effeminate. Bullying of peers was used historically to keep boys in line, most alarmingly in the privacy of dormitories. Crotty observes that in such schools ‘group cohesion is maintained through contempt for— and sometimes outright hostility towards—outsiders’—especially women (this is in accord with Social Identity Theory and paradigm 2). If women are present (during sexist chanting) and ‘shifting uncomfortably in their seats, nervously laughing or protesting to no effect’ so much the better (demonstrating the salience of context, according to Self-Categorisation Theory) [62].

220

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

The ways in which this abusive system could be protected and maintained over decades is illustrated by considering the case of a former St. Kevin’s student, who spoke publicly at the age of twenty about having been sexually groomed as a teenager by a teacher, the head of sport; no physical contact had occurred, (though it was explicitly suggested), and such grooming of a minor was illegal [63]. The boy had felt uncomfortable and told his friend at the time that he thought the teacher was homosexual; his friend recast the situation as abusive and was instrumental in involving both boys’ mothers (the boy received social support from all three). The behaviour was reported to the authorities and a legal case against the teacher ensued, in which the school supported the teacher but not the boy. In fact, the principal rang the mother of his friend to ask whether he would be wearing his school blazer to give evidence; clearly, his main concern was the school’s reputation. At fifteen years of age, the abused boy experienced a two-day cross-examination by the school’s high-powered barrister. The teacher was convicted of grooming a minor, given a community service order, placed on a sex offenders register for eight years, and lost his job, but nevertheless received positive character references from the school. This devastated the boy. Over the course of these events, his educational performance fell, and his mental health suffered to the point of hospitalisation. He later settled a civil case with the school. When he finally went public, the seriousness of the situation was downplayed by two right-wing media commentators, and the boy responded via social media. For example, he defended his decision to return to the same school, based on his close emotional ties with others, pointing out that not only did his twin brother and friends attend the school, but that trying to settle into a new school simultaneously with being embroiled in a court case of that nature would be a considerable challenge [64]. He received an apology, in the face of this posting and public opprobrium directed at the commentators [65]. A further twist then became public [66]. A former counsellor at the school complained of being bullied by the deputy principal and of having her post terminated, with commensurate damage to her mental health, when she resisted pressure to not report to outside authorities further possible grooming of boys by teachers, as was her legal duty. The school principal finally resigned, saying he always put the good of the school first. He was briefly replaced by the deputy, who strongly denied the counsellor’s allegations but stepped aside temporarily. The counsellor later made a confidential out-of-court settlement with the school [67]. No information has emerged about levels of peer bullying within this particular college, although historically it was clearly endemic in such schools, and the sexist chanting exemplifies sexual bullying of females outside the school. The case illustrates complexity. Historical and cultural forces have determined a school climate within which social identity and power structures support abusive behaviour, whether by boys towards women, staff towards students or, allegedly, staff towards staff. This undermines the mental health of individuals, especially those who fight back as the system strives to maintain itself, with mass media and social media also playing a role.

Bullying and Complexity: A Case Study

221

This case also shows that, with persistence and social support, within a framework of appropriate laws, it is possible for the victimised to eventually win out, even though at great personal cost. Whether cultural change will also occur at this and similar schools, in the longer term, remains to be seen: Crotty acknowledges that one aspect of hyper-masculine ideals—homophobia—has already been eroded, in large part as a result of leadership by young people themselves. This has built on activism by gay people and their supporters, and subsequent changes to discriminatory legislation across Australia, stretching over many decades [68].

Conclusions It is being suggested by some scholars that the established approach to school bullying is no longer fit for purpose, and that there is a ‘need to open up the understanding of bullying as a complex reality’ [69]. There is a discernible shift from paradigm 1 towards paradigm 2, but we suggest that we should also retain some of the most helpful lessons learned from past decades of research on individual and family factors. To adopt Schott and Søndergaard’s metaphor of a well-known parable, paradigms 1 and 2 may be touching different parts of the bullying elephant and our Integrated Bullying Framework is an attempt to put the whole beast back together, in association with additional evolutionary and psychological concepts. Previously, as Schott notes, under the strong influence of Olweus’ work, research on bullying had been very homogeneous and the paradigm for understanding it, self-reinforcing (from our perspective, it had formed a system). Now, we are seeing a new pattern emerging based on complexity, which is perhaps in itself an example of second-order systemic change. There is a greater focus on everyday social processes underlying bullying, under paradigm 2, with a further movement towards an integrated view (paradigm 3?) discernible in Dixon’s work, the Developmental Intergroup Framework, Maunder and Crafter’s paper, and a public health approach, as well as the Integrated Bullying Framework that we have put forward here, which has a particular resonance with the recent Social Identity Approach to Health. Our framework unites a top-down paradigm 2 perspective with the bottom-up evolutionary and psychological perspectives explored in this book to present a process-based systemic framework for understanding bullying in functional terms, which hinges on social identity and the basic human need to belong. When it comes to interventions, complexity and the unexpected need to be embraced, and ‘agreeing to disagree’ may form part of discussions between stakeholders [70]. In the following chapters, we will explore in more detail some ways in which a complexity framework may be useful in considering bullying policy, practice, research and evaluation.

222

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

References 1. Schott, R. M., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). Introduction: New approaches to school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context. Cambridge University Press. 2. Mascella, R. (2017). Weak emergentism and social systems. In A. Maturo, S. HoškováMayerová, D-T. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models, Studies in systems, decision and control (Vol. 66, pp. 199–208). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40585-8_18 3. Siliezar, J. (2020). How the West became WEIRD (Q & A with Joseph Henrich). Harvard Gazette, 16 September 2020. Accessed 10 November 2020 at https://news.harvard.edu/gaz ette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/ 4. McAuliffe, C., & Rogers, D. (2018). Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: Agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. Geographical Research. Online, 4. https://doi. org/10.1111/1745-5871.12283 5. Marsh, S. (2018). Record number of UK children excluded for racist bullying. The Guardian, 1 December 2018. Accessed 14 February 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/ nov/30/record-number-of-uk-children-excluded-for-racist-bullying 6. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9363-5 7. Walton, L. M. (2018). The effects of “Bias Based Bullying” (BBB) on health, education, and cognitive–social–emotional outcomes in children with minority backgrounds: Proposed comprehensive public health intervention solutions. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 20, 492–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0547-y 8. Heward-Belle, S. (2020). What we’re getting wrong about domestic violence following death of Hannah Clarke and her three children. ABC News, February 24 2020. Accessed 12 March 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-22/hannah-clarke-murder-domestic-vio lence-what-we-are-getting-wrong/11988412 9. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Basile, K. C., Chang, L.-Y., Faris, R., & Ennett, S. T. (2014). Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.03.004 10. Espelage, D. L. (2013). Bullying and sexual violence: Definition, prevalence, outcomes and moderators. In I. Rivers & N. Duncan (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 31–44). Routledge. 11. Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Cote, S. M. (2018). Chronic physical aggression: A bio-psychosocial model for the next generation of preventive interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044030 12. Kofoed, J. (2014). Non-simultaneity in cyberbullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 159–184). Cambridge University Press. 13. Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model. Cambridge University Press. 14. Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018. 15. Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Innovations and challenges in language learning motivation. Routledge. 16. Moore, D. S. (2013). The babies, the representations, and the nativist–empiricist bathwater. Commentary on “Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist ‘debate’”. In J. Allen & M. Bickhard (Eds.), Cognitive development (Vol. 28, pp. 148–153). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.006 17. Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00461520.2018.1469411

References

223

18. Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0013189X19826958 19. Cheney, A. W., & Terry, K. P. (2018). Immersive learning environments as complex dynamic systems. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 277–289. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1185091.pdf 20. Viala, E. S. (2014). ‘Is something wrong with me?’: A context-sensitive analysis of school bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 361–386). Cambridge University Press. 21. Jarroud, M. (2012). School bullying, a reflection of society in Latin America. IPS News Agency, 6 August 2021. Accessed 14 July 2020 at http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/school-bullying-areflection-of-society-in-latin-america/ 22. Maunder, R. E., & Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010 23. Harden, B. G. (2019). Book Review; Meštrovi´c, S. G. (2015). The postemotional bully. London: Sage. Theory in Action, 12(4), 150–155. Accessed 14 January 2021 at http://transformatives tudies.org/wp-content/uploads/10.3798tia.1937-0237.1941.pdf 24. Milman, O. (2019). Greta Thunberg condemns world leaders in emotional speech at UN. The Guardian, 24 September 2019. Accessed 26 February 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2019/sep/23/greta-thunberg-speech-un-2019-address 25. University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Science (2018). Sophia Jex-Blake and the Edinburgh Seven. Accessed 30 May 2020 at https://www.ed.ac.uk/medicine-vet-med icine/about/history/women/sophia-jex-blake-and-the-edinburgh-seven 26. BBC News (2020). Istanbul convention: Poland to leave European treaty on violence against women. BBC News, 25 July 2020. Accessed 24 June 2021 at https://www.bbc.com/news/worldeurope-53538205 27. CathNews (2017). Reforming Vatican ‘like cleaning Sphinx with a toothbrush’. CathNews, 22 December 2017. Accessed 3 December 2020 at https://www.cathnews.com/cathnews/31059reforming-vatican-like-cleaning-sphinx-with-toothbrush 28. Dedousis-Wallace, A., Shute, R., Varlow, M., Murrihy, R., & Kidman, A. (2014). Predictors of teacher intervention in indirect bullying at school and outcome of a professional development presentation for teachers. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 862–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.2013.785385 29. Hein, N. (2014). Parental positions in school bullying: The production of powerlessness in home-school cooperation. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 301–329). Cambridge University Press. 30. Kozaki, D., & Xiao, A. (2021). Sydney private school students’ allegations of sexual assault in online petition ‘extremely concerning’. ABC News, 18 March 2021. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/sydney-private-school-students-share-sexualassault-experiences/13175058 31. Guttormsen, D. (2018). Advancing otherness and othering of the cultural other during ‘intercultural encounters’ in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 48(3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1480874 32. Ellwood, C., & Davies, B. (2014). Violence and the moral order in contemporary schooling: A discursive analysis. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 81–95). Cambridge University Press. 33. Kutsar, D., Soo, K., & Mandel, L.-M. (2019). Schools for wellbeing? Critical discussions with schoolchildren. International Journal of Emotional Education, 11, 49–66. 34. Wakefield, J. R. H., Sani, F., Madhok, V., Norbury, M., Dugard, P., Gabbanelli, C., Arnetoli, M., Beconcini, G., Botindari, L., Grifoni, F., Paoli, P., & Poggesi, F. (2017). The relationship between group identification and satisfaction with life in a cross-cultural community sample. Journal of happiness studies, 18(3), 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9735-z 35. Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 71–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10463280540000007

224

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

36. Shute, R., De Blasio, T., & Williamson, P. (2002). Social support perceptions of Australian children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 318–326. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01650250143000201 37. Schochet, I. M., Smith, C. L., Furlong, M. J., & Homel, R. (2011). A prospective study investigating the impact of school belonging factors on negative affect in adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416. 2011.581616 38. Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of affective and behavioral responses to interpersonal stress: A defensive motivational system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (2005). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 131–154). Psychology Press. 39. Verkuyten, M. (2007). Ethnic in-group favoritism among minority and majority groups: Testing the self-esteem hypothesis among pre-adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00170.x 40. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116 41. Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson, R. L. (2014). School shooters: History, current and theoretical empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. SAGE Open, January-March, 2014, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014525425 42. Runions, K. C., Salmivalli, C., Shaw, T., & Burns, S. (2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21770 43. Zschorn, M., & Shute, R. H. (2016). ‘We are dealing with it the best we can’: Exploring parents’ attributions regarding their child’s disability using the ‘Four Ws’ framework. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21(3), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104515614071 44. Wormington, S. V., Anderson, K. G., Schneider, A., Tomlinson, K. L., & Brown, S. A. (2016). Peer victimization and adolescent adjustment: Does school belonging matter? Journal of School Violence, 15, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.922472 45. Cunningham, E. G., Werner, S. C., & Firth, N. V. (2004). Control beliefs as mediators of school connectedness and coping outcomes in middle adolescence. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 14(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1037291100002454 46. deFries, M. W. (1984). Temperament and infant mortality among the Masai of East Africa. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141(10), 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.141.10.1189 47. Tsukawaki, R., Kojima, N., Imura, T., Furukawa, Y., & Ito, K. (2019). Relationship between types of humour and stress response and well-being among children in Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12369 48. Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 85(6–20), 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12205 49. Moore, B., & Woodcock, S. (2017). Resilience to bullying: Towards an alternative to the anti-bullying approach. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(65–80), 66. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02667363.2016.1233488 50. Koni, E., Moradi, S., Arahanga-Doyle, H., Neha, T., Hayhurst, J. G., Boyes, M., Cruwys, T., Hunter, J. A., & Scarf, D. (2019). Promoting resilience in adolescents: A new social identity benefits those who need it most. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0210521 51. Ashiabi, G. S., & O’Neal, K. K. (2015). Child social development in context: An examination of some propositions in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory. SAGE Open, April-June, 2015, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590840 52. Turner, I., Reynolds, A. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2018). Understanding aggression and victimization: Negative binomial modelling with supportive school climate, mental health, and social identity mediation. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 380–402, 381. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000174

References

225

53. Turner, I., Reynolds, A. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2018). Understanding aggression and victimization: Negative binomial modelling with supportive school climate, mental health, and social identity mediation. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 380–402, 381. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000174.suppe 54. Rigby, K. (2003). Addressing bullying in schools: Theory and practice. Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 259. Accessed 12 December 2020 at https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi259 55. Rayburn, A. D., Winek, J. L., & Anderson, H. (2016). Engaging families and other systems in school-based treatment: Lessons from an interdisciplinary treatment team. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 24(4), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1066480716662651 56. Haslam, S. A., McMahon, C., Cruwys, T., Haslam, C., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2018). Social cure, what social cure? The propensity to underestimate the importance of social factors for health. Social Science and Medicine, 198, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017. 12.020 57. Henggeler, S. (2012). Multisystemic therapy: Clinical foundations and research outcomes. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2012a12 58. Work-Slivka, J., & Gianiotis, C. (2018). Continuous becoming: Moving toward mastery. English Journal, 107(6), 113–115. 59. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 Years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A working paper. Accessed 22 February 2020 at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481972 60. Beinecke, R. H. (2015). Leadership for ‘wicked’ school mental health problems. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 15–26). Routledge. 61. Crotty, M. (2020). Elite boys’ schools like St Kevin’s were set up to breed hypermasculinity, which can easily turn toxic. The Conversation, 4 March 2020. Accessed 9 March 2020 at https://theconversation.com/elite-boys-schools-like-st-kevins-were-set-up-tobreed-hyper-masculinity-which-can-easily-turn-toxic-132433 62. Page, E., Shute, R., & McLachlan, A. (2014). A self-categorization theory perspective on adolescent boys’ sexual bullying of girls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535096 63. Milligan, L., Fallon, M., & Day, L. (2020). How St Kevin’s College supported a child sex offender coach to the horror of his student victim. ABC News, Four Corners. Accessed 9 March, 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-17/st-kevins-college-supported-sex-off ender-over-student-victim/11957510 64. The New Daily (2020). ‘Made me sick’: St. Kevin’s sex abuse student Paris Street replies to Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson. The New Daily, 20 February 2020. Accessed 20 January 2021 at https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/02/20/st-kevins-sex-abuseparis-street-reply/ 65. McLaughlin, C. (2020). “I was invited to jump into a 59 year old’s bed.” Victim’s powerful response to Andrew Bolt. Mamamia, 21 February 2020. Accessed 20 September 2020 at https:// www.mamamia.com.au/paris-street-andrew-bolt/ 66. Carey, A., & Fowler, M. (2020). St Kevin’s acting principal steps aside over legal complaint as school orders review. The Age, 20 February 2020. Accessed 12 March 2020 at https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/st-kevin-s-acting-principal-steps-asideover-legal-complaint-as-school-orders-review-20200220-p542k8.html 67. Waters, C. (2020). Former St Kevin’s counsellor settles case. The New Daily, 15 June 2020. Accessed 20 September 2020 at https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/vic/2020/06/15/st-kev ins-counsellor-case/ 68. Hodge, D. (2014). Don Dunstan: Intimacy and liberty; a political biography. Wakefield Press.

226

13 Paradigm Regained—The Integrated Bullying Framework

69. Schott, R. M. (2014). The social concept of bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 21–46, 37). Cambridge University Press. 70. McAuliffe, C., & Rogers, D. (2018). Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: Agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. Geographical Research. Online. https://doi. org/10.1111/1745-5871.12283

Part IV

Taking Action: Towards Complexity

Chapter 14

Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

We have observed a discernible global movement towards a more systemic conceptualisation of bullying as a complex phenomenon that contributes negatively to children’s wellbeing, although the narrower Olweus definition is still taken as basic for most policy, practice, research and education on the topic. Furthermore, while ecological perspectives are now commonly taken, truly dynamic approaches are lacking. The Integrated Bullying Framework (IBF) in Chap. 13 is underpinned by a complex systems conceptualisation in which peer relationships may promote or undermine wellbeing through dynamic processes concerned with identity and belonging, in conjunction with a range of other entities (at both individual and different contextual levels). Now, we are in a position to consider how to move from theory to practice, especially in ways that take account of the most important feature of CAS: emergence. As soft systems researchers Checkland and Scholes have said, ‘Theory which is not tested out in practice is sterile. Equally, practice which is not reflective about the ideas on which it is based will abandon the chance to learn its way steadily to better ways of taking action.’ [1]. In this and the following chapter, we consider what a CAS approach means for formulating bullying policy and programs and their evaluation. Here, our attention is on methodology, or the general rationale or strategy for approaching research, while the following chapter has a greater focus on specific methods. The success or otherwise of anti-bullying or other wellbeing programs in schools is normally evaluated by quantitative methods that assume linear relationships between variables, and this was the main approach underlying the international studies discussed in Chap. 10. By contrast, paradigm 2 researchers maintain that qualitative methods are the most appropriate means of understanding bullying and interventions to reduce it; although they do not take a CAS approach, they do conceptualise bullying as a myriad of ‘entangled’ elements and processes that are best revealed qualitatively. The increasing use of mixed methods in the social sciences reflects a growing appreciation that a more complete picture of phenomena is obtained by both ‘surveying the terrain’ and ‘mining the depths’ [2]. A CAS approach, in which unpredictable emergence is a basic principle, would seem to favour qualitative over quantitative methodology, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_14

229

230

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

but some systems advocates including Jacobson and colleagues support both, since there may be linear aspects within a complex system [3]. However, they also take seriously the concept of emergence and propose the complementary use of nonlinear mathematical methods. Here, we explore the possibilities of moving towards a truly systemic methodology in bullying policy, practice, research and evaluation.

What Makes an Effective Program? Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation There is a legion of quantitative and qualitative research methods that can be applied to understanding bullying and evaluating programs, and it is certainly not our intention to overview these and the various epistemological positions that underlie them. Rather, we make a few brief observations before examining the methodological implications of CAS for addressing bullying. It was recognised back in the 1940s that quantitative predictions regarding human affairs are often possible when many of the relevant factors are stable over longish time periods, despite the occurrence of chance events that may sometimes throw predictions off-course [4]. Quantitative research is useful for measuring and comparing ‘amounts’ and for examining, statistically, the relationships between variables. It can test theoretical models that aid understanding of bullying processes, in linear terms, especially through longitudinal studies. It can also analyse the strength of effects, which gives clues about the variables on which a program might best focus, in order to achieve ‘more bang for our buck’. Especially when complemented by qualitative inquiry (as exemplified by the UNESCO report supplemented by case studies, discussed in Chap. 10), quantitative studies can help to identify factors that, on average, promote successful interventions. Multi-level factor analysis and multilevel structural equation modelling offer ways of spanning factors across ecological levels [5]. Donna Cross and Amy Barnes, amongst others, have espoused such a ‘common elements’ approach. Based on both quantitative and qualitative research evidence, they have identified six key whole-school factors that promote successful antibullying programs: building capacity; a supportive school culture; proactive policies, procedures and practices; understandings/competencies in the school community; a protective school environment and partnerships between school, families and the broader community. They have devised a checklist that a school can use to identify any areas within these factors that need action in order to optimise success in implementation, with latitude for a school to tailor a program to its unique context [6]. Their approach was a response to the fact that, despite strong efforts being made to create well-designed and carefully evaluated programs, results overall have been modest at best. Another typical response by quantitative researchers has been to address factors relevant for medical trials, such as program ‘dosage’, in accord with

What Makes an Effective Program? Quantitative …

231

the scientific premise that the correct use of a method is the main route to success [7]. Much has already been written about this, including the need to balance the core elements of programs against local adaptation and we do not intend to go over that ground in any detail here [8]. In brief, translational research addresses how best to transfer efficacious programs (i.e. tightly controlled programs that ‘work’) into realworld settings such as schools and classrooms (effectiveness). Joseph Durlak and Emily DuPre identified a number of domains needing attention: fidelity in teaching or presenting the core components; dosage (the extent to which the content in the program was fully presented); participant responsiveness to the program; quality of delivery (e.g. the extent to which the teachers understood the content presented) and program differentiation (uniqueness and an absence of contamination from other programs). Furthermore, they identified as relevant factors adaptation, control monitoring (comparison) and degree of program reach to the target audience [9]. As we saw in Chap. 10, success at a national level is also promoted by high-level (political) leadership, partnerships, the use of evidence-based programs, appropriate teacher training and care for affected students [10]. See also Catherine Bradshaw’s piece on translation of research into practice in bullying prevention [11]. A recent large-scale Australian randomised controlled trial evaluated the realworld effectiveness of a whole-school anti-bullying program, Cross’s own Friendly Schools [12]. It is of particular interest in the present context because, although the authors did not adopt an explicitly systemic perspective, their approach was consistent with our IBF, in that it incorporated attention to both whole-school issues and individuals identified with difficulties, the latter having being far less addressed in anti-bullying programs (although the traditional perspective on bullying focuses on such individuals, programs have more often been applied universally). Specifically, they targeted victimised children who also reported anxiety, using Ron Rapee’s program whereby parents work at home with their children on anxiety and social skills, intended as a resilience-building intervention in that study. Over two years, victimisation, anxiety and depression reduced in the experimental schools—but did so equally in the control schools, under ‘care as usual’! The disappointed authors suggested that this possibly resulted from the more general adoption of anti-bullying measures by Australian schools, which follows from the history we described in Chap. 10. More than half of the control schools implemented some specific new activities during the study, despite being requested not to do so. Although this is very positive in one respect, it does make demonstrating effectiveness in a quantitative way extremely difficult. Furthermore, implementation of the targeted program was especially poor: 20% of parents of identified children did not consent to participate, and of those who did, only 30% even began the program; this situation, with the school identifying the children, and minimal professional support supplied, is different from the usual clinical situation in which concerned parents bring their anxious children for help, and the program is then more intensive. Also, it may be that there were nonanxious victimised children (bully-victims, perhaps) who did not receive individual help. Although such explanations for the disappointing outcome can be put forward, this study does fit a pattern of generally weak results in bullying and wellbeing

232

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

programs and in educational programs more broadly. This led Kathryn Ecclestone to critique school-based wellbeing programs in general as ineffective or even harmful, and she sees the solution to young people’s wellbeing as not the provision of special programs, but an engaging regular curriculum [13]. This is in complete contrast to the reaction of many to weak results of educational programs, that we need to do more of the same, but better. Haggis is sceptical that this will help: The failure of conventional research to move beyond the limits of the kinds of answers it has been generating for decades (e.g., ‘Sorry, we still can’t tell you why so many kids fail, but we’re starting an extra-large study right now which will soon bring you the answer’) is arguably because, without complexity or something similar … it is not possible to answer some of the most recalcitrant of educational questions [14].

With specific regard to anti-bullying programs, Kalman has critiqued them as not working for the reason that bullying is inevitable, a natural human behaviour that is a part of life. Anti-bullying programs he therefore sees as pointless, and his philosophy is that children just have to learn to deal with being bullied [15]. Kalman’s program is based on exactly that premise, though it is more specifically bullying related than the targeted aspect of the above Friendly Schools study. Our considerations of evolutionary and social psychology perspectives, and paradigm 2 research, have led us to accept that marginalising others is ‘normal’ human behaviour, and that sometimes this can be considered as bullying. However, while there is general consensus that bullying cannot be entirely eliminated, there is also plenty of evidence that it is not expressed uniformly across contexts, which suggests that it can be reduced. We have seen, for example, that there are large differences in bullying rates across countries, schools and classes, with factors such as cultural attitudes, leadership, school climate and the demographic make-up of the school having effects. Such factors are candidates that might be addressed in programs. Also, reductions in bullying have in fact been achieved by some programs, even if not to the degree we would wish. The fact that weak results are common in educational programs more widely indicates that there is not something specific about bullying that makes it impossible to reduce it, as Kalman seems to believe. Even high-profile and well-resourced public health programs over the years have suffered the same fate. While some have blamed faulty research designs that have failed to pick up real changes, Penelope Hawe and colleagues have argued, along with Haggis, that the root of the problem lies in failing to address complexity. Traditional approaches take a theoretical stance that focuses on individuals, without appreciating that ‘aggregating up’ also involves ‘change’ rather than more of the same [16], as in our examples of emergence such as traffic jams and Army Ants. Paradigm 2 scholars similarly see the overall lack of program effectiveness as due, in part, to a failure to take sufficient account of contextual issues, arguing, along with Cross and Barnes, that ‘one-size-fits all’ approaches are inappropriate and that flexibility is needed [17]. Their preferred approach is to use qualitative inquiry to explore the ‘messiness’ of the real world as perceived by various participants in the social processes that surround both bullying and efforts to address it.

What Makes an Effective Program? Quantitative …

233

We can also reflect on Allen’s conclusion that as the essence of a CAS approach is evolution, the models we develop and test may prove good in the short term and moderately good in the medium term, but will surely be inadequate in the longer term [18]. This places a particular slant on the notion of ‘sustainability’ in programs, which must be about not stability, but responsive change. Notable here is the wisdom of Canada’s Bonnie Leadbeater and Emilie Gladstone that anti-bullying programs need refreshing in order to avoid ‘cruising’ and thus to remain effective [19]. CAS also raises questions about the broad ‘crisis’ of replication of scientific studies in psychology (and other fields, such as medicine and economics) that we mentioned in the opening chapter; in aiming for repeatability in matters of human affairs, we may be gazing at a mirage. Apart from the issue of replicability, and the ability of complex systems to adapt to circumstances, Alan Shiell and colleagues have emphasised the importance of the distinction between ‘complex systems’ and ‘complex interventions’, particularly in relation to assessing the economic impact of the latter [20]. A complex intervention comprises a number of interrelated components which may make it difficult to identify the ‘active ingredient’ contributing to success. This certainly applies to anti-bullying programs. Components identified by Maria Ttofi and David Farrington include parent training, playground supervision, school behaviour management practices, school conferences, videos and information for parents, along with peer-based work, but whether one has more impact than another is unknown [21]. Søndergaard has rejected the idea of testing out components separately, as this overlooks possible synergies between them [17]. The British Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for program evaluation, first issued in 2000 and updated in 2019 [22], reflect the distinction made by the Shiell team, being premised on the fact that evaluating complex interventions often involves complex systems such as schools and healthcare facilities [22]. The principles of the MRC guidelines are in accord with CAS theory. While four apparently linear phases are identified (development, feasibility/piloting, evaluation and implementation), emphasis is placed on the open and iterative nature of interventions in complex systems, which compels the researcher to move back and forth between the phases and to be prepared for unpredictable change. At times, a program may be iatrogenic (harmful), and we will give some bullying-related examples later. The MRC approach represents a shift in thinking about evaluation methodology in calling for the use of qualitative as well as quantitative methods. The important role of ‘stakeholder voice’ is also highlighted. In the concluding section of the guidelines, the authors note: The end goal of developers or those who fund development is real-world implementation rather than simply the development of an intervention that is shown to be effective or costeffective in a future evaluation. Many interventions do not lead to change in policy or practice, and it is important that effective interventions inform policy and are eventually used in the real world to improve health and care [23].

In acknowledging the importance of including qualitative methods, we can observe that a purely quantitative approach to ‘success’ in programs gives us limited help in judging whether a program has had a morally satisfying outcome. Imagine

234

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

a classroom where all the children bully one child, as can happen in ijime. The majority of the students are free of being bullied and have a sense of belonging to the class, contributing positively to high self-esteem and wellbeing. The utilitarian aim of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number has been achieved, but this is at the expense of one child who is utterly abject. Their human rights are being violated, and a reliance on pure ‘numbers’ will hide this. Qualitative inquiry focuses not on factors but on people and is aimed at exploring the meanings that they make of their experiences, including processes of change over time, which makes it appropriate for applying to CAS. However, it cannot easily examine unconscious mental processes, which requires clinical expertise or special techniques such as particular questionnaires, brain scans or response times to presented stimuli. Recurring themes identified from qualitative data yield information about common patterns, while individual stories reveal perceptions of particular histories, contexts and processes that can cast considerable light on why programs do, or do not, work. Stories can also arouse understanding and empathy in their audience. As Billig has said, ‘The detail sticks in the mind long after the percentage points are forgotten.’ [24]. Whether or not we can recall the many numerical ‘facts’ about bullying, we are likely to remember the boy forced into humiliating naked press-ups by his teacher, Ali’s nose being (‘only half’) broken by a blow from a peer’s boot, a school’s ‘Kick a slut in the head day’ and the bullied boy who hanged himself on a Sunday. Such stories provide insights into others’ experiences, engage our moral emotions and may motivate us towards action [25]. Some qualitative approaches derived from CAS principles are outlined later. In the foregoing chapters, we have seen numerous examples of qualitative studies that have demonstrated the difficulty, in practice, of working out what has been happening in children’s conflicts and who is ‘responsible’, in the messy real world in which it is difficult to apply rigid definitions of bullying. Ensuring social justice for victimised children does not mean that they need to personally ‘claim’ it, though they may (‘it’s not fair!’). Our example above of a whole class bullying one child suggests that it would be easy to label one as a victim who needs saving and the others as bullies, who perhaps deserve punishment. Although we can make a judgement that a child’s rights are being violated, paradigm 2 scholars warn against policies and programs, or actions of individual parents or teachers, that buy into children’s demands for justice, advising that seeking to grant justice to one student at the expense of (an)other(s) is risky. For example, on the basis of a study of the perspectives of victims’ parents on school bullying, Hein proposes that a school response that is aimed at discovering ‘the truth’ and working out who deserves the designation of ‘victim’ is likely to be an unhelpful exercise that creates antagonisms [26]. And even if it is determined that, according to some definition, bullying has not occurred, adults who are aware of the situation are still faced with a suffering or aggrieved child (or children) who may need support. Hein suggests that a better approach is to discover the differing perspectives of concerned parties. This involves abandoning any fight over ‘who is right’, whether different children, or parent and teacher, who see a child in different contexts. It also means letting go of a focus on ‘what children are like’ (e.g. too aggressive, too

What Makes an Effective Program? Quantitative …

235

sensitive) in favour of what children do and the conditions under which they do it––in other words, taking a functional approach, which is enlightening about a whole range of ways in which a child might behave, dependent on the circumstances. Paradigm 2 advocates thus suggest ways of promoting dignity for all participants. Intervention methods such as ‘No-Blame’ [27] (later called the Support Group Method) and the Pikas Method of Shared Concern are similarly based upon such principles. We will look at the Support Group Method in the next chapter (also see https://www.educat ion.vic.gov.au/about/programs/bullystoppers/Pages/methodconcern.aspx).

Schools and Bullying as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) In Chaps. 12 and 13, we introduced the idea of conceptualising schools, and bullying, as complex systems. It is this complexity that makes it a challenge for the introduction of health-promoting initiatives [28]. As Rigby said back in 2003, noting the modest effects of anti-bullying programs, there is little disagreement that schools need to adopt a ‘holistic’ or ‘systemic’ approach and build a ‘positive ethos’, but no consensus on what this means in practice [29]. Taking a ‘whole-school’ approach implies that change is required across all levels of the school system, aspects of which can be seen in our IBF diagram, and the relationships between those levels are discussed in the associated text. For successful program implementation, a whole-school approach suggests that there needs to be change in the individual (principal, teacher, young person, parent); the classroom (curriculum and pedagogies); the school (policies and guidelines; climate; behaviour management); home (home–school partnerships; parent–child relationships) and the general immediate and extended school community (departments of education; government bodies). We can further add cultural change, which might seem beyond what can be achieved through a school program, but we will look at that further in the final chapter. Whole-school approaches to reducing bullying are thus educational change initiatives, and this construct can assist in understanding those factors which can facilitate or act as barriers to innovations in school settings, as well as revealing how capacity can be built in school communities for greater success and positive outcomes. While there are many models of educational change, that of Michael Fullan has been recognised in the educational reform sector for more than thirty years [30]. He provides a brief outline in this video: https://youtu.be/o03lUEUINsM. Fullan’s model comprises three phases: initiation, implementation and institutionalisation. In Phase I, the decision to make educational change is addressed; for example, is it driven by the school leadership team (top-down)? In Phase II, an attempt is made to implement the initiative while recognising the barriers to, and facilitators of, change. Finally, Phase III refers to the sustainability aspects of the intervention over time. What is also known about educational change is that top-down, imposed programs and initiatives where decisions are made without seeking stakeholder input, are more likely to fail at the local school level, and that bottom-up initiatives also fail to prosper unless they are supported by leadership and the broader system. Fullan suggests that

236

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

both forces need to be ‘reconciled and combined for action, so that there is shared meaning’, which leads to achieving ‘simultaneous individual and social change.’ [31]. Fullan’s approach is certainly ecological but is not based on CAS theory. Similarly, Hilpert and Marchand point out that though complex phenomena are frequently embraced by theories in the field of educational psychology, rarely is an explicitly CAS conceptualisation used [32]. Even CAS-inspired theories may be considered untestable in their entirety, they say, and so are generally reduced to quantitative models that are examined linearly and rarely tested for stability, with CAS principles lost in the process. Further, Hilpert and Marchand observe that any new technologies that enable a more truly CAS approach to research will be of no use if those involved in the research are philosophically opposed to CAS. Barriers to applying CAS identified by Mat Walton’s study with systems specialists in several English-speaking countries include: resource limitations; the unfamiliarity of managers with CAS methods and a desire by managers and politicians for simple, unqualified answers to the question, ‘Did it work?’ [33]. Participants also reported a greater willingness of policy professionals to try such new approaches to evaluation under progressive governments rather than conservative ones or in times of austerity; they also identified a push in favour of CAS in the face of expectations of greater collaboration between agencies to resolve ‘wicked’ (hard-to-tame) problems [33]. Embracing the uncertainty inherent in CAS has been suggested as a way forward for considering the challenges involved in attempts to create health-promoting schools [34]. Van der Steen and colleagues note that educational policy is generally based on the expectations and intentions of those who devise it, as if they assume there is a ‘magic button’ that will achieve the desired end. Yet, research in many fields has shown that unintended consequences happen everywhere [35]. Examples can be found in Ellwood and Davies’ description of events in two anti-bullying programs [36]. One secondary school’s program was intended to alert teachers to violent incidents instead of ignoring them (i.e. it was meant to denormalise violence). However, so many parental reports of bullying were received that teachers were overwhelmed. Qualitative inquiry into the processes involved revealed that, as a result of trying to manage this load, staff focused on differentiating between one-off incidents of ‘normal, unavoidable violence’ and ‘bullying’, which (in accordance with the Olweus definition) had to be repeated. This also meant that parents became demonised by teachers as ‘over-protective’ and ‘complaining’. Their other example was of a primary school in which teachers learned to deal with student conflicts through restorative practice. According to the children, they did not implement it, continuing to yell at students and take a punitive approach. For example, one student said, ‘She doesn’t let me explain … ‘Aah, aah’ [imitates teacher screaming] like there she goes again’. This frustrated the students who, under the new regime, had come to expect a chance to discuss their issues, so they sometimes yelled back and got into further trouble, so that negative interactions escalated rather than reduced. The authors attributed the difficulty of teachers in sustaining such new practices in both schools to a moral order based on pathologising bullies (such as the ‘nasty kids’ and ‘hardcore toughies’) and normalising everyday violence (incidents

Schools and Bullying as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

237

being dismissed, for example, as one-off mistakes by ‘good kids’, as normal conflict, or boys being boys). A further example of how a bullying policy can play out in practice—but this time leading to non-intervention––was the response of a secondary school to the Facebook-initiated ‘Kick a slut in the head day’. We mentioned previously how this was minimised by senior staff: girls were only being lightly kicked on the legs, they said, and while conceding that it might be ‘harassment’, they described it as really just a joke, which framed it as banter, not bullying [37]. As such, action was not needed. Furthermore, they felt that even ‘nice’ girls had been targeted, which suggests an underlying judgement about who may or may not have deserved to be kicked. Most students agreed that it was not bullying but a joke, although some had spoiled the joke by taking it too far, with some boys actually kicking a girl in the head while she was on the ground. The girls separated the ingroup ‘us’ who saw it as a joke from the outgroup ‘them’––the girls regarded as ‘sluts’ who got upset. Most of the targets of these physical assaults were thus prepared to accept them as a joke rather than to disrupt the gendered moral order and threaten their own belonging and status; in the process, they ‘othered’ some targets (‘sluts’). Now, in ‘listening to students’, we may accept that these events constituted a joke, for many. However, bringing to bear wider understandings, we can see this as an example of how culturally oppressive forces can play out in the school setting through the gendered discourse of staff and students, in the context of policies that frame bullying in a particular way. As Rawlings says, ‘doing nothing’ amounts to ‘doing something’, in that cultural oppression becomes reinforced. Note that, had a bullying survey been carried out at the school, few students (or staff) would have counted these events as bullying. This exemplifies how it is possible, in line with paradigm 2 and the IBF statement, for outsiders to see a behaviour as bullying even if the targets disagree (and they may well do so if it is a friend who is doing the bullying) [38]. Another example of unintended consequences was the effect, in practice, of introducing anti-bullying laws and programs into North America, as examined by Kathy Bickmore [39]. The new anti-bullying ethos had caused a marked shift towards the use of post hoc punitive methods, which were broadly applied to all kinds of infractions such as drug use, property offences and defiance, in a context of reduced funding and insufficient teacher experience or training. Furthermore, visible minority males were being disproportionately punished. In Canada, Bickmore found a shift from ‘peacemaking’, or the promotion of proactive conflict resolution skills, towards ‘peacekeeping’, or policing of behaviour, with racial and gendered violence not covered by policies, and the empowerment by staff of ‘good’ students as peer monitors serving to inadvertently reinforce hierarchies and further marginalise the disadvantaged. Kalman, reflective of his experience in the USA, has also pointed out the myriad difficulties to which anti-bullying programs can give rise: Researchers do not consider the negative consequences of these programs, as though they can’t possibly have any. Such negative consequences may include: the promotion of victim mentality; the harm done to children labeled “bullies”; the intensification of hostilities that occur between students and between their families when schools play judge; the anger of parents when schools fail in their promise to protect their children from bullying; the financial

238

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

cost of the programs; the diversion of staff time from academics to dealing with bullying; and the financial and emotional tolls of the growing number of lawsuits by parents against schools [40].

Although Kalman’s critique recognises complexity, his solution, as we mentioned before, is based on reducing what he sees as the damaging ‘victim mentality’ and helping children, through role playing, to deal with bullying themselves. Field’s practice takes a similar approach to empowering victims through skills development; for example, she coaches children to use humorous responses, as with the boy who, after being dumped daily into the class waste bin, defeated the bullying one morning by sitting in there himself [41]. Her book gives ideas for parents in helping their bullied child.

Teacher Wellbeing in a CAS Approach We have not identified any literature that explicitly considers teacher wellbeing in CAS terms, although Laura Liu and colleagues have conceptualised it as a complex phenomenon [42]. They have found that while teachers across the world share many common values, understanding of what constitutes ‘teacher wellbeing’ varies somewhat across cultures, and can be viewed as being not just an individual, but a collective, phenomenon. Teaching has been ranked as one of the highest occupations for stress-related outcomes [43]. The emotional involvement of teachers with their students is considered the primary explanation for such findings, although conflicts with other adults are also identified as very stressful [44]. In many cases, teachers are the agents of change, and insight into teacher wellbeing might add value to the dissemination of intervention programs in schools. Teachers are important adults in children’s scholastic lives, and there is some evidence that teacher wellbeing, at least indirectly, has significant effects on children’s socioemotional adjustment and academic performance. Teachers themselves are, of course entitled to a safe workplace, yet they can be impacted on by bullying and other challenging behaviours, either directly or indirectly, through their interactions with students. For example, teachers may feel unsafe in certain areas when on yard duty because of large groups of boisterous male students, or because behaviours in the area are confrontational or intimidating, or because they regularly have to break up fights there [45]. Bullying is also a particularly sensitive issue to discuss with parents, whether their child is thought to be on the perpetrator or the victim side of the equation and, as we have seen, this is rarely a black-and-white issue anyway, setting the scene for antagonism and stress [46]. Considered from a CAS perspective, teachers are one of the agents of the system constantly acting and reacting to other agents’ behaviour. Any attempted introduction of an intervention in a school risks upsetting the established dynamics of a classroom or school. As exemplified in the previous chapter, change to a system is often resisted because it represents a potential threat to the established and well-known order,

Teacher Wellbeing in a CAS Approach

239

regardless of whether that order is functional for all. Working within a family therapy setting Phillip has been very aware of the all-too-common explanation for a lack of improvement in a client’s mental health as due to ‘client resistance’; a search for functionality in that ‘resistance’ is called for. Similarly from a school perspective, and being actively involved in the development, implementation and evaluation of mental health and anti-bullying programs, Phillip is very familiar with the classroom teacher’s lament upon hearing about a new program: ‘Not another thing to do’! This all speaks strongly to the need for any intervention to consider teacher perspectives and wellbeing as actively contributing to the success of any program. Liu and colleagues’ paper is a very useful one, in identifying that teacher wellbeing is best supported by promoting a good balance between individual components (such as professional autonomy) and collective components (such as social harmony) [42]. This echoes our previous comments about Kagitcibasi’s work (Chap. 2) [47]. A recent paper by Simon Murphy and colleagues is also helpful [48]. Although it does not focus on teacher wellbeing, it details ways in which a CAS approach has been applied to the introduction of health-related programs into schools in ways that create collaborations and common understandings across a range of stakeholders (including teachers) and organisations, with wellbeing regarded as part of the core curriculum (not an add-on). It highlights the important role of ‘boundary spanners’––individuals with expertise and credibility across different systems or subsystems who can work with a range of stakeholders to help create synchronicity. This suggests that it is important to identify individuals who can form an effective bridge between teachers and other parts of the school system or beyond.

School Climate In the opening chapter, we referred to the fact that the ethos of many schools has changed in recent years from a more authoritarian to a more caring one. The terms ‘school climate’ and ‘classroom climate’ are used quite widely in educational settings and tend to imply, simplistically, that in any school ‘the singing is all from the same hymn sheet’. School climate refers to the ‘feel’ (or the ‘vibe’, to use Australian lingo), that is, the quality and character of a school. More specifically, it refers to students’, parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of the school including its norms, values and teaching and learning practices. For example, the website of a school near Phillip’s home notifies visitors that it is a school that values ‘inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people’. Like a school, a classroom can be described in terms of its climate, and one that Phillip recently visited displayed a poster on the door stating, ‘We are a caring, respectful learning community.’ The earliest measures of classroom climate emphasised teachers’ verbal behaviour [49]. As interest grew in the concept, measures expanded to include both structural features (e.g. rules, organisational matters, authority) and affective characteristics of the social environment (interpersonal relationships amongst teachers and students) [50].

240

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

In terms of CAS, an overview of the research field yields very few papers examining the classroom and the related concepts of school and classroom climate. This is despite the fact that the measurement of these concepts has proved elusive and that complexity has been recognised: Stacey Frazier and colleagues state that, ‘the tremendous complexity and dynamic nature of classrooms warrants equally complex measurement sufficient to capture the delicate interplay of instruction, relationships, and behaviors that comprise the classroom environment.’ [51]. One of the few specific published papers, by Anne Burns and John Knox, has highlighted that viewing the classroom as a CAS is a helpful acknowledgement that classroom processes are interrelated, fluid and unpredictable [52]. As the Frazier team adds, ‘… if classrooms are viewed as complex adaptive systems, it can be argued that contradictory research findings are not so much unreliable as reflective of the fact that teachers’ understandings of classrooms and their own actions are both context dependent, and subject to continual reorganisation in interaction with their environment.’ [51]. Simon Borg’s efforts to bring order to a confusing literature on teacher cognition are also relevant [53]. Furthermore, in considering the complexity of the classroom environment, the concept of ‘the invisible hand of the teacher’ is an interesting one. Thomas Farmer and colleagues have argued that teachers influence peer relationships directly by imparting information about social rules, and also indirectly, as an ‘invisible hand’ that guides how children form their own rules and norms within their peer groups [54]. Their research points to teacher behaviour as a very important moderator of students’ peer relationships in the classroom. For example, if a teacher asks more questions of a particular student in classroom discussion, this sends an implicit message to other students regarding how the teacher perceives that classmate. Relevant here is the notion of ‘implicit bias’, which we will address in Chap. 16. In summary, school and classroom climate is a little researched field in relation to CAS. However, there are some intriguing suggestions that CAS concepts may be illuminating for understanding the context in which student behaviour, including bullying, takes place.

A CAS Approach to Leadership for Change In Chap. 10, we considered the 2019 UNESCO report which identified a number of critical factors that are influential in addressing school bullying [10]. The report identified the significance of political leadership in introducing policy change along with teacher training and support. At the school level, leadership is required to translate the drivers of change at a macrolevel to bring about change in relation to the school organisation and classroom. While there is no agreed-upon definition of leadership [55], a mounting body of evidence points to its substantial role in relation to school effectiveness and school improvement, and it is widely recognised as ‘second only to classroom teaching in its impact on student learning’ [56]. Many years ago, Rosalyn’s husband took musical performances around schools in small communities and commented that as soon as he met the head teacher, he knew what kind of

A CAS Approach to Leadership for Change

241

reception the show would receive from the audience. Leadership by the principal is no doubt important for setting the ‘vibe’ of the school. However, leadership is no longer regarded as something that only comes from a single person at the top of an organisation: it can come from groups and from informal leaders who lead transformative change, with leadership and follower roles being continually renegotiated in a dynamic fashion that varies with context [57]. This fits well with CAS theory. ‘Transformative’ or ‘transformational’ leadership emphasises the commitment of an organisation’s membership (such as school staff) to its goals and priorities. As expressed by Elias and colleagues, for such leadership to be effective: Caring and moral behavior must be modeled. Transformational leaders understand that for a student to reach social, emotional, and academic goals, the school, the parents, and the community must act in consonant ways. All students and adults thrive when administrators, teachers, and other education support staff members trust and respect students and exude boundless optimism. In such a culture, the classrooms, schools, and communities are safe havens for children and engaging sources of partnership for parents [58].

In relation to CAS and the matter of school leadership, there is very little published. However, Waters and colleagues have written a helpful paper that adopts a systems approach, as we mentioned previously [59]. They argue that not all change brought about by leadership is of the same magnitude or order, distinguishing between firstand second-order change. Characteristic features of second-order change correspond with important qualities of CAS: emergent, complex, unbounded, nonlinear and representing a break with old paradigms, amongst other features. As they comment, ‘A change becomes second order when it is not obvious how it will make things better for people with similar interests. It requires individuals or groups of stakeholders to learn new approaches, or it conflicts with prevailing values and norms.’ [60]. They suggest that first-order change can be achieved by practices that promote stakeholder cooperation, cohesion and wellbeing. For second-order change, there are two additional requirements: developing a shared understanding of purpose and a shared vision of what the school could be like. Trying to achieve these two extra conditions is the very thing liable to unsettle the first three. Richard Beinecke has also offered useful insights into transformational leadership. In a book chapter entitled Leadership for ‘wicked’ school mental health problems, he highlighted the competencies of transformational leaders, including people and management skills, knowledge about programs and policies and the ability to bring about change in a visionary way that brings others along and responds to ongoing events in a flexible and nonlinear fashion. This entails addressing stakeholders’ immediate adaptive needs and accepting that change will take time. In summary, leadership at the school and classroom level has been identified as a significant factor in influencing student outcomes, both behavioural and academic. Generally, the research relating to the impact of school leadership reflects a linear paradigm 1 outlook, suggesting that leadership is directly related to various student outcomes. However, a few researchers are now suggesting that this may not be the case. A CAS outlook may provide a new window for viewing the role of leadership at the school level.

242

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

CAS-Based General Methodology We can begin to move towards the ‘nuts and bolts’ of CAS by outlining three broad ways of addressing projects systemically. The first is Soft Systems Methodology, a specific but flexible protocol for approaching any attempt at system change. The second is a framework for promoting health-promoting schools. The third is an orientation that comes from paradigm 2 thinking about bullying.

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) Some systems, such as animal organs, are natural, while others, such as aeroplanes, are designed. A third type is the subject matter of SSM, as proposed by Checkland and Scholes: purposeful systems, whereby humans in social roles attempt to take action towards some end. Their classic book provides us with a starting point for our discussion of how to turn theory into action, in designing, implementing and evaluating programs to address bullying and promote prosociality and wellbeing in schools [61]. Their methodology begins with an individual or individuals who perceive a certain situation as problematic and wish to act to improve it (see the stick figure in Fig. 14.1). This inevitably means initiating collaboration with relevant others and working with them to plan, implement and evaluate appropriate action. This involves a process of selecting which systems need to be addressed. The approach means acknowledging at the outset that this selection is a subjective matter, and that acceptance of this is more difficult ‘for numerate scientists and engineers whose training has not always prepared them for the mixed drama, tragedy and farce of the social process.’ [62]. Some relevant systems may be already recognised as human organisations with prescribed goals (e.g. schools, school classes, governments) and are referred to as ‘primary task systems’, while others, especially psychological processes, do not map onto institutions, and are designated as ‘issue-based relevant systems’. We can add that, in the context of collaborating with others, group dynamics of the sort identified by Social Identity and Self-Categorisation Theories will play a part and be a potential source of dissent. Rick Hood has suggested that rather than conceptualising these matters as ‘obstacles’ (such as ‘rivalry’), such dynamics are inevitable in complex systems, and professionals need to be equipped to recognise them and be prepared to deal with them [63]. This is far removed from a ‘magic button’ approach. SSM is aimed at improving some social situation by taking a holistic, qualitative approach to creating an ongoing learning cycle in the people involved, through debate and reflection that is itself holistic. Rough diagrams are used extensively to illustrate the concepts of SSM and in the learning cycle itself, and in that spirit, we present Fig. 14.1, based on their generalised SSM process diagram (Fig. 2.6 in their 1990 book) and associated text. We do this with some trepidation, as Checkland

CAS-Based General Methodology

Fig. 14.1 Soft Systems Methodology, adapted from Checkland and Scholes [61]

243

244

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

and Scholes provide examples from other authors who have wrongly applied the methodology! Basically, Fig. 14.1 shows that SSM involves two ongoing, interactive processes, one being logic-driven but always informed by (and informing) the other––the culture/subculture––and taking into account the various worldviews of participants that reflect the culture, and which may change in the process. Justice to the methodology cannot be done here, but their book provides many examples of its use in different organisational contexts. We can see its relationship to Fullan’s approach, in aiming for the development of shared meaning in order to bring about educational change.

Rosas’ CAS Approach to Health-Promoting Schools Scott Rosas has presented a framework for taking a CAS approach to healthpromoting schools [34]. This is based on a holistic philosophy that sees learning and social aspects of the school as intricately interwoven with the wellbeing of students and staff. Rosas identified four areas that need to be addressed in introducing changes, summarised briefly here. They could be applied to any program intended to improve prosociality or reduce bullying. • Knowledge: Identify knowledge and resources needed for the program, current and required feedback, routines that might impede implementation, and required knowledge and skills for the system to adapt in the longer term. • Modelling: Explore current assumptions, values, potential pathways to change and possible unintended consequences, develop and share agreed-upon theories of change. • Organisation: Design new decision-making structures, identify how proposed changes are supported or challenged by current structures, anticipate authority needed to implement change and structural flexibility to meet newly emergent requirements. • Networks: Identify ‘movers and shakers’ and their interconnections, how current attitudes, policies, etc., interact and connective paths between them and anticipate how to leverage or strengthen connective ties. There are obvious overlaps with aspects of the SSM approach, although the latter is more explicit about the staging of the process. Rosas’ framework could provide an alternative guide for planning and action, or be blended with SSM, for example, by putting forward the four systems as a starting point for discussion on identifying relevant systems. The Murphy paper we cited previously offers further detailed guidance on introducing wellbeing programs into schools nationally, from a CAS perspective [48].

CAS-Based General Methodology

245

Principles for Action (Søndergaard and the IBF) Although Søndergaard does not adopt an explicitly CAS approach and does not lay out any specific intervention methods, she suggests not adopting a strict definition of bullying, but applying some principles for reflecting on any proposed policy, strategy or action from various points of view. We summarise her suggestions here, adding first two further points that arise from our theoretical considerations so far, as summarised in the IBF. Used regularly, they would help to constitute what Lesley Kuhn calls ‘complexity habits of thought.’ [7]. • In accord with the IBF, does the proposed policy, strategy or action take as a starting point that cooperation amongst humans is a norm to be reinforced? • Does it also incorporate the IBF’s understanding that being affirmed by others and having a sense of belonging are basic human needs that should be nurtured for all? • Does it take a multi-perspective approach, considering the views of the many actors concerned—not only students, but their families and school personnel, teacher educators, academics and politicians? • Does it assume children should be ‘friends with everyone’, or does it acknowledge that forming and reforming groups, and associated conflict and social positioning, are expected aspects of human interactions, that children must learn to negotiate? • Does it risk demonising or creating contempt for some (whether children, teachers or parents), encouraging the positioning of some individuals as at fault (e.g. weak, difficult, over-sensitive, guilty, uninformed, sluts)? Rather, consider the strengths and special knowledge of individuals and a focus on what makes a particular behaviour (e.g. exclusion) attractive to some (cf. taking a functional approach). • Does it encourage a focus only on the individual level, and on discussion about which (local) norms (e.g. of dress, music, interests) are worthy of praise or contempt? Rather, consider discussing cultural standards and the expansion of diversity and accommodation of disagreement and difference while still constituting a community (cf. Self-Categorisation Theory, including cross-categorisation). • Does it depend on a target speaking up, demanding justice and retribution and potentially reinforcing their marginalised status? Rather, consider how it might take account of shifting social positions and loyalties, and retain dignity for all. • Does it take account of the interlinked nature of social, emotional and academic aspects of children’s lives? • Is it sensitive to different forms of bullying and how these might shift as a result of intervention (e.g. physical bullying being replaced by racist taunts or by more covert forms)? • Does it take account of the relationships between offline and online possibilities for bullying?

246

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Conclusions If we were to give a report card on the achievements of anti-bullying programs to date, it might be ‘Could do better’. While some propose that the answer is to tighten traditional methods for implementing and evaluating programs, others suggest that this misses the point: that in introducing changes into complex systems such as schools, the unexpected is likely to emerge and confound predictions. New ways of thinking about school bullying are therefore being proposed. In seeking to harmonise paradigms 1 and 2, there is possibly a paradigm 3 to consider that is emergent and integrative in nature. More radically, we propose that it could specifically take the form of a CAS approach to bullying, which offers a way to take account of the issues that paradigm 2 and integrative thinkers are raising as crucial for understanding bullying more fully. All these approaches are offering a new direction for future research, policy and practice, and this chapter has introduced CAS-based methodology. The next challenge is how to translate complexity thinking into some specific methods, and we turn to that matter in the following chapter.

References 1. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action (p. xiv). Wiley. 2. McCracken, G., cited in Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixed methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Ashgate. 3. Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0013189X19826958 4. Blackett, P. (1962), cited in Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley. 5. Dunn, E. C., Masyn, K. E., Yudron, M., Jones, S. M., & Subramanian, S. V. (2014). Translating multilevel theory into multilevel research: Challenges and opportunities for understanding the social determinants of psychiatric disorders. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0809-5 6. Cross, D., & Barnes, A. (2014). One size doesn’t fit all: Re-thinking implementation research for bullying prevention. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 405–417). Cambridge University Press. 7. Kuhn, L. (2018). Complexity-informed social research: From complexity concepts to creative applications. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 74–94). Edward Elgar Publishing. 8. Lendrum, A., Humphrey, N., & Greenberg, M. (2016). Implementing for success in schoolbased mental health promotion: The role of quality in resolving the tension between fidelity and adaptation. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 53–63). Routledge. 9. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. 10. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. UNESCO.

References

247

11. Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translation of research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322–332. 12. Rapee, R. M., Shaw, T., Hunt, C., Bussey, K., Hudson, J. L., Mihalopoulos, C., Roberts, C., Fitzpatrick, S., Radom, N., Cordin, T., Epstein, M., & Cross, D. (2020). Combining whole-school and targeted programs for the reduction of bullying victimization: A randomized, effectiveness trial. Aggressive Behavior, (46), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21881 13. Ecclestone, K. (2015). Wellbeing programmes in schools might be doing more harm than good. The Conversation, 23 January 2015. Accessed January 18, 2021 at https://theconversation.com/ well-being-programmes-in-schools-might-be-doing-children-more-harm-than-good-36573 14. Haggis, T. (2010). Approaching complexity: A response to Keshavarz, Nutbeam, Rowling and Khavarpour. Social Science & Medicine, 70(10), 1475–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsci med.2010.01.022 15. Kalman, I. C. (2013). Why psychology is failing to solve the problem of bullying. International Journal on World Peace, XXX(2), 71–97. 16. Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2009). Theorising interventions as events in systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9229-9 17. Søndergaard, D. M. (2014). From technically standardised interventions to analyticallyinformed, multi-perspective intervention strategies. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 389–404). Cambridge University Press. 18. Allen, P. (2018). Complex, evolving social systems: Unending, imperfect learning. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 18–44). Edward Elgar Publishing. 19. Leadbeater, B. J., & Gladstone, E. (2016). Supporting schools for the widespread implementation of evidence-based mental health promotion programs. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing though schools: The way forward (pp. 27–38). Routledge. 20. Shiell, A., Hawe, P., & Gold, L. (2008). Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. British Medical Journal, 336(7656), 1281–1283. https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39569.510521.AD 21. Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/17596599200900003 22. O’Cathain, A., Croot, L., Duncan, E., Rousseau, N., Sworn, K., Turner, K. M., Yardley, L., Hoddinott, P., & Hoddinott, P. (2019). Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. British Medical Journal, Open 9, e029954. https://doi.org/10. 1136/bmjopen-2019-029954 23. O’Cathain, A., Croot, L., Duncan, E., Rousseau, N., Sworn, K., Turner, K. M., Yardley, L., Hoddinott, P., & Hoddinott, P. (2019). Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. British Medical Journal, Open 9, e029954, 7. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954 24. Billig, M. (2020). Marie Jahoda—the ultimate example. The Psychologist, November 2020, 43–48, p. 46. 25. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Dimensions of moral emotions. Emotion Review, 3, 258–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402388 26. Hein, N. (2014). Parental positions in school bullying: The production of powerlessness in home-school cooperation. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 301–329). Cambridge University Press. 27. Maines, B., & Robinson, G. (1992). Michael’s story: The “No Blame” approach. Lame Duck Publishing. 28. Askell-Williams, H., Russell, A., Dix, K. L., Slee, P. T., Spears, B. A., Lawson, M. J., Owens, L. D., & Gregory, K. (2008). Early challenges in evaluating the KidsMatter national mental health promotion initiative in Australian primary schools. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 10(2), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2008.9721761 29. Rigby, K. (2003). Addressing bullying in schools: Theory and practice. Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 259. Accessed December 12, 2020 at https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi259

248

14 Towards Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

30. Fullan, M. G. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th edn). Teachers’ College Press. 31. Fullan, M. G. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed., p. 11). Teachers’ College Press. 32. Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00461520.2018.1469411 33. Walton, M. (2016). Expert views on applying complexity theory in evaluation: Opportunities and barriers. Evaluation, 22(4), 410–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389016667890 34. Rosas, S. R. (2017). Systems thinking and complexity: Considerations for health-promoting schools. Health Promotion International, 32, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav109 35. van der Steen, M. V., Twist, M., Fenger, M., & Le Cointre, S. L. (2013). Complex causality in improving underperforming schools: A complex adaptive systems approach. Policy & Politics, 41(4), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655800 36. Ellwood, C., & Davies, B. (2014). Violence and the moral order in contemporary schooling: A discursive analysis. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 81–95). Cambridge University Press. 37. Rawlings, V. (2019). ‘It’s not bullying’, ‘It’s just a joke’: Teacher and student discursive manoeuvres around gendered violence. British Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3521 38. Burke, B. N., DiRenzo, A., & Fuller, R. H. (2019). Who is a bully anyway?: Examining perceptions of bullying among parents and children. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 37(2), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-8816 39. Bickmore, K. (2011). Policies and programming for safer schools: Are “anti-bullying” approaches impeding education for peacebuilding? Educational Policy, 25(4), 648–687. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0895904810374849 40. Kalman, I. C. (2013). Why psychology is failing to solve the problem of bullying. International Journal on World Peace, XXX(2), pp. 71–97, p. 73. 41. Field, E. M. (2007). Bully blocking. Jessica Kingsley. 42. Liu, L. B., Song, H., & Miao. P. (2018). Navigating individual and collective notions of teacher wellbeing as a complex phenomenon shaped by national context. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48, 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925. 2017.1283979 43. Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 457–477. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10648-011-9170-y 44. Burrows, L. (2011). Practising relational mindfulness in school communities. In R. H. Shute, P. T. Slee, R. Murray-Harvey, & K. L. Dix (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives (pp. 213–223). Shannon Research Press. 45. Wyra, M., Lawson, M. J., & Askell-Williams, H. (2011). Teachers’ wellbeing during schoolyard supervision: A photovoice study. In R. H. Shute, P. T. Slee, R. Murray-Harvey, & K. L. Dix (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives (pp. 165–176). Shannon Research Press. 46. Shute, R. H. (in press). Communication between parents and teachers regarding school bullying: A complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective. In F. Arcidiacono (Ed.), Parents and teachers: Perspectives, interactions and relationships. Nova Science. 47. Kagitcibasi, C. (2012). Sociocultural change and integrative syntheses in human development: Autonomous-related self and socio-cognitive competence. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00173.x 48. Murphy, S., Littlecott, H., Hewitt, G., Macdonald, S., Roberts, J., Bishop, J., Roberts, C., Thurston, R., Bishop, A., & Moore, G. (2021). A transdisciplinary complex adaptive systems (TCAS) approach to developing a national school-based culture of prevention for health improvement: The school health research network (SRHN) in Wales. Prevention Science, 22, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0969-3

References

249

49. Anderson, H. H., & Brewer, H. M. (1945). Studies of teachers’ classroom personalities: Dominative and socially integrative behavior of kindergarten teachers. Stanford University Press. 50. Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 93. 51. Frazier, S. L., Mehta, T. G., Atkins, M. S., Glisson, C., Green, P. D., Kim, J. B., Chapman, J. E., Schoenwald, S. K., Cua, G., & Ogle, R. R. and the LINKS (Linking Neighborhoods, Kids, and Schools) Center. (2015). The social context of urban classrooms: Measuring student psychological climate. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 759–789, p. 760. https://doi. org/10.1177/0272431615570056 52. Burns, A., & Knox, J. S. (2011). Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 11(15), 1–25. 53. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum. 54. Farmer, T. W., Lines, M. M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006 55. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Open University Press. 56. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680 p.553 57. Eberly, M. B., Johnson, M. D., Hernandez, M., & Avolio, B. J. (2013). An integrative process model of leadership: Examining loci, mechanisms, and event cycles. American Psychologist, 68(6), 427–443. 58. Elias, M. J., Utne-O’Brien, M. U., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Transformative leadership for social-emotional learning. Principal Leadership, 12(4), 10–13, p. 12. 59. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. http://www.mcrel.org/ 60. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (p. 7). Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. http://www.mcrel.org/ 61. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley. 62. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action (p. 31). Wiley. 63. Hood, R. (2012). Complexity and integrated working in children’s services. British Journal of Social Work, July 2012, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs091

Chapter 15

Practising in the Social Jungle

It is one thing to suggest that a CAS approach to bullying may be helpful, but quite another to translate that into practice. As Dörnyei and colleagues have observed, in their particular field where CAS theory was well accepted some years ago, researchers have spent more time talking about CAS research than doing it, and there is often bemusement about how to put theory into practice [1]. In this chapter, we give examples of bullying interventions and research designs that are explicitly based on CAS or are consistent with it. Although we as authors have often embraced systemic principles in our writing and program development, we are novices when it comes to practical experience in some of the methods that have been developed by dedicated CAS researchers and that we outline here. We have therefore drawn upon the knowledge of others in assembling this chapter and refer readers to various resources that are available for professional development in this area.

Complex Systems Research Designs and Analysis Techniques Designs Hilpert and Marchand have addressed the matter of how to translate CAS principles into research designs [2]. The basic issue is that a shift is required from a ‘componentdominant’ to a ‘relations-dominant’ approach. They suggest that relationships can be examined in three ways: time intensive, relation intensive or time–relation intensive. • Time intensive. This is the study of individuals or variables in a system expected to change over time, taking account of prior history and the relationship between individual change and context. Observations of a variable must be closely spaced. Examples they give include a study of peer relationships. Methods include observation, surveys, video, diaries, physiological sensors and mobile phone apps.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_15

251

252

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

• Relation intensive. This can focus on interperson or intervariable relationships. Surveys and existing documents can be used, and network models developed. • Time–relation intensive. This looks at relationship changes over time, such as how intergroup relationships and psychological processes change, or how an individual influences group behaviour. Methods are as for time-intensive studies. One example was a study of student peer network changes in relation to academic outcomes. Another was a study that used discourse analysis––a study of verbal behaviours at the individual (micro) level to describe collaborative functioning at the group (macro) level.

Agent-Based (Computerised) Modelling (ABM) Michael Wolf-Branigin and colleagues have addressed the issue of how we might apply CAS theory to aid in the evaluation of social programs [3]. They suggest that the logic models that typically drive quantitative program evaluations are problematic as they assume a linear process of input, throughput and output that does not take account of the environment in which the program operates. In this regard, their view aligns with that of paradigm 2 bullying researchers and the IBF. CAS recognises that processes will be sensitive to initial conditions (the ‘butterfly effect’) and that outcomes will be uncertain. In the same way, as we discussed previously, these authors propose that outcomes depend not just on an aggregation of individual agents, but on collective, group-based agency. It is necessary to track changes as they occur, and to understand how and why they occur––this is quite different from the standard scientific approach that ‘waits until the end’ to judge whether outcomes were as predicted. To evaluate a program, seven features of CAS and their implications need to be considered: • • • • • • •

Its agent-based (bottom-up) nature—identify the individual or collective agents Self-organisation—explore participant interest, motivation and empowerment Boundaries—what are the restrictions imposed by rules, laws, funding, etc.? Heterogeneous options from which agents choose—what are these options? Feedback—what are the changing preferences of agents? Adaptation based on feedback—are changing options made available? Emergent behaviour—what is the (interconnected) result and is there a discernible pattern?

A mathematical approach that applies these principles can be taken in the form of a computer simulation (agent-based modelling, ABM). We saw an instance of this in Chap. 12, in the study by Mudrak and Semwal that modelled bullying [4]. The Wolf-Branigin team provides examples of two social work projects that used a freely available software package called NetLogo (see https://ccl.northwestern. edu/netlogo/) [5]. The great advantage of predictive simulations is that they can ‘look ahead’ to something that has not yet happened, whereas linear statistics and qualitative inquiry focus on what has already emerged. For example, a range of

Complex Systems Research Designs and Analysis Techniques

253

elements considered relevant for a wellbeing program could be included to observe possible outcomes. Multiple runs might indicate that certain patterns are likely to recur, or may reveal possible unexpected outcomes, or different options could be compared. Advantages of the method include the repetition of experiments in a short time frame, the avoidance of risk to human participants and the preservation of physical resources [6]. Both Wolf-Branigin and Erin Dunn and associates admit that this approach is not easy, as it necessitates a thorough competence with simulation software, programming skills and a deep knowledge about the relevant variables in the environment that need to be incorporated. There is a real challenge in matching models to social realities, with a danger that the process will become too reductionist. A multidisciplinary team approach is recommended [6].

Equation-Based Analysis Techniques While computerised ABM is one way of applying CAS principles, Hilpert and Marchand include nonlinear equation-based analytical techniques, which are more similar to the types of analysis with which social scientists tend to be familiar. However, training or collaboration with specialists is needed to appreciate and utilise these methods. They can be used alone or in conjunction with more traditional statistical methods. Specific resources are cited in their paper. • Single-element nonlinear time series analysis. This is based on the premise that information about a whole system can be gained by studying change in one element, just as measuring a heart’s rhythm provides information about normal functioning and pathological conditions. Data may be categorical or continuous and numerical or text based. Resources cited include a paper that advises how to integrate the technique with hypothesis testing and linear analysis. • Network analysis for analysing bounded systems. Numbers of methods now exist for measuring networks that reveal the natural boundaries of systems, but all take the form of ‘graphs’, with nodes (dots) that represent individuals or psychological constructs, and edges (connecting lines) that represent relationships or energy/information exchange; the thickness of lines illustrates the strength of connection. Analysis can focus at various levels, whether the whole network, the nodes and their position, dyadic relationships between nodes, or external perceptions of the system. The authors cite numbers of primers on the relevant techniques. See also https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1521283. An exercise from the University of Colorado to introduce students or other novices to networks is detailed here: https://www.teachengineering.org/activities/view/uno_ graphtheory_lesson01_activity1. • Dynamic systems modelling. This measures several elements at once and how they change in relation to one another over time, in the form of vectors and trajectories. Using time interval data, the analysis can reveal stable states and changes to new

254

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

attractor states. The developmental dynamic systems work of Thelen and Smith that we mentioned in Chap. 2 used such techniques.

Vortical Postmodern Ethnography This is a qualitative approach to social inquiry developed by Kuhn and associates, based on CAS and influenced by SSM. The name may be a little off-putting to some, but it draws upon the metaphor of a ‘vortex’ (think of water swirling down a plughole), in which participants in the research are caught up and pulled into the centre [7]. They conceive of the research process as being not one involving an observer and an observed who come from different cultures or subcultures, but as individuals who engage in a discourse partnership that will change them both, through emergent understandings. As the research proceeds, new questions and hypotheses emerge, and data analysis is a circular process that produces a co-created narrative. The research process involves dynamic negotiation concerning roles, ingroup/outgroup memberships and related identities and who has authoritative knowledge. The research may be focused on one level in a CAS, but also appreciates resonance at more micro and macrolevels of the system. The notion of ‘attractors’ (see Chap. 12) is used, in producing themes around participant values, concerns and motivators that synthesise and organise their attitudes and behaviours––the ‘whys’ that underlie the selforganisation of the system. If symptoms of instability are detected, the likelihood of change (to a new attractor state) is increased. This method may offer some researchers a way of doing qualitative research into bullying from a CAS perspective.

Mixed Methods and CAS Principles Flexibility is key to a CAS approach. A helpful concept concerning flexibility, discussed by geographer Ankit Kumar, is the distinction drawn by anthropologist James Scott between techne and metis [8]. The former concerns universal rulesbased knowledge and actions, which are appropriate where precision, predictability, controllability and quantification are required; it is the basis for expertise and formal knowledge transmission, and we can see it as falling into Burrell and Morgan’s objectivism/stability quadrant (see Chap. 1). By contrast, metis is dynamic, responding to the constantly changing natural and human world with flexibility, in an improvisatory manner that draws on local knowledge and context. It takes account of power, enabling the less powerful to transcend unjust ‘rules’ that constrain them and can be seen as being in the opposite quadrant of subjectivism/change (radical humanist). In keeping with CAS, techne and metis are nevertheless ‘often entangled in complex networks of knowledge circulation’ [9], and planners and experts can draw upon both the scientific and experiential, in keeping with the flexibility in seeking solutions that Javanmardi and colleagues propose is possible (see Chap. 1). For those

Mixed Methods and CAS Principles

255

seeking to reduce bullying, this suggests the value of an ability to shift responsibly between techne and metis as the occasion demands, for example, in modifying plans in order to address local dissent and accommodate local knowledge. Mixed methods, in some respects, represent the blending of techne and metis. Jacobson and colleagues are not alone in accepting this as a useful approach to CAS research: Liz Varga too sees mixed methods as not just pragmatic, but appropriate, given that CAS takes a pluralistic view of the world, and mixed methods ‘straddle disciplines and philosophical perspectives, to detect emergent phenomena and to integrate across scales and boundaries’ [10]. Increasing acceptance of mixed methods in evaluation of programs in the social sciences is illustrated by the comment of one participant in Walton’s 2016 study: ‘even five years ago, the idea of using mixed methods was like ‘oh my god we can’t do that’. Every government agency is doing it now.’ [11]. Varga gives a very thorough overview of mixed methods, including descriptive, comparative and predictive techniques. She also raises many issues that must be considered, such as the need to decide what is a fair trade-off between planning and emergence, and the very practical matter of how to convince funders, collaborators and journal editors of the value of the approach. Although the authors do not suggest it, the seven principles that the Wolf-Branigin team outlines for ABM (above) could alternatively be applied within a more standard mixed-methods approach. This would require a change of mindset for planners more used to devising generic programs and then perhaps making minor changes to adapt to local conditions. Methods for gauging both initial conditions in a particular context, and ongoing changes during implementation, could be qualitative, quantitative or both. Wide-ranging surveys of various groups (including open-ended questions), focus groups or informal discussions, and pilot studies are all possibilities. They would be informed by, but not limited to, theoretical perspectives and evidence from past studies (e.g. see our IBF statement and diagram in Chap. 13). Local knowledge would also be important to consider. What may once have been seen as ‘obstacles’, such as boundary limits, resistance to a new program by some adults, or a lack of interest amongst students, become crucial and expected aspects that require investigation and study. A real partnership is implied, in which program developers hold early and ongoing discussions with all groups of potential participants so that their initial and developing needs and preferences can be accommodated. For example, in the KidsMatter Australian primary schools mental health initiative, an instrument was developed to gain ongoing feedback from teachers so that accommodations could be made [12]. Feedback is also needed from students. For example, some children really hate mindfulness programs (possibly with good reason) and disrupt sessions that others enjoy, so making such classes compulsory may be unproductive (and arguably unethical) [13]. Such approaches are in accordance with that of Søndergaard, as flexible, multi-perspective and participant empowering.

256

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

Intervention Methods Based on CAS Principles The Support Group Method (SGM): A Peer Group-Based Intervention Those familiar with this method may not recognise it as CAS based, but we will come to that shortly. Adapted from the Maines and Robinson No-Blame method, and with somewhat similar characteristics to the Pikas method, the SGM has been available for many years [14]. We should note at this point that peer-based methods have become controversial since they have a tendency to increase bullying, and Ttofi and Farrington therefore recommended not using them [15]. Others continue to advocate for their use; Cowie, for example, has reviewed evidence that peer support systems in schools offer ‘practical and emotional guidance to victims of bullying and cyberbullying’ [16]. We suggest that the SGM is worth revisiting as it is a method for reactively addressing specific bullying cases in schools that aligns with much of the reasoning in this book: it makes use of peer group dynamics, which lie at the heart of the marginalisation perspective, and fits many of the criteria identified as necessary by paradigm 2 advocates in addressing bullying. Sue Young, working in a UK special needs unit, wrote an interesting analysis of how she believed the method works, on the basis of experience mainly with primary school students [17]. She observed that Peter Smith and Sonia Sharp’s 1994 review of No-Blame was rather lukewarm, despite reported success of projects with primary and secondary students, on the grounds that it was not sufficiently independently tested and lacked a strong rationale [18]. However, her rationale works well from a CAS, as well as a paradigm 2, perspective. In brief, the process runs as follows. 1.

2.

3.

4.

The worker first listens to the story of the ‘victim’, broadly addressing ‘the kind of things that happen’ and without focusing on their feelings. In the process, the worker identifies ‘bullies’, defenders (or wished-for friends) and bystanders (the words ‘bully’ and ‘bullying’ are not used at all, although the children may use them). This group of 6–8 children is invited to a meeting, at which the victim is not present, and is told no more than that a certain child is unhappy and that they may be people who are able to help. It is made clear that no one is in trouble and no punishment is planned. Their ‘roles’ are not revealed. Empathy is raised by asking whether they have ever felt unhappy at school. Some will agree, and the worker says no more than that [the target child] must be feeling like that. The worker says that no one should feel unhappy at school, and as these students know the child concerned, they probably know when and why they are unhappy. Information may be revealed which is listened to non-judgementally. If specific names come up, they are told that they need not name anyone.

Intervention Methods Based on CAS Principles

5.

6. 7.

8.

257

The group’s ideas are sought about what they could do. All ideas are accepted and praised, although any suggestion of a violent response is gently rejected. No promises are extracted and no jobs allocated. The group is thanked, told that they seem to have a good plan and that they can report back in a week. Ownership is thus passed to the group. At the review, the worker first meets briefly with the ‘victim’ to see how things are going (usually, they report going well). They are complimented on this, attention being given to them so as not to inadvertently reinforce ‘victimhood’ as a way of getting attention. The worker then meets with the group and reviews the week. They are complimented, thanked and asked whether they would be willing to proceed for another week (Young says no group she has worked with has ever refused). One more review generally suffices, but more can be held. After that, informal reinforcement is given for the new status of supporters and former victim. If appropriate, there may be some kind of recognition given to all, such as a certificate. The victim’s parents are kept informed at all stages and their views on progress sought.

The method is not really one aimed at ‘restorative justice’, as those bullying others are not held openly responsible, though there is an implicit ‘rights’ agenda in the principle that no one should have to be unhappy at school. It can also be seen as a morality-based method, as it hinges on changing one’s own behaviour in order to help an unhappy peer. Young reported success, either immediately or with some delay, in almost all of 51 cases, though details of the evaluation were not provided in her paper. Her reflections (amplified by ours) on the reasons for the reported success are informative. Firstly, in taking a systemic perspective, the role of parents is important, and we have already cited Hein’s research exploring how an adversarial relationship between a victim’s parents and the school often develops, as bullying continues, something familiar to Young. The name was changed from No-Blame to Support Group to avert the possibility that such parents would take the name of the method to mean that ‘bullies’ were escaping lightly; ultimately, however, her experience was that victims’ parents are only too happy that the family’s nightmare ends, regardless of punishment. Young also presents persuasive ideas to overcome any uncertainty or scepticism on the part of teachers who may be considered for training to use the method. Secondly, the method focuses on peer group dynamics, where bullying originates, according to paradigm 2, not in individuals. However, there is no attempt for the adult to work out ‘who did what to whom’; we have seen how difficult and counterproductive that can be, a significant downside for methods that rely on identifying specific ‘bullies’. The fact that no one is blamed or shamed also fits with paradigm 2’s principle that dignity for all must be preserved. In fact, those who were purported to be bullying may come out as saviours. This can be hard for some adults to swallow and is one reason for criticism of the SGM. However, as Smith and colleagues point out,

258

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

it is possible that punishment may cause resentment and bring about only short-term change [19]. Thirdly, Young takes an approach consistent with CAS that a small change (a seemingly low-key intervention) can have a large effect. In accordance with our discussion in Chap. 12, she sees the change as forming a virtuous cycle. It is not necessary for the adult implementing the method to know what the details of the changes are, or what parents or teachers have done in the past, although they are listened to attentively. The method is solution focused, and participants create new ‘stories’ about themselves that are positive and enhance self-esteem. Fourthly, Young points out that many aspects of the method are known to reduce bystander behaviour, for example, by being asked for help and agreeing to do so, by feeling guilty and by having individual responsibility. Fifthly, prosociality is promoted because of the group effect. For example, norms are shifted in a prosocial direction, the participants have made a public commitment to act differently, and commitments made in the discussions promote cooperation. A leading ‘bully’ can continue to lead by ensuring the group succeeds in its mission (this is consistent with a functional analysis). Finally, the situation reaps rewards for all. These include recognition from peers and staff, freedom from guilt and feeling good about being altruistic. Such rewards can tip the balance to compensate for ‘lost’ rewards, such as the excitement of bullying others. A consideration of these issues from a CAS perspective makes sense of what Young says can appear like a ‘magical’ transformation. A later study showed that the use of the SGM in English schools was considered ‘satisfactory’ by users overall [19]. A quantitative study on the effects of incorporation of the SGM into the broader Dutch version of the KiVa anti-bullying program found a short-term positive effect on victimisation, but this did not persist over the whole-school year, and there was no overall effect on wellbeing, although victims with a support group had more defenders at the end of the year [20]. This was a tough test for SGM, as the study was examining whether it added something unique to a broader school-wide anti-bullying program (rather similar to the Friendly Schools and anxiety study that was evaluated against a background of other programs). In a small-scale qualitative study of SGM, 12– 13-year-old participants reported positive changes that persisted after three months; bullying had stopped, and the support group members reported experiences of helping and feeling important [21]. Overall, then, taken with the earlier reports such as Young’s, there does seem to be some evidence for first-order change, with hints of a movement towards more sustainable second-order change, with the longerterm increase in defending in the Dutch study. The method is simple, not resourceintensive from the school’s perspective, appears not to cause harm and provides relief for victims and positivity for supporters for some time, at least. It is also likely to be less stressful for teachers than becoming embroiled in the inevitable conflict involving students and parents that results from trying to implement a quasi-judicial system that necessitates identifying bullies and victims, and in these ways, it meets Kalman’s and Hein’s objections to most anti-bullying programs. It also has potential to improve the school climate towards a more prosocial one. SGM therefore seems

Intervention Methods Based on CAS Principles

259

to be a method that is worthy of continued consideration, including research from a CAS perspective. We can also make the point, here––and this applies to evaluating any anti-bullying program–that while ‘no longer being victimised’ is a good outcome, it does not stretch as far as ‘having a sense of belonging’, which is what ultimately matters for human thriving and is central to the IBF. Additional measures aimed at that, such as finding or creating new groups within which young people find affirmation and identity would be expected to have a greater effect on wellbeing.

Multi-systemic Therapy (MST): Intervention with a Focus on the Individual MST is a structured, evidence-based clinical psychology approach that has been around for some years, developed by Scott Henggeler and colleagues in the USA [22]. It is a general approach rather than a specific method for addressing clinical problems and has mainly been applied in the case of antisocial youth who have engaged with the justice system and who may have been involved with drugs, crime and violence. This is a recognition of its usefulness for complex, treatment-resistant cases that are focused on individuals but that involve various microsystems. It would be of value in bullying situations that involve youth with such severe difficulties [23]. It is eclectic in that it can incorporate a wide range of specific methods, such as various psychological therapies, family therapy and peer group, educational and justice system interventions. It is a team-based, collaborative approach, and one of its principles, as we mentioned previously, is that the team must not give up on a client, on the grounds that if a client is not engaging, it is serving a function for them, and it is the team’s job to work out what that function is and to adapt the therapy process accordingly. As such, it affords a systemic, adaptable framework that is flexible in the face of unexpected turns of events. It has been used internationally and is commended, for example, by OzChild, an independent Australian not-for-profit body that supports youth and families: https://www.ozchild.org.au/more-about-mul tisystemic-therapy-mst/.

School-Based Mental Health Services: A Family Systems Approach It has been suggested that school-based health services have characteristics of CAS and will best function when clinicians have flexibility in working according to young people’s needs, rather than according to pre-set ‘menus’ that dictate the types of services they can access [24]. A school-based mental health service offers a means of working with children caught up in bullying, where there seem to be individual or

260

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

family factors involved. Rayburn and colleagues have written about the advantages of having a mental health service available in schools, on the basis of their experience with the system of assessment support and counselling centres (ASC) in North Carolina’s Appalachians [25]. Through a family systems perspective, their focus is on holding ‘useful conversations’ to promote the child’s wellbeing, with those in the various microsystems relevant for the child. These include the home system (which may be multi-generational, involve step-relatives and exist across several dwellings), the parental, sibling and peer systems, and school system (teachers, administration, extra-curricular activities and school support officers), plus external (exosystem) organisations such as medical and social services. A psychologist and family therapist supervises clinical students in providing therapy. Also centrally involved are the school social worker, counsellor and school support officer. The statement of ‘the problem’ may initially be couched in terms of blame and the situation seen as hopeless, but it is quickly directed towards discussions about how the various microsystems can help. The goal is to work flexibly with the interconnected microsystems to shift the whole to become self-regulating and functional in a way that promotes the child’s wellbeing.

An ‘Anthropologist’ in the System An even more innovative and far-reaching CAS approach has been suggested by a writer whose reference we have sadly been unable to relocate. This is the incorporation of an ‘anthropologist’ into the team overseeing a program. It could, but not necessarily, be a professional anthropologist; the person needs to have independence and credibility with a range of stakeholders. This is one version of a boundary-spanner, in this case being an embedded person who takes an overarching, independent view of the implementation of a program, in order to identify, in particular, unexpected changes, whether positive or negative in relation to the agreed aims of the program and to examine the reasons why. This is not the same as a ‘champion’, an influential person who supports the program. Ways can be explored of capitalising on unexpectedly positive changes (e.g. a new enthusiastic teacher), or making changes to counteract unexpectedly negative happenings. Take, for example, one of the cases that Ellwood and Davies discussed. A restorative practice program was described by the children as not being implemented by teachers. An anthropologist may have observed teachers yelling at students, or they may have talked to children who said this was happening. Following this up through interviews with teachers on the subject of the difficulties they faced may have thrown up new ideas. For example, did some hold attitudes that were contrary to the program principles? (Some teachers prefer rules-based to relationship-orientated approaches, for instance.) [26] Did they feel they had not learned the skills well enough, or that they did not have enough time to spend on discussing disputes between students, so that it eased their load if they

Intervention Methods Based on CAS Principles

261

simply told the children off and sent them to the principal? Could new options be incorporated that met teacher needs (e.g. additional practice, or alternative methods of resolving children’s conflicts)?

Two CAS-Informed Case Studies of Program Evaluation Case-Study 1: A School-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Intervention The movement of the UK’s Medical Research Council towards CAS-informed program development and evaluation prompted Rhiannon Evans and colleagues to examine implementation of a SEL program in four Welsh secondary schools[27]. It was the US-developed whole-school Student Assistance Program, regarded by the schools inspectorate as best practice for addressing challenging behaviours. It has many components, including intensive staff training, curriculum inclusion and the setting up of student support groups for students with difficulties. The researchers also drew upon Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory[28]. This has some similarity to Fullan’s model of educational system change, in conceptualising innovation as involving several phases, but in this case not three but five: knowledge, persuasion, adoption, implementation and confirmation. However, Rogers’ theory conceptualises this as a dynamic causal process. At some points, there may be ‘reinvention’, or significant moments, when an intervention is adapted to context, though not necessarily in a conscious manner. Semi-structured interviews with a variety of adults in relevant professional roles revealed that the reinvention points mapped onto the five phases. Participants in training engaged in role playing of student support groups, which engaged them emotionally and motivated them to champion the program at their school. However, the strong focus on, and positive response to, the support groups aspect meant that this became privileged over other aspects of the program (i.e. the program became inadvertently adapted at the initial ‘knowledge’ phase). These support groups went on to be seen by the school managers (at the ‘persuasion’ phase) as most congruent with their needs and favoured as the least resource-intensive aspect of the multipart program, so the reduced version was adopted. Full implementation was also impeded by a competing program already in place. Furthermore, there was insufficient time allocated for the trained teachers to engage with, and emotionally involve, other staff, who therefore did not have high commitment and saw it as just another imposition on their time and that it was doomed to failure (‘persuasion’ and ‘implementation’). Indeed, the researchers described them as eye-rolling and ‘resolutely detached’. There was a lack of any organisational referral structures being set up and no staff support allocated to the student support groups (‘implementation’). In response to these obstacles, some of the champions became exhausted and denounced

262

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

responsibility for the program, which was discontinued in three of the four schools (‘confirmation’ was not achieved in those schools). In being process orientated, the study was seen to highlight the relationships between parts of the school system, which provided a fuller explanation for why the program was dropped, in comparison with a static measure of ‘adherence’. The authors drew attention to the importance of those in leadership positions being fully engaged in discussions about how the school can support new programs, without making reinventions of a magnitude that would be expected to compromise program integrity. Full training for all involved staff, rather than a reliance on a ‘cascade’ mechanism, seems to be required.

Case-Study 2: A Gendered Violence Intervention in a School In reporting a recent Mexican study, Shelly Makleff and colleagues noted that the literature has been thick with descriptions of complex intervention programs but thin on practical advice about managing them [29]. As with the Evans SEL study, they commended the application of CAS for understanding processes of implementation. They observed that even with high fidelity, outcomes will vary across similar contexts because of the uncertainty inherent in complex systems. The program they examined was aimed at addressing intimate partner violence (IPV) through a school-based program with 14–17 year olds, as part of a sexuality course. It was evaluated using mixed methods that showed critical reflection which overall caused young people to question gendered norms and beliefs and to change intended relationship behaviours. The various class groups (mixed gender) undertaking the program were defined as the systems under examination. Understanding of the processes within them (gained through observation and post hoc interviews) was described in relation to various characteristics of CAS. • Interactions between diverse and dynamic agents. Narratives from students and facilitators included that there were positive interactions, such as respectful listening, but negative episodes of aggression and not listening, and physical violence in one group where a girl hit a wall––a group where both male and female participants reported bullying by teasing and mockery, including about race, during the course; that group was reported as an outlier, and conflict resolution was incorporated that resolved the difficulties between the two main antagonists. • Unpredictability and emergent outcomes. Several examples were reported. One was a comment by a young man that it was OK for a woman to die from an unsafe abortion. This led to a great deal of discussion, and his views were challenged by his female classmates, who later said that he became less likely to make such comments, and they believed he became less chauvinistic. Conversations about sexual diversity also emerged, and students became more accepting of this. A more drastic unexpected event was an earthquake, as a result of which the school was temporarily closed and reopened with a new facilitator; the energies of the

Two CAS-Informed Case Studies of Program Evaluation

263

groups became directed towards this change and dealing with the traumas that the students had suffered, diverting the course away from the planned topic. • Context dependency. Regarding the gendered context, boys sometimes treated the course as a joke while the girls took it seriously. In one group, the boys vehemently expressed a complete lack of interest in discussing violence, and many stopped attending. In another, one influential young man encouraged participants to engage and they did. The authors considered that gendered norms and power dynamics played a part in how the groups responded. • System-disruptive elements of the intervention. The girls, especially, said they had learned to respect themselves and their needs and to stand up for them. Both boys and girls thought about loving and non-loving behaviours in new ways, such as withholding financial resources from women as violence. Gay and bisexual participants came to believe that they should express themselves freely and eschew gendered stereotypes. The authors concluded that the intervention had acted as a disruptive event in shifting gendered norms, and also that examining interactions rather than just individual outcomes helped to explain why there were differences in effectiveness between groups that had received the same intervention. The resistance of some males had been found in other IPV programs, and we can relate this to a suggestion that anti-aggression messages are resisted by those who find it a challenge to their sense of self [30]. Supportive facilitators, well-trained in classroom management and conflict resolution proved important in managing some of the difficult emergent situations, including the unexpected occurrence of bullying within the program.

Conclusions Communication researcher John Sherry has observed that paradigms change slowly and that there are two bottlenecks for the greater acceptance of CAS-based research: at the point of graduate education, which is necessary to produce a new cohort of thinkers, and at editorial review of papers [31]. The latter he sees as the greater problem, having personally experienced CAS-based papers being rejected for publication in the absence of traditional linear statistics. On the other hand, turning to reviewers beyond a discipline who understand CAS methods may not work as they may not appreciate the assumptions that underlie a particular field of study. Current researchers in the field of bullying may have enough problems already in striving to reach the requirements of their institutions to publish (in top journals!) or perish and to bring in research funding for projects that will meet assessors’ expectations; it is certainly rather easier to stick to business as usual than to strike out on a new and potentially difficult path. But we must start somewhere, and it is our hope that some brave souls may be inspired to take up the challenge.

264

15 Practising in the Social Jungle

References 1. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (2020). Introduction: Applying complex dynamic systems principles to empirical research on L2 motivation. In Z. Dörnyei (Ed.), Innovations and challenges in language learning motivation (pp. 1–7). Routledge. 2. Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00461520.2018.1469411 3. Wolf-Branigin, M. E., Kennedy, W. G., Ihara, E. S., & Tompkins, C. J. (2018). Applying complex adaptive systems to agent-based models for social programme evaluation. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 312–326). Edward Elgar Publishing. 4. Mudrak, G., & Semwal, S. (2015). Modeling aggression and bullying: A complex systems approach. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 2015, 187–191. 5. Wilensky, U. (2015). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Accessed 15.12.2020 at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/net logo/ 6. Dunn, E. C., Masyn, K. E., Yudron, M., Jones, S. M., & Subramanian, S. V. (2014). Translating multilevel theory into multilevel research: Challenges and opportunities for understanding the social determinants of psychiatric disorders. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0809-5 7. Kuhn, L. (2018). Complexity-informed social research: From complexity concepts to creative applications. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 74–94). Edward Elgar Publishing. 8. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition havefailed (first edn.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Cited in Kumar, A. (2019). Between metis and techne: Politics, possibilities and limits of improvisation. Social and Cultural Geography. Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1645201 9. Tironi, M. (2015). Modes of technification: Expertise, urban controversies and the radicalness of radical planning, p. 71. Planning Theory, 14, 70–89. Cited in Kumar, A. (2019). Between metis and techne: Politics, possibilities and limits of improvisation. Social and Cultural Geography. Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1645201 10. Varga, L. (2018). Mixed methods research: A method for complex systems. In E. MitletonKelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 545–566). Edward Elgar Publishing. 11. Walton, M. (2016). Expert views on applying complexity theory in evaluation: Opportunities and barriers. Evaluation, 22(4), 410–423, 414–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638901 6667890 12. Slee, P. T., Lawson, M. J., Russell, A., Askell-Williams, H., Dix, K. L., Owens, L., Skrzypiec, G., & Spears, B. (2009). Kidsmatter evaluation. Final report. School of Education, Flinders University. 13. Shute, R. H. (2019). School-based mindfulness interventions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.979 14. Maines, B., & Robinson, G. (1992). Michael’s story: The “No Blame” approach. Lame Duck Publishing. 15. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 16. Cowie, H. (2020). Peer support in school. Sixth Monograph in Resilience and Health, Centre for Resilience and Socio-Emotional Health, University of Malta, p. 52. https://www.um.edu. mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/62474 17. Young, S. (1998). The Support Group approach to bullying in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 14, 32–39.

References

265

18. Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. Routledge. 19. Smith, P. K., Howard, S., & Thompson, F. (2007). Use of the support group method to tackle bullying, and evaluation from schools and local authorities in England. Pastoral Care in Education, 25(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0122.2007.00402.x 20. Van der Ploeg, R., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2016). The support group approach in the Dutch KiVa anti-bullying programme: Effects on victimistion, defending, and wellbeing at school. Educational Research, 58(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1184949 21. Kvarme, L. G., Aabø, L. S., & Saeteren, B. (2016). From victim to taking control: Support group for bullied schoolchildren. Journal of School Nursing, 32(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1059840515590608 22. Henggeler, S., & Schaeffer, C. (2016). Multisystemic therapy: Clinical overview, outcomes, and implementation research. Family Process, 55(3), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp. 12232 23. Tiernan, K., Foster, S. L., Cunningham, P. B., Brennan, P., & Whitmore, E. (2015). Predicting early positive change in Multisystemic Therapy with youth exhibiting antisocial behaviors. Psychotherapy (Chicago, IL), 52, 93–102. 24. Daley, A. M. (2012). Rethinking school-based health centers as complex adaptive systems: Maximizing opportunities for the prevention of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Advances in Nursing Science, 35(2), E37-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0b013e318 2537419 25. Rayburn, A. D., Winek, J. L., & Anderson, H. (2016). Engaging families and other systems in school-based treatment: Lessons from an interdisciplinary treatment team. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 24(4), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1066480716662651 26. Ellis, A. A., & Shute, R. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 649–663. https:// doi.org/10.1348/000709906X163405 27. Evans, R., Murphy, S., & Scourfield, J. (2015). Implementation of a school-based social and emotional learning intervention: Understanding diffusion processes within complex systems. Prevention Science, 16, 754–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0552-0 28. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2014). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Millbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x 29. Makleff, S., Billowitz, M., Garduño, J., Cruz, M., Márquez, V. I. S., & Marston, C. (2020). Applying a complex adaptive systems approach to the evaluation of a school-based intervention for intimate partner violence in Mexico. Health Policy & Planning, 35, 993–1002. https://doi. org/10.1093/heapol/czaa067 30. Armitage, C. J., & Rowe, R. (2017). Evidence that self-affirmation reduces relational aggression: A proof of concept trial. Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 489–497. 31. Sherry, J. S. (2015). The complexity paradigm for studying human communication: A summary and integration of two fields. Review of Communication Research, 3. Online. https://doi.org/ 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2015.03.01.007

Chapter 16

Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

In the previous two chapters, we focused on ideas for research, policy, practice and evaluation that are explicitly derived from, or consistent with, complex adaptive systems (CAS). We have also briefly provided ideas for practice at various points throughout the book, including the adoption of a functionality mindset and the promise of programs based on kindness, coping and resilience. Here, we offer some further thoughts in a number of areas that we believe are either neglected or novel in the context of bullying prevention but deserving of greater consideration and research attention. They include addressing bias-based bullying, morality-based methods, the use of the arts, the potential for a new view of bullying in public policy and teacher education about bullying.

Addressing Bias-Based Bullying Prejudice Reduction Muzafer Sherif’s famous Robbers Cave summer camp studies carried out in the USA around 1950 demonstrated how ingroups and outgroups can form amongst children, with competition leading to conflict and cooperation reducing it [1]. Prejudice is seen as developing in children as a result of large-scale social forces concerned with competition for status and resources [1], and this trickles down through schools and other microsystems to the social identity and ‘othering’ processes we have discussed in previous chapters, potentially leading to bias-based bullying [2]. In encompassing cultural influences, our IBF is specifically inclusive of bullying that is based on characteristics that are subject to prejudice in society such as gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, religion, ability, disability, class and poverty. The term ‘prejudice’ can be used to cover a range of related phenomena such as stereotyping, discrimination and intolerance, as well as the associated negative emotions [3]. Minton maintains that prejudice should be considered as a major aspect of bullying, as ‘one of a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5_16

267

268

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

number of possible manifestations of broader historical and contemporary patterns of marginalisation in society’ but that its omission from anti-bullying programs may help to explain their underwhelming results [4]. It may seem too much of a challenge to seriously address prejudice in the school context, but as Leonardo da Vinci said, ‘I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do’. School bullying policies may specify that negative behaviour towards minority groups is unacceptable, and it may attract punishment, if it is recognised by teachers. However, this may amount to first-order change, with underlying negative attitudes remaining. Achieving second-order change in schools or society more broadly may seem like an uphill battle, in the face of culturally oppressive attitudes and behaviours that may exist amongst some members of the teaching workforce, and some parents and legislators, as well as students. Workplace diversity training and media campaigns have been attempted, though evidence for their effectiveness is rather weak [4]. The Internet is now being explored as a means of creating positive contact between people from historically hostile social groups, but this work is in its infancy [5]. So what else is known to work to bring about positive change, especially in the school context? The extensive research showing that people favour their own groups over others (see Chap. 6) has promoted numbers of prejudice reduction methods. Grounded in the seminal work of Gordon Allport in the 1950s, the ‘contact hypothesis’ proposes that prejudice can be reduced by contact and cooperation between members of different groups, but only under carefully controlled conditions of equal status, lack of competition, shared goals and under the auspices of an accepted authority [6, 7]. A wellknown example of a cooperative project aimed at reducing prejudice, and that meets these criteria, is the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra, founded by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said, composed of Israeli and Arab musicians. It has been described as ‘a singular space in which human beings who are otherwise forcibly kept apart can come together to exchange ideas and views, learn about each other and, above all, listen to each other in a world that would otherwise keep them silent’ [8]. Numbers of education researchers in the 1980s developed and evaluated a range of cooperative learning methods based on the identified principles, and Schlomo Sharan summarised the findings of studies that applied these to multi-ethnic classrooms in the USA [9]. He concluded that well-designed cooperative learning methods can not only promote academic learning, but have a positive effect on children’s ethnic relationships in school. Sharan noted that, from a systemic perspective, the promotion of prosociality in schools cannot be an ‘add-on’ but needs to be reflected in pedagogy that favours cooperative learning over whole-class, individualistic teaching. Despite the positive effects of cooperative learning, he warned that the school cannot be the only place where we ‘hang our hopes of social salvation … and save us from ourselves’ [10]. For a recent brief summary of the effects of cooperative learning on ethnic relationships and academic outcomes, see https://markvanryzin.medium. com/addressing-prejudice-and-building-racial-equity-in-schools-31ad34eee683. Some methods of prejudice reduction have focused more specifically on Social Identity and Self-categorisation theories. We have seen what a strong role social identity plays in marginalising members of outgroups, so that individuals can have

Addressing Bias-Based Bullying

269

a strong personal investment in keeping minorities ‘in their place’. However, most studies measure a reduction in preference for one’s own group rather than the derogation of others that is a feature of marginalisation and bullying [3]. An exception is a study by Casey Knifsend and Jaana Juvonen, with middle school Californian students [11]. They examined complexity of social identities, that is, the degree of overlap between multiple identities, such as ethnicity and identifying with various other groups such as peer group cliques and interest-based groups. They found that those with more complex identities held more positive attitudes to ethnic outgroups. This may have been either because social identity complexity makes ingroup and outgroup distinctions less sharp or because multiple ingroups are seen as belonging to one superordinate ingroup. The relationships only held, however, when there was opportunity to form cross-ethnic friendships, because there were more ethnic minority students at the school. This might help to account for the findings of the Italian study we mentioned previously, in which the amount of bullying was much less in schools where the proportion of minority students reached over 20% [12]. Creating opportunities for young people to develop more diverse friendships may therefore be an important way of reducing prejudice and bullying. The project cited in Chap. 13, whereby young people were given the opportunity to join a new sailing program, giving them a new group of friends and a new identity, might be adapted as a prejudice reduction method. Another example is the 11-week anti-bullying program developed in Poland, a country where bullying is little discussed or addressed [13]. The program can be used by class teachers even in the absence of a broader antibullying initiative at the school. It is based on cross-categorisation, whereby students are encouraged to consider a broad range of categories when thinking about other class members and getting to know them when starting at a new school.The teacher controls seating and group work to ensure that each student has the chance to work with every other student, thus giving them an opportunity to build up a rich network of connections and knowledge about others to guard against isolation of some individuals. The development of superordinate categories ensures that every group is also ‘in’ a bigger group. Students work in small groups to identify welcome and unwelcome peer behaviours, and ways of addressing the latter. They name unwelcome behaviours to the whole class to establish a class norm of prosociality and not bullying. The teacher emphasises common goals and does not create or reinforce status differences between groups (exactly the opposite of the ‘Blue eyes-Brown eyes’ demonstration of prejudice). Empathy for victims is developed through exercises: these help students to see that some of their own behaviours that they feel are justified can amount to bullying; that is, the program aims to reduce moral disengagement. An evaluation found that bullying behaviours occurred significantly less often in the group receiving this program, compared with a group receiving an alternative program unrelated to bullying. This Danish video (with adults and children) demonstrates the principle of how ‘us and them’ divisions can be challenged through cross-categorisation: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD8tjhVO1Tc&feature=emb_logo. Reduction of prejudice against outgroups has also been shown in response to vicarious exposure to cross-category friendships, that is, to someone ‘like me’ being friends with an outgroup member. Lindsey Cameron and colleagues demonstrated

270

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

that English children from 5 to 11 years, compared with controls, had more positive attitudes towards refugee children after being exposed to stories, weekly over six weeks, in which English children were friends with refugee children [14]. This was especially so when the subcategories (English and refugee) were maintained in the stories as well as the superordinate category as members of the same school. The mechanism appeared to be the so-called inclusion of the other in self, that is, treating an ingroup member (fictional, in this case) as overlapping with the self. Cognitive sophistication did not seem to be required, as the effects were found even in the 5-year-olds, which suggests that such prejudice interventions could begin early in primary school.

Addressing Gendered Bullying As we have discussed previously, bias-based bullying often arises from cultural attitudes about gender. The Mexican study mentioned in the previous chapter had some success in changing the stereotyped beliefs of teenagers about intimate relationships, but we saw that some of the boys were highly resistant [15]. It is not surprising that members of a dominant group in society will defy efforts that reduce their power and challenge their identity, as we have seen through various recent and historical examples. Programs to address gendered violence and hegemonic masculinity have been around for decades, although not generally falling under the rubric of bullying, and are considered by some to have been sidelined by the anti-bullying movement. Martin Mills’ 2000 work in this area remains highly relevant [16]. A 2017 report from the UK suggested that sexist behaviour in schools remained endemic [17]. In France, despite an official egalitarian agenda, its implementation has depended on the interest and goodwill of only a minority of teachers [18]. Such bias against women and girls continues to exist globally and may even have gone backwards, as detailed in a 2020 United Nations report, with the vast majority of both men and women holding biased attitudes [19]. Although these are historically grounded, there may also be a recent backlash against the fresh assertion of women’s rights, which underlines an urgent need to address gender far more seriously in anti-bullying programs. As is often said, misogyny does not always lead to violence against women, but violence against women always begins with misogyny, and there are pathways from school bullying to intimate partner violence. One Australian woman a week dies at the hands of a partner or former partner, and police officers are as likely as the general public to perpetrate domestic violence [20]. Newspaper reports of violent incidents, such as school shootings in the USA and murders of women and children, rarely identify masculinity as causal, despite the vast majority of incidents being perpetrated by males; blaming victims, excusing perpetrators and focusing disproportionately on rare incidents of female violence have all been identified as continuing to occur [21] and reflect the fact that gendered violence is a cultural issue [22]. Journalist Jess Hill has explored the evidence in her book See What you Made me Do. See https://www. jesshill.net/.

Addressing Bias-Based Bullying

271

Interventions at the macrosystem and exosystem levels are possible, with legislative change and police attitudes and practice having an important role to play, although as we have seen, some legislative change on bullying has badly backfired. There are serious moves in the UK to make misogyny a hate crime [23]. Systemic change followed UK legislation in 2008 that mandated combating homophobic bullying in schools: an ethnographic study in one school in 2010 found boys aged 16–18 had come to consider homophobia as childish and had become able to freely express physical and emotional intimacy with one another. More broadly, however, despite decades of research that has identified gendered violence as a problem, we still seem to be at the stage of raising consciousness about it, such as by the 2019 five million strong ‘wall’ of women in Kerala. Given that boys and girls are socialised from birth into different, stereotypical, roles that grant males higher status, the stage is set very early for gendered marginalisation and bullying, which can be observed in preschools and be reinforced by teachers, though they may be unaware of it (unconscious bias). Despite the strongly biased forces that exist culturally, it is possible to reduce gender biases in preschool classrooms by making efforts to reduce the salience of gender, in accordance with Self-categorisation Theory: when teachers avoid using gender as a basis for activities, rewards and competition, then children show weaker gender stereotypes and biases, while increasing gender salience leads to a greater rejection of children of the opposite sex [24]. Lacey Hilliard and Lynn Liben suggest that saying ‘Good morning, boys and girls’ should be as unacceptable as saying, ‘Good morning, Black children and White children!’ See this article regarding the debate on use of gendered terminology in classrooms: https://theconversation.com/free-schools-guide-about-inclus iveness-and-climate-science-is-not-ideological-its-based-on-evidence-162423. The most radical preschool-based efforts to remove gendered differentiation have occurred in Sweden, where counteracting traditional gendered patterns has long formed part of the national curriculum. Even so, preschool teachers and student teachers (the majority of whom are still female) continue to hold masculine and feminine stereotypes that devalue the feminine and that can be traced back historically to antiquity and to influential thinkers such as Rousseau, Darwin and Freud [25]. Swedish (female) preschool teachers critique their female, but not male, coworkers as gossiping and backbiting. They also privilege boys’ stereotypical masculine behaviour (often expressing approval through their non-verbal behaviour) and suppress girls’ assertiveness, labelling them as fussy and as busybodies. Australian research has shown that preschool teachers reinforce dominance behaviour of boys over girls and punish girls who fight back [26]. Greater efforts to counteract these persistent cultural forces are called for. A British non-profit organisation, Lifting Limits, piloted a gender equity program in several primary school classrooms in 2019 [27]. A senior teacher is appointed as gender champion for the school, to oversee the project, which encourages teachers to view every classroom activity through a gender equity lens. As a result, gender stereotypes in school reading books are picked up by staff and students, and new books sought. Children question stereotyped statements from public figures, and teachers begin to notice, and change, gender differences in their own behaviour, such

272

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

as calling only girls ‘love’ or asking for a ‘strong boy’ to help with a task (boys’ and girls’ pre-puberty strength is comparable). More cross-sex friendships are formed, and children are increasingly expressing a wish to take up non-gender stereotypical careers. This pilot project is very promising. Girls and gender-non-conforming youth are especially vulnerable to sexual bullying, yet bullying prevention programs for adolescents rarely address it. There are few effective interventions, and sex and relationship education tends not to meet the needs of students [28]. Gaby Ljister and colleagues outlined a 6-step intervention mapping process that is often used to guide health program development, and which can be applied to programs aimed at addressing gendered bullying. The steps, each of which has subcomponents, are: creating a logic model of the program; creating a logic model of change; program design; production; implementation plan; and evaluation. They applied this framework retrospectively to two school-based programs designed to address sexual harassment. They found that both programs had identified specific student needs, but were driven by practice, with no attention given to the scientific literature that would have helped to create a logic model for change. Although teachers, skills trainers and young people had been included in the planning process, other important community stakeholders had not been involved, such as parents, behavioural scientists and those who might be responsible for program adoption and implementation. The authors suggested that such mapping could be used not just when planning an intervention from scratch, but as a way of revisiting an existing program and analysing ways in which it could be improved, as an iterative process that builds on work already done. Given our discussion in the previous chapter, which included a critique of rigid logic models, it would be even better to apply methods that take a flexible CAS approach. Mills drew up a list of ten principles for action when planning to address gendered violence in schools by working with groups of boys [16]. • Reject the ‘competing victim’ syndrome (‘backlash politics’ that cast males as the new victims). • Understand boys’ violence as a masculinity issue. • Consider how masculinity operates within the school’s social organisation that comes at a cost for some boys. • Prioritise addressing homophobia. • Explore boys’ own sense of oppression, and support or challenge as necessary. • Involve both male and female teachers in educating boys about gendered privilege and oppression. • Ensure any outside agency involved adopts a pro-feminist attitude. • Beware of ‘quick fix’ programs. • Frameworks must address female injustice and inequality. • ‘Feminism’ should not be treated as a dirty word. Consistent with a CAS approach, Mills notes that there is no pattern of linear change to be followed. Disruption can begin anywhere––in the curriculum, pedagogy or school structures––but, he says, it must occur, in the interest of social justice. Year

Addressing Bias-Based Bullying

273

12 boys in one school were resistant, but this was overcome by the adoption of their own suggestion that they be trained to mentor younger boys. Some well-intentioned attempts at changing perspectives on masculinity to nonaggressive ‘noble’ or ‘positive’ ones have been made, but can be critiqued from a feminist perspective [29, 30]. A promising school-based masculinity program is WiseGuyz, a Canadian preventative program for boys aged 13–15. Introduced as a sexual health program, and evaluated qualitatively, it has provided a space where boys experience a sense of belonging, are able to challenge hegemonic masculinity and grow to recognise and change their own aggressive behaviour. School sport is a specific area that needs attention, where boys without athletic bodies or skills are often subject to marginalisation by peers and teachers [31]. Teacher education has a role to play here [32]. Working through boys to reduce gendered bullying would be expected to also reduce bullying between girls, according to Berdahl’s status-based theory, by flattening the gender hierarchy in the school [33]. Finally, students themselves may initiate change about gendered violence when authorities have failed to do so [34]. As one US boy said, regarding meetings with district education officials, ‘We kind of pushed ourselves in the door… It was complex. It was hard. It was weighty’ [34].

Unconscious Bias Phillip will often present his final-year education students with the following wellknown riddle: ‘A father and son were in a car accident where the father was killed. The ambulance brought the son to the hospital. He needed immediate surgery. In the operating room, a surgeon came in and looked at the little boy and said, ‘I can’t operate on him: he is my son’. Who is the surgeon? Answer: The boy’s mother’. While much of the bias against certain societal groups is explicit, some is outside of awareness, and this offers another potential way of assessing, and bringing about change in, oppressive attitudes and behaviours. We develop unconscious (or implicit) bias, or expectations, regarding certain groups as a result of experience in our culture. The very day this chapter was being drafted, there was a news story about unconscious bias affecting a job recruitment advertisement at an Australian smelter that depicted only White male apprentices [35]. Mahzarin Banaji has developed the Implicit Association Test, based on response speed, to identify such biases, and it is available online for anyone to access: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest. html. Finding that one holds unconscious biases can be surprising and disappointing for many people and can cause defensive responses (known as ‘White fragility’, in racial contexts). Remember the ‘invisible hand’ of the teacher! A teacher may be offended, for example, at any suggestion that they have unconscious bias and treat children from different ethnic backgrounds differently. Sarah Fiarman and Tracey Benson have examined this with regard to race in US schools[36], while Jane Frances has addressed how implicit bias can affect students’ responses to those with differences in appearance, as well as teacher responses to such bullying [37]. Carefully

274

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

managed, however, having that information can at least raise awareness. We have seen how teachers in the Lifting Limits program began to notice that they habitually behaved differently towards boys and girls, for example. Many programs have been developed to raise awareness of unconscious bias, but Banaji points out that implicit bias training is not sufficient to achieve change: practices must be adjusted too. A well-known example is in auditioning musicians for orchestras, which used to be overwhelmingly male as men were judged as ‘better players’. A greater diversity of players resulted from the introduction of blind auditions (anonymous players, behind a screen, and with no shoes on, so there was no giveaway tap-tapping of high heels). The Implicit Association Test can also detect cultural change, with implicit bias against gay people having reduced significantly in recent years. Although more research is needed on the effectiveness of implicit bias training [38], there is perhaps a case for including it alongside prejudice reduction measures in efforts to prevent bias-based bullying, through initial teacher education and professional development [39]. A comprehensive approach would also include pedagogy based on carefully designed cooperative learning, adoption of learning materials (such as these: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-28/kids-children-booksdiverse-stories-what-to-read/12003236) that show social diversity [40] and CASbased methods for creating and improving programs aimed at reducing prejudice and harassment. It may also prove possible for school programs to piggyback on broader enthusiasm for cultural change as exemplified by the Me Too movement and Black Lives Matter (Australian publishers rushed to meet a sudden demand for books on race and racism at the time of the 2020 BLM protests following the murder of George Floyd by a US police officer) [41]. However, backlash against diversity materials for schools is also to be expected from some quarters [42]. While prevention is better than cure, bias-based bullying is unlikely to disappear, so psychological services for victims (and some perpetrators) will continue to be needed, within a systemic rather than individualistic framework [22].

Conceptualising Bullying in Public Policy In some countries, schools now have a statutory obligation to address bullying. As we mentioned in Chap. 10, in Rosalyn and Phillip’s home state (South Australia) in 2018 the Minister for Education instigated a process for an acrossgovernment initiative to address bullying in all organisations that deal with children (not only schools). This resulted in the launch of a bullying prevention strategy: https://www.education.sa.gov.au/department/strategies-and-plans/bul lying-prevention-strategy-community-approach. It is based on the premise that policy and practice require a whole-of-community response, using an ecological systems approach, which is a considerable step forward for considering bullying holistically. It is nevertheless typical in drawing on an Olweus-type definition (repetition, a power differential, etc., though not intentionality), and as we have seen, this perspective has been critiqued by paradigm 2 scholars. It also favours an individual

Conceptualising Bullying in Public Policy

275

approach as causal for bullying by suggesting that things going wrong at home may account for someone boosting themselves up by bullying others (possibly this was seen as a way of creating empathy for children who bully). While the evidence we have examined does allow for that to be the case sometimes, what has yet to make its way into such policy is a recognition that this is not necessarily the case, and that group-based processes of identity and belonging are central. Focusing only on the individual as causal risks pathologising perpetrators and victims, and as we have seen, this can lead to undesirable outcomes. As is commonly the case, while the policy does include victimisation based on race, gender and so forth as needing to be addressed, it is differentiated from ‘bullying’ and referred to as ‘harassment’. As we saw in the ‘Kick a Slut’ case, there may be a tendency to see this as a less serious phenomenon than bullying. A view we have explored in detail in this book is that such behaviours can fit comfortably under the bullying umbrella, being understood as entailing the same processes of marginalisation in the interest of achieving belonging and peer status (though in the USA, the legislative complications concerning ‘harassment’ and ‘bullying’ need to be considered). We wonder whether we can expect any changes in future conceptualisations of bullying, in public policy. These are rather complex matters, and it will not be an easy task to turn around understandings that have become entrenched in policies and practice in recent decades. The possibility of progress, though, can be seen in how the Scottish anti-bullying service respectme, endorsed by the Scottish government, conceptualises bullying: https://respectme.org.uk/. It refers to the UN International Convention on the Rights of the Child, prejudice and the illegality of discrimination based on characteristics, or perceived characteristics, such as age, sex, ethnicity and disability, or on associating with others who have them. It also warns that the term ‘bullying’ should not be used to minimise behaviours that are, in fact, criminal, such as hate crime and sexual assault. It thus unites understanding of children’s rights, bullying, harassment and discrimination, as we believe should be the case. As Rawlings points out, this organisation adopts a view of bullying as being about both behaviour and, crucially, the impact on a target: although ‘causing harm’ is indeed a criterion of traditional definitions, it is spelled out in this case as being specifically about a person’s ability to feel safe and be in control of themselves (to have agency) [43]. We can observe here that the concept of ‘having agency’ might allude to feeling that one has control (as in the central box in Fig. 13.1), or to being seen (by oneself or a knowledgeable observer) as having agency that is constrained by oppressive forces, and as such is a social justice matter (we can recall that targets may not acknowledge or recognise the harm to themselves, especially when the bullying comes from someone to whom they have ties of affiliation). In keeping with the paradigm 2 (and increasingly, paradigm 1) approach, the respectme view states that using the ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ labels is unhelpful. The focus is on the behaviour and its impact, and on changing behaviour. It specifically denies that repetition is a necessary criterion for bullying, acknowledging that a one-off incident counts as it can cause an ongoing feeling of threat (i.e. ‘latent bullying’, which is not covered in surveys based on actual events). We can add, as we discussed previously, that a single incident might also count as bullying if it

276

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

undermines the affirmation process. The respectme formulation also explicitly denies that ‘intent’ needs to be established, for the reasons we have discussed previously, and does not refer to a power differential. It gives examples of bullying behaviours, including ‘being targeted because of who you are or how people see you’. This Scottish conceptualisation is consistent with many aspects of the marginalisation/IBF perspective. It may set a very useful precedent for other organisations seeking to establish policies and procedures that take account of many of the concerns raised in this book, including that of cultural oppression.

Morality-Based Interventions In Chapter 11, we elaborated on the suggestion that school bullying is morally charged behaviour, and that young people, like everyone else, face moral dilemmas when deciding whether to marginalise someone or to walk past bullying. The Aristotelian idea of becoming just by acting justly invokes the idea in behaviour therapy that it is possible to ‘fake it until you make it’, while the reverse is also true: that our actions are motivated by our self-perceptions. This implies an iterative process, with cognitive and behaviourally based interventions both possible. Thus, promoting acts of kindness in a school may help to create more morally aware students, while studying moral matters may promote more moral actions. Either approach has the potential to contribute to a more positive school climate and a reduction in bullying. We mentioned in Chap. 5 the development of a children’s kindness scale and a successful project based on carrying out acts of kindness. Here, we elaborate on a program based on the explicit teaching of moral philosophy in schools.

Webber’s Moral Philosophy Program Webber has observed that anti-bullying programs often include moral themes of kindness, empathy and respect, yet university moral philosophy courses rarely examine the topic of bullying [44]. She has experimented with addressing bullying through a form of peer learning, in which New York undergraduate ethics students collaborate with middle school students to produce anti-bullying materials, such as videos and posters (university screen studies students have also been involved). The specific philosophies covered include Aristotle’s perspective on eudaemonia, which we outlined in Chap. 11; students relate bullying to the question of having good character. Jeremy Bentham’s and John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism is also covered, concerning whether a behaviour promotes or diminishes happiness (moral acts are those that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number); for example, students might consider this with regard to bystander options for behaviour. Kant’s ethics is considered as focusing on intentions rather than results, which is an interesting issue in the context of bullying definitions, as we have discussed previously.

Morality-Based Interventions

277

Finally, Rawls’ justice-based theory is applied to bullying, using the ‘veil of ignorance’––pretending to know nothing about oneself, including whether one would turn out to be a bully or a victim and making a judgement about whether a certain course of action would be moral or not. As we mentioned in Chap. 11, we would suggest adding a component based on the feminist ethic of caring. Webber cites some of the experiences that the university students reported. Notably, numbers of both middle school students and university students realised that they had bullied others in the past and were grateful to have this brought to their attention, intending to cease the behaviour or being motivated to apologise to their victims. School student victims were observed to look visibly relieved in class that the matter was being discussed, or they reported that the usual teasing by their friends had stopped. After being thanked by a girl who realised she had bullied others, one university student wrote, ‘Knowing now that I helped to change that little girl’s life, just one person, was one of the most rewarding feelings I have ever had, and I am forever grateful that I decided to take the Ethics of bullying/moral beliefs class’ [45].

Self-affirmation in Bullying Prevention Early in this book, we set out the idea that considering the self and social identity is crucial for understanding motivation for the marginalisation of others that can sometimes constitute bullying. We mentioned in Chap. 6 Johnston’s theory, based on feminist care ethics, about the importance of affirmative feedback loops for the development of the relational self, and his view that this offers a point of focus for bullying prevention [46]. This process is also central to the IBF (see our statement in Chap. 13 and the top left portion of the shaded area in Fig. 13.1). A recent preliminary study by Christopher Armitage and Richard Rowe is of particular interest in this regard, as they examined the possibility of self-affirmation, or reminding oneself of one’s own value, for the prevention of relational aggression [47]. They drew upon Steele’s theory that people are motivated to maintain a positive self-concept, in terms of their moral standing and competence [48]. On the basis of research findings in various areas, such as how people respond to health messaging, they speculated that interventions to reduce aggression might pose a threat to some individuals who see it as a challenge to their sense of self, as we have suggested previously. Armitage and Rowe reasoned that if that threat could be reduced, then recipients of anti-aggression messages might be more inclined to take them on board. They tested their hypothesis that receiving a persuasive message about being kind to others (being given reasons for not engaging in relational aggression), in conjunction with a self-affirmation exercise about one’s own tendency to be kind, might reduce adolescents’ engagement in such aggression. Their study involved presenting English adolescents with a questionnaire that included measures of relational aggression and, for comparison, physical aggression, which the message did not target. Students randomly received either a questionnaire that included a brief self-affirmation exercise or a non-related distractor exercise.

278

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

The self-affirmation exercise involved responding to ten questions about being kind, asking whether they had ever engaged in such actions, such as being concerned about others’ feelings or helping someone less fortunate; there was space to give a specific example, to deepen their self-reflection. All participants also then received a passage describing the harmful effects of relational aggression on victims and the guilt of perpetrators, and they were asked about their reactions to it. As predicted, the group which participated in the self-affirmation exercise felt less threatened by the message and, a month later, reported a reduction in relational, but not physical, aggression; by contrast, relational aggression went up slightly in the control group. The mechanism of change remained uncertain, as neither reactions to the message, nor increases in interpersonal feelings, mediated the relationship between selfaffirmation and relational aggression. The authors suggested a potential role for self-esteem, despite inconsistent results in other self-affirmation studies. They raised the potential importance of differentiating between explicit and implicit self-esteem. Explicit self-esteem is what is generally measured overtly by self-report, while implicit self-esteem is measured through indirect questions and is therefore not transparent to the responder. This difference is important because a previous study had found that high explicit self-esteem predicted aggression, but only when implicit self-esteem was low; this implies that some young people engage in relational aggression as a means of being self-affirming and maintaining their self-integrity. Self-affirmation has not generally been found to raise (explicit) self-esteem, especially when participants are aware of the process of protecting their self-integrity, but it is possible that low implicit (unconscious) self-esteem would be raised by self-affirmation. Let us consider this in relation to our IBF formulation (Fig. 13.1) that incorporates the marginalisation perspective of paradigm 2 together with the temporal needs-threat model of ostracism discussed in Chap. 5. According to paradigm 2, feeling ‘social exclusion anxiety’ motivates an individual to marginalise others and restore their sense of belonging. Under the needs-threat model, this operates via a threat to several basic psychological needs, including the maintenance of self-esteem which, as we noted previously, can be viewed as a ‘sociometer’ for measuring one’s social standing. Based on the dual model of self-esteem, it is those who have a difference between explicit (high) and implicit (low) self-esteem who are more likely to marginalise others to restore their implicit (read ‘real’) self-esteem, this motivation being unconscious. Individuals with such fragile self-esteem, who are more likely to behave aggressively, may be especially responsive to a brief intervention that raises their implicit self-esteem and thus reduces their motivation to aggress. Low implicit self-esteem would result from their personal history. The fact that the intervention had an effect detectable after a month suggests the possibility of moving such individuals’ implicit self-esteem in a positive direction. This potential avenue for reducing peer marginalisation fits well with the various psychological theories we have examined that are relevant for bullying, and it seems worthy of further research. Quantitative methods that can tap implicit self-esteem need to be used. As the authors say, this intervention is brief, not resource-intensive, and was strong enough to be demonstrable against a background of other anti-bullying

Morality-Based Interventions

279

programs. It is in keeping with a broader morality-based framework that normalises kindness to others, in a way that is personalised to the individual and their selfconcept.

A Sociocultural Perspective on Shared Affective Spaces A holistic program for a class of 9–10-year-olds focusing on emotions has been piloted by Morcom. She drew upon Vygotskian theory concerning the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (ZPD), and the work on ‘scaffolding’ that he inspired, that has been widely applied to teaching, although it is often misunderstood [49–51]. Vygotsky saw the ZPD as the space where an individual is on the cusp of learning something new, provided a more knowledgeable person in the culture creates a suitable level of scaffolding for that learning, tailored to where the learner is at. The ZPD is an interpersonal space and, in Morcom’s view, a caring one. Ability is something shared between mentor and learner, not an individual characteristic, though suitably scaffolded learning eventually becomes internalised. Although the school had accessed a program addressing bullying, with some success, bullying continued to be a problem. Following Barbara Rogoff’s terminology, Morcom initially established an ‘institutional plane for apprenticeship’ (classroom culture) based on five class agreements about prosocial behaviour: listening, respect, choice of participation or passing, appreciating others/no putdowns and personal best. What these things look like, sound like and feel like became the collective knowledge of the children. A daily social circle was held with the aim of creating togetherness, in which children stated their name and how they felt. The teacher modelled appreciation of contributions, summarised the general feelings and set a positive tone for the day. Classroom meetings were held weekly that worked in the interpersonal plane: they involved collaborative problem-solving of issues such as friendship difficulties and bullying, with more capable peers increasingly running the sessions over the year, with the teacher providing scaffolding so that the five agreements were implemented and an ‘affective ZPD’ was created. The next stage involved the teacher in strategically forming small groups of students to work together in the classroom, based on sociograms and student preference, but taking account of known bullying relationships (to avoid covert bullying), gender spread and expanding the networks of students who lacked peer nominations. The children kept reflective logs, and behavioural records were noted. Parents were also involved. Morcom presented a case study of a student and his friends who had been engaged in bullying, but who gradually came to behave more acceptably, even taking on leadership roles, and seemed to have internalised prosocial lessons over the course of the year. For example, one wrote, ‘When I listened to people’s problems I started to think for myself and I would sort out my problems’. Another wrote, ‘I learnt to not argue and be sensible. I listened to other people’s opinions and I learnt

280

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

that we are all different and how to get along with each other’. Morcom concluded that the program had effectively scaffolded affective learning, and that research is needed on how to best develop teacher expertise in the method.

The Arts as a Route to Addressing School Bullying In seeking to make the world a better place, ‘it is not just about who is right, it is also about who can win people over’ [52]. This observation by Niki Harré can be illustrated by considering two contrasting charismatic characters: Martin Luther King Jr and Adolf Hitler. The speechmaking of both amounted to theatrical performance, while Hitler’s oratorical skills were backed up by the propagandist film-making talents of Leni Riefenstahl. Persuasive powers can be used for good or ill. The value of a particular persuasive message is a matter of moral judgement, and communications aimed at promoting a more peaceful school environment can be seen in the light of children’s rights and a philosophy of non-violence. Programs are often aimed at providing information, such as the prevalence and harms of bullying, or skills, such as how to resolve conflicts, cope with being bullied or promote an inclusive classroom. However, in accord with Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory that we mentioned in the previous chapter, programs are also about persuading people to think differently about social relationships and to act differently as a result. A child who finds bullying others socially rewarding may choose not to employ the conflict resolution skills that are being taught, while a teacher who sees sexual harassment as a normal aspect of adolescent life will be hard to persuade to intervene in incidents. Here, we explore a possible complementary role for the arts in creating persuasive messaging about school bullying. Patrick Flood and Stephen Carroll suggest that a place for the arts in persuasive leadership and in getting across ideas and concepts (as opposed to selling products) has been under-appreciated, although a strong role of the arts in sending messages about morality has been accepted around the world for centuries. The Greeks, for example, were adept at melding art with logic [53]. First Nations’ storytelling traditions also often carry messages about how to live life that have been passed down many generations, such as the Lakota story of the Badger and the Bear; this tells of how a downtrodden bear cub helped a badger family that was being victimised by his own bullying father bear, and how a strong human brave found justice for the victims: https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TheBadgerand theBear-Lakota.html.nStorytelling is at the heart of the arts, whether through film, theatre, opera, novels, dance, puppetry, poetry, painting or other media. The term homo narrans has been coined to capture the idea that human beings are essentially storytelling animals [54]. We process information and communicate in story form. Flood and Carroll suggest that humans have evolved to appreciate stories as they convey useful life lessons, and those who failed to respond to the stories of their culture would have been at greater risk of being removed from the gene pool. The

The Arts as a Route to Addressing School Bullying

281

US philosopher Martha Nussbaum has argued that literature is important for developing moral emotions (see Chap. 11), through evoking empathy for characters who are different from ourselves, such empathy being a necessity for ensuring social justice [55]. Narrative and family therapies provide a way of facilitating clients to construct a new version of their life that is more helpful, as in Phillip’s case study with an angry boy’s family in Chap. 5, though a narrative is not necessarily a story. To be considered as such, it must have character, plot and setting [55]. Brandi Morris and colleagues have examined the evidence for how humans respond to stories. Being ‘transported’ by a story is a process of empathic identification with characters that creates a sense of suspension from reality. Processing stories is therefore emotional, which can be objectively observed through changes in the autonomic nervous system, and which is different from analytical thinking (for an easy-read summary of the role of emotion in messaging, see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/05/stopmaking-sense-why-its-time-to-get-emotional-about-climate-change). Music can heighten the emotion and help to drive persuasive messages [53]. Stories ‘stand in for’ personal experience and can promote learning. However, whether a story drives us to make certain decisions and act on them depends on whether it has coherence in itself and whether it is a good fit for our values. Changing one’s beliefs can sometimes have a social cost, in terms of becoming estranged from groups to which we feel we belong; we have seen what a strong driving force belonging is, so persuading others to take a new perspective and do things differently is often not easy. An extreme example is the enormous difficulty parents have in persuading their children to leave religious cults. The role of storytelling in motivating behavioural change has become of interest in the face of evidence that the mere provision of information tends to be insufficient and, indeed, can increase resistance to the message in some recipients. Rosalyn and colleagues have suggested that in educating teachers about the seriousness of subtle bullying, emotional material may have more impact than facts and figures [56]. They also noted signs of resistance in some teachers at a professional development course who, at the very mention of youth suicide, rolled their eyes, as did teachers in some Welsh schools when another new wellbeing program was proposed (see Case Study 1 in Chap. 15). In examining climate change messaging, through video, the Morris team found that storytelling was more effective in creating ‘transportation’ and yielding behaviour change than were informational narratives, especially when the emotional ups and downs of the story ended on a negative note (leaving a lingering sense that there is a problem here requiring attention). People seem to produce fewer negative thoughts about a message when it is embedded in a story, though there is also some evidence that statistically based presentations, or question-and-answer formats, can sometimes outperform a storied version [57]. Presentations that reduce the amount of necessary cognitive processing may be more effective, and it also seems that stories are less likely to cause counter-argumentative thoughts if the embedded facts appear to be strong. Rebecca Krause and Derek Rucker suggest that strong facts will need to be presented if pre-existing attitudes are counter to the message [57].

282

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

Who delivers the message is also important, and the source must be credible to the audience. Furthermore, if a credible source delivers weak arguments, after the passage of time, the credibility of the source can override the weakness of the case [58]. In addition, those who feel socially excluded may be more persuasible in order to gain belonging, while they may also have a reduced cognitive processing capacity and be persuaded by a credible source with weak arguments [59]. Self-categorisation Theory has been applied to the matter of a persuasive source: it has been suggested that ingroups can exert influence on their members, but for outgroups we must use power (coercion) as they do not identify with us and we do not expect them to agree with us [60]. Much remains to be learned in this area, but it seems, in broad terms, that a message will be persuasive if it is in accord with audience values, is not too cognitively taxing, has strong facts embedded in a coherent and engaging story format and is presented by a plausible person. Dilys Haner and colleagues have suggested that, from a systems perspective, artsbased programs have the ability to capture the complexity and unpredictability of bullying phenomena [61]. They warn that stories that are too simplistic, suggesting that bullying is easily solved, or that victims will be miraculously transformed into powerful players, will not be effective. While presenting messages about bullying through the arts and storytelling does not have a high profile in the bullying literature, there are some examples to be found, and we present a few here that may inspire others to experiment with novel approaches. Paradigm 2 advocate Schott has taken up a proposal that literature offers a ‘sideways’ approach to violence and bullying, as such subjects can be too confronting to address head-on [62]. She explores J. A. Lindqvist’s vampire novel Let the Right One In which explores these topics without what she describes as the limits of scientific bullying discourse. The themes in the novel can enable readers to check out their own presuppositions about human existence and relationships. US academic and teacher Angela Johnson and her colleagues devised a program for teaching secondary school students in English classes about bullying, through readings from Shakespeare’s Othello, linking themes with media literacy and with conflict in the students’ own lives [63]. The program involved analysing depictions of children in the media, completing a survey about conflict in their own lives and holding a Socratic seminar. Students were able to link their personal experiences and those observed via the media with themes in the play of racism, stereotyping, backstabbing friends and the danger of uncritically accepting rumours as truth. They also compared Iago’s methods of persuasion with those in current media. The students were particularly engaged in discussing the posting of mean messages on Facebook and violent incidents on YouTube, often expressing frustration and anger that these ‘sow the seeds of violence’. However, some of the boys were resistant and insisted that violent videos were acceptable because they were funny (we can link this to our earlier discussion about suspension of empathy, especially amongst boys). However, the counter-messages they received were coming from their peers in the Socratic seminar, not from adults, which may have been a more credible (ingroup) source. The final part of the program was for the students to create a positive current media

The Arts as a Route to Addressing School Bullying

283

message linked to a classic text (most chose to make posters) and to complete a questionnaire. The evaluation of the program took the form of qualitative description. One of the conclusions the teaching team drew was that, ‘Many pieces of literature provide the forum in which students can identify conflict, victims, bystanders, and interveners, and if we facilitate the act of becoming literate in anti-conflict strategies, students can disrupt covert bullying more effectively than teachers’ [64]. While that program addressed bullying through the classics, others have suggested a role for young adult literature. Janette Hughes and Jennifer Lynn Laffier analysed in depth three novels about bullying used in Ontario schools, assessing how closely they followed the scientific literature rather than rehearsing old stereotypes [65]. The novels were Bystander (James Preller, 2009), The Reluctant Journal of Henry K. Larsen (Susin Nielsen, 2012) and The Bully Book (Eric Kahn Gale, 2013). Despite some stereotyping, they concluded that all three books offer a potential route to class discussions amongst middle school students that could educate and dispel myths (such as the idea that victims are at fault) and promote the idea that anyone might find themselves playing various roles in bullying at different times (although they adopted the Olweus definition, this perspective is very much in line with paradigm 2 and our IBF). They suggest that downplaying the use of the term ‘bullying’ would be helpful, as those who bully may not accept it and therefore be resistant to the messaging. All three books, they say, ‘can create awareness, stir emotions and provoke change’ and could be linked with related artistic activities such as creating posters, T-shirts and videos. Some recent teen books that address racism are listed here: https://theconversation.com/teen-summer-reads5-books-to-help-young-people-understand-racism-150072. Some books that teach children kindness are shown here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/childr ens-books-empathy-kindness_l_5d52e7b1e4b0c63bcbee2699. Music, with its power to arouse emotion, has been studied as a medium for addressing bullying and children’s relationships. A Canadian pilot study examined the effect of presenting a children’s opera to year 4 and 5 children, with some participating as a chorus [61]. The opera, Elijah’s Kite, depicts how Elijah does not fit in at school. A new girl becomes popular and deals with bullying by being a bully herself; she realises that she can choose to use her social power to bully or help others, and the children come together in cooperation to enable Elijah’s kite (also played by a child from the school) to fly. Quantitative evaluation (before the opera and six weeks later) indicated increased bullying knowledge, less experience of victimisation and less bullying by the boys. However, girls reported more bullying of others, which was attributed to their being attracted to the powerful female bullying character, as in the popular film Mean Girls. The authors noted the difficulty of creating attractive female characters who also send prosocial messages. Music has also been proposed as a potential means of therapy for young people who have been bullied or who have bullied others [66]. Drawing on theories of music therapy and social learning, Kayla Shafer and Michael Silverman suggest that music may increase motivation to engage in learning experiences, in areas such as selfmanagement and social skills. For example, a student might picture themself being bullied and practise a song about walking away, an impulsive student might write

284

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

a piece about stopping and breathing before acting, or students might work on the lyrics of a song with an appropriate message, perhaps reflecting on it in a group discussion. Phillip, Rosalyn and other colleagues have teamed up with screen studies specialist Alison Wotherspoon to produce various videos about bullying as a core part of educational packages for schools and preschools. Such videos need to have local content to be relevant to the audience, but they also have a limited shelf life, in the face of social changes. For example, one set of videos we made just predated the rise of cyberbullying, so this important new form was not covered [67]. One DVD Phillip was involved in producing was Coping with Bullying, depicting four 4–5-min bullying scenarios (physical, verbal, social and cyber), written and acted out by students at a secondary school. The students also wrote an accompanying teacher booklet with suggested questions for the teacher about each scenario that could be used to promote discussion. Most recently, Phillip has been involved in the production of a digital animation for primary school students, Big Talks for Little People: A Child Mental Health Module’, which includes exemplars of bullying. Yuichi Toda and Insoo Oh (2020) have edited a book that presents the use of games, apps and manga developed by Japanese and Korean researchers to address cyberbullying [68]. One of the contributors, Akihiko Ieshima, puts forward a model called level of immersion in media experiences (LIME) [69]. The shallowest level of immersion is ‘audience mode’ (as we have discussed with regard to being transported by stories), while operating an avatar creates greater immersion. Above this again is ‘actor’ mode, in which the person strongly projects themself onto the character, develops the story as they wish and experiences emotions almost as in real life. Ieshima suggests that this is likely to more deeply engage children in learning about bullying and may promote empathy, although the method needs careful handling by teachers. Such methods are likely to make a strong contribution to bullying programs in future. It has also been proposed that arts-based methods can be used in research, as a way to access students’ experiences of the sensitive topic of bullying in a more effective way than the completion of traditional questionnaires. Drawings can reflect how children think, what they attach importance to and the nature of the relationships they consider to exist between objects [70]. In a study of several hundred student drawings of their experiences of school bullying, Phillip, with Grace Skrzypiec, reported that victims drew their antagonist larger, while the more frequently bullied children drew a closer physical distance between the ‘bully’ and target; there was also more detail provided in drawings by students who reported being frequently bullied [71]. Daria Khanolainen and Elena Semenova piloted a ‘graphic vignettes’ method, in which Russian students added to an incomplete comic strip, drawing on their own experiences [72]. Multiple characters were depicted, under the view that bullying is a group phenomenon, and this gave participants an opportunity to explore multiple roles. The materials were co-designed with the participants, and they were invited to an interview later, which gave an opportunity for the children to reflect on their creations and the meaning of the social situations they had depicted. The word ‘bullying’ was not used until the end of the interview in order not to push the students

The Arts as a Route to Addressing School Bullying

285

towards framing their experiences as such, especially as the word in Russian implies extreme, violent situations. The interview material was analysed qualitatively, and the researchers concluded that the method enabled deep emotions and empathy to be discussed. For example, children talked about their fears about reporting bullying to the teacher, while a few children (those who admitted to bullying behaviours) expressed no empathy towards victims and blamed them for bringing the bullying on themselves: victims were seen as the ones needing to change. PhotoStory is a visual research method that is framed in feminist theory and utilises a participatory research model. It puts a camera or iPad in the hands of participants, providing them with the opportunity to document their experiences in relation to a variety of matters, with the intention of fostering social change. Skrzypiec and colleagues used it in cross-cultural research to document the experiences of Indian and Australian students concerning school bullying [73, 74]. An arts-based approach to peace that does not necessarily rely on storytelling has been researched by Thania Acarón in an international study of dancing practice in therapeutic, artistic and educational endeavours [75]. This is the use of dance/movement to portray experiences, develop spatial and body awareness and serve as a regulatory function in the case of anger, stress and trauma. In some cases, exposure to past conflict may have resulted in hyper-awareness of violence and surroundings, in which case movement could be used as a vehicle for modulation. It has also been used in assertiveness training. Dance has also been used to create a sense of unity and group belonging in those who have previously been at odds, with cultural presence achieved through ethnic dancing. Movement has also been incorporated into bullying/victim/witness role-plays, giving participants an opportunity to practise slowing down to address impulse control. Ethical issues and safeguarding participants are important considerations in such practice. Acarón proposes that a complex, nonlinear approach be taken to interventions, with ongoing reflection and evaluation, as we discussed in the previous chapter. Before leaving this section, we can take note of a recent study that brings together the arts and morality. Julie van der Vyver and colleagues referred to a handful of earlier studies finding that engaging in joint artistic pursuits promoted children’s bonding and prosociality [76]. The van der Vyver team found that participating with local artists in producing works based on good news stories increased children’s prosocial intentions, but not their empathy, compared with non-participating children. In a second study, children again worked with local artists over months, collecting stories about acts of kindness, including interviewing people in the local community and making artworks of various kinds based on these stories. The children who participated in this program, compared with those who did not, later showed greater intentionality to help outgroup children in both competitive and noncompetitive situations, and this effect persisted over six months, possibly boosted by the ongoing existence of the artistic works they had produced. This recent work suggests that giving children the opportunity to address morality by participating in the arts has the potential to create a kinder school climate.

286

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

Teacher Education As yet, there are no resources, as far as we know, for teacher education specifically based on the marginalisation or CAS perspectives. Most school bullying policies and resources define bullying according to the Olweus definition, although bullying may not be covered at all in pre-service teacher education. There would seem to be an opportunity to teach about bullying from a pluralist perspective, alerting students to the marginalisation perspective and theories and research that support it. Education students will have their own point of view about bullying, perhaps based on their own experiences of bullying or policies while at secondary school. In many cases, this will have been based on the Olweus definition, but tertiary education provides a forum for exploring newer perspectives. From a CAS viewpoint, all would need to be considered in the context of national and local legislative and policy frameworks, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and cultural and cross-cultural issues. Evidence that bullying and student wellbeing more broadly are interlinked with learning and classroom management makes a direct connection with more traditional aspects of the curriculum. Classroom management that incorporates functional analysis of challenging behaviours could be applied to examples of bullying behaviour [77]. The relationship with teacher wellbeing gives a very personal reason for being interested in dealing with bullying. Students could be introduced to some of the programs and resources that are available, and perhaps learn some specific, simple techniques for addressing bullying that do not require the support of a whole-school approach, such as the Support Group Method (see Chap. 15) or the Polish program described earlier, which was devised for teachers to use with newly formed classes at transition to secondary school. Being alerted to the need for diversity in teaching materials to counteract prejudice and to be aware of one’s own possible unconscious bias could also be included. The ways in which bullying could be addressed through various aspects of the curriculum, such as through literature and movement, could also be suggested, and collaborative learning pedagogy promoted. Those studying to enter the clinical psychology profession typically take classes in communication skills, and medical schools often do the same. Teaching is also a profession that depends deeply on communication skills, yet these rarely form part of the pre-service curriculum [78]. Even when they do, they may be weakly developed [79]. In considering the importance of collaborative working with people from many walks of life to address bullying, the need for good communication skills is highlighted. Students are highly sensitive to teacher communication skills, as evidenced by the girl from O’Brien’s study, who said, ‘So I think the best teacher to talk to is [Miss A] and even though people are scared of her I would recommend it, because she’s a good listener and she can sense when you don’t want to talk about something, whereas the other teachers force it out of you’ [80]. One way in which communication training could be introduced into teacher education would be the teaching of basic microskills, such as active listening, which is especially important for teachers [81]. A course for in-service teachers based on

Teacher Education

287

microskills has been developed by Loizos Symeou and colleagues, and includes a real-life reflective exercise on communicating with parents [82]. Another program, based on simulated interactions with parents, has been devised by Benjamin Dotger’s team [83]. Karen De Coninck’s team has also devised a video method for assessing teacher competence in communicating with parents [79]. However, microskills are only the starting point in developing more complex communicative competences such as ‘tact’ and ‘nous’ [84]. Rosalyn has explored the possibility that parent– teacher communication could usefully be studied using a CAS framework, the Dotger program being especially consonant with this [85]. An evidence-based framework for teacher professional development in the broad area of mental health education has been proposed by Helen Askell-Williams and Roz Murray-Harvey [86]. Structural and functional components interact. The structural elements are content (knowledge and skills, self-efficacy and coherence) and delivery (duration, timing and facilitation). The functional elements are collaboration, active learning and professional practices (actions, reflection, professional identity, and attitudes and beliefs). In accord with their findings, experienced teachers attending professional development courses are likely to want to learn about very practical methods for dealing with bullying that are compatible with the policies under which they presently operate, rather than beginning with a theoretical presentation, which is often the preference of program developers. Teachers are likely to be familiar with the difficulties of implementing policies that require them to identify ‘bullies’ and ‘victims’. This could provide a starting point for discussions in professional development sessions about the problems they have faced, including antagonistic relationships with parents about bullying. If their understanding is based on the Olweus perspective, there could be discussion about widening this perspective, not replacing it. For teachers struggling with the stress of antagonistic relationships with parents, mindfulness interventions may be helpful [87]. In the pre-service context, a more radical approach to education that would provide a background for new thinking about not just bullying, but education more broadly, is the cross-disciplinary teaching of systems thinking. This has been done in the context of liberal arts education in the USA by Loren Demerath and Dante Suarez and like-minded colleagues from a range of disciplines [88]. We refer interested readers to their very detailed article based on CAS and transdisciplinarity, but at this point we note that how they end the course is very apposite for our present subject: by referring to Steven Pinker’s 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature. This argues that, contrary to commonly held beliefs, the amount of violence in the world has been in decline for some time, compared with past centuries and, indeed, millenia. Demerath and Suarez suggest that this can be attributed to the emergence of higher-order organisations such as the United Nations that are committed to a more peaceful world: ‘This consensus that peace is a dividend of complexity should not only be forming among those of us researching and teaching it, but also among the students who learn it as part of their basic undergraduate education’ [89]. Perhaps, this global thrust towards peace has been able to build on the basic human propensity for cooperation that numbers of scholars have identified.

288

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

Conclusions We have ended our exploration of new conceptualisations of school bullying by putting forward some creative suggestions for practice that do not necessarily follow from taking a CAS perspective, but that may prove useful as part of CAS-based (or even more traditional) approaches. Readers may not agree with all we have had to say, but if we have been able to contribute to moving discussions forward, writing this book will have been a worthwhile exercise. We cannot think of a better way to finish than by citing Allen’s comments about CAS [90] There are multiple understandings, values, goals and behaviours that co-habit a complex system at any moment, and these change with the nature of the elements in interaction as well as with their changing interpretive frameworks of what is going on. There is no end to history, no equilibrium and no simple recipes for success. But, how could there be? If social science could give us predictions or tell us what to do then we wouldn’t be free. But that very creativity and freedom mean that social science will inevitably be an unending, imperfect learning process.

References 1. PW Psychology Wizard. (n.d.). Sherif (1954) Robbers Cave. Accessed August 8, 2021 at https:// www.psychologywizard.net/sherif-ao1.html 2. Walton, L. M. (2018). The effects of “Bias Based Bullying” (BBB) on health, education, and cognitive–social–emotional outcomes in children with minority backgrounds: Proposed comprehensive public health intervention solutions. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 20, 492–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0547-y 3. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.60.110707.163607 4. Minton, S. J. (2016). Marginalisation and aggression from bullying to genocide (p. xv). Sense. 5. White, F., Maunder, R., & Verelli, S. (2018). How research is helping to reduce prejudice between people online. Accessed July 10, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/how-researchis-helping-to-reduce-prejudice-between-people-online-106175 6. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. 7. Everett, J. A. C. (2013). Intergroup contact theory: Past, present and future. The Inquisitive Mind, 2. Accessed July 10, 2020 at https://www.in-mind.org/article/intergroup-contact-theorypast-present-and-future 8. Burton-Hill, C. (2014). West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. BBC Culture, 22 August 2014. Accessed January 5, 2021 at https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140822-music-uniting-arabs-and-isr aelis 9. Sharan, S. (1990). Co-operative learning and helping behaviour in the multi-ethnic classroom. In H. C. Foot, M. M. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 151–176). Wiley. 10. Sharan, S. (1990). Co-operative learning and helping behaviour in the multi-ethnic classroom. In H. C. Foot, M. M. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (p. 173). Wiley. 11. Knifsend, C. A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Social identity complexity, cross-ethnic friendships, and intergroup attitudes in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 709–721. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12157

References

289

12. Di Francesco, G. (2017). Methodological issues for the analysis of bullying in educational environments. In A. Maturo, Š. Hošková-mayerová, D-t. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models, Studies in systems, decision and control 66 (pp. 149–155). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40585-8_13 13. Wojcik, M., & Hełka, A. M. (2019). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: ABBL antibullying program during middle school transition. Psychological Reports, 122(3), 1043–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118768671 14. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Douch, R., & Brown, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77(5), 1208–1219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3878427 15. Makleff, S., Billowitz, M., Garduño, J., Cruz, M., Márquez, V. I. S., & Marston, C. (2020). Applying a complex adaptive systems approach to the evaluation of a school-based intervention for intimate partner violence in Mexico. Health Policy & Planning, 35, 993–1002. https://doi. org/10.1093/heapol/czaa067 16. Mills, M. (2000). Challenging violence in schools: An issue of masculinities. Open University Press. 17. National Education Union and UK Feminista. (2017). “It’s just everywhere”: A study on sexism in schools – and how we tackle it. Accessed July 9, 2020 at https://ukfeminista.org.uk/wp-con tent/uploads/2017/12/Report-Its-just-everywhere.pdf 18. Pasquier, G. (2010). Enseigner I‘égalité des sexes a I‘école primaire. Nouvelles Questions Féministes. 29(2), 60–71. Accessed July 9, 2020 at http://www.jstor.com/stable/25750788 19. Elsesser, K. (2020). 6 dismal findings from U.N. report on gender bias. Forbes, March 9th , 2020. Accessed July 10, 2020 at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/03/09/6-dis mal-findings-from-un-report-on-gender-bias/#1efbd9aa5d1c 20. Gleeson, H. (2020). Abusers in the ranks. ABC News, 19 October 2020. Accessed January 25, 2021 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-19/police-in-australia-are-failing-to-takeaction-against-domestic/12757914?nw=0 21. Meade, A. (2015). Media often distort domestic violence, study finds. The Guardian, 25 November 2015. Accessed December 30, 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/ nov/25/media-often-sensationalise-domestic-violence-reporting-study-finds 22. Shute, R. H. (2018). Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era. Routledge. 23. Citizens UK (n.d.). Better hate crime protections for all. Accessed August 24, 2020 at https:// www.citizensuk.org/hate-crime-law-commission 24. Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in pre-school classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81(6), 1787–1798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01510.x 25. Hedlin, M., & Åberg, M. (2018). Fussy girls and chattering women—The construct and subordination of femininity in preschool teacher training. Early Child Development and Care, 188(2), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1211120 26. Main, N. (1999). Children’s perpetration of violence in early childhood centres: Beyond conflict. Paper presented at the Children and Crime: Victims and Offenders Conference, convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology, Brisbane, June 1999. 27. Ferguson, D. (2019). A year to clean five schools of sexism – shouldn’t others do the same? The Guardian, 12 November 2019. Accessed July 11, 2020 at https://www.theguardian.com/ education/2019/nov/12/clean-five-schools-of-sexism-teachers-pupils-gender-equality 28. De Lijster, G. P. A., Kok, G., & Kocken, P. L. (2019). Preventing adolescent sexual harassment: Evaluating the planning process in two school-based interventions using the Intervention Mapping framework. BMC Public Health, 19, Article 1455. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889019-7808-8 29. Kiselica, M., Benton-Wright, S., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2016). Accentuating positive masculinity: A new foundation for the psychology of boys, men, and masculinity. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.-in-Chief), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 123–143). APA.

290

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

30. Shute, R. H. (2018). What about the boys? (Chap. 8) In Clinical psychology and adolescent girls in a postfeminist era (pp. 107–120). Routledge. 31. Tischler, A., & McCaughtry, N. (2011). PE is not for me: When boys’ masculinities are threatened. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367. 2011.10599720 32. Pill, S. (2015). Valuing learning in, through, and about sport: Physical education and the development of sport literacy. In H. Askell-Williams (Ed.), Transforming the future of learning with educational research (pp. 20–35). IGI Global. 33. Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2007.24351879 34. Kebede, L. F. (2020). ‘Safer in school’: How students led the overhaul of sexual harassment protections in Shelby County Schools. Chalkbeat Tennessee, 21 December 2020. Accessed December 30, 2020 at https://tn.chalkbeat.org/2020/12/21/22187096/how-students-led-theoverhaul-of-sexual-harassment-protections-in-shelby-county-schools 35. Marchant, G. (2020). Nyrstar apologises after Facebook backlash to ‘lads and blokes’ videos for Port Pirie smelter jobs. ABC News, 29 June 2020. Accessed June 29, 2020 at https://www. abc.net.au/news/2020-06-29/nyrstar-smelter-apologises-for-ad-excluding-women/12398292 36. Fiarman, S. E., & Benson, T. A. (1020). The reality of unconscious racial bias. School Administrator; Arlington, 77(2), 21–25. Accessed June 21, 2020 at https://my.aasa.org/AASA/Res ources/SAMag/2020/Feb20/TOC_Feb20.aspx 37. Frances, J. (2017). Appearance matters: How implicit bias hampers our approach to bullying. Anti-Bullying Alliance website. Accessed July 11, 2020 at https://www.anti-bullyingalliance. org.uk/news-insight/blog/appearance-matters-how-implicit-bias-hampers-our-response-bul lying 38. Atewologun, D., Cornish, T., & Tresh, F. (2018). Unconscious bias training: An assessment of the evidence for effectiveness. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Report 113. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Accessed July 9, 2020 at www.equalityhuma nrights.com 39. Charmaraman, L., Jones, A. E., Stein, N., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Is it bullying or sexual harassment? Knowledge, attitudes, and professional development experiences of middle school staff. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12048 40. Adam, H. J., Barratt-Pugh, C., Jackson-Barrett, L., & Somerville, R. S. (2020). Children’s books must be diverse, or kids will grow up believing white is superior. The Conversation, 9 July 2020. Accessed July 11, 2020 at https://theconversation.com/childrens-books-must-bediverse-or-kids-will-grow-up-believing-white-is-superior-140736 41. Kembrey, M. (2020). Publishers rush to fill demand as books on race and racism sell out amid protests. The Age, 13 June 2020. Accessed July 11, 2020 at https://www.theage.com.au/ culture/books/publishers-rush-to-fill-demand-as-books-on-race-and-racism-sell-out-amid-pro tests-20200611-p551kf.html 42. Schmidt, S. (2019). Angry parents protest LGBTQ books in Virginia classrooms. The Washington Post, 10 November 2019. Accessed August 8, 2021 at https://www.washingtonpost. com/local/social-issues/perversity-angry-parents-protest-lgbtq-books-in-loudoun-classrooms/ 2019/11/10/6dbe0024-01b3-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html 43. Rawlings, V. (2019). ‘It’s not bullying’, ‘It’s just a joke’: Teacher and student discursive manoeuvres around gendered violence. British Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3521 44. Webber, M. A. (2017). Bullying: University students bring a moral perspective to middle school students. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n 3p157 45. Webber, M. A. (2017). Bullying: University students bring a moral perspective to middle school students. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 162. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n3p157 46. Johnston, T. R. (2015). Affirmation and care: A feminist account of bullying and bullying prevention. Hypatia, 30(2), 403–417, 414. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12144

References

291

47. Armitage, C. J., & Rowe, R. (2017). Evidence that self-affirmation reduces relational aggression: A proof of concept trial. Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/ vio0000062 48. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press. 49. Morcom, V. (2015). Scaffolding social and emotional learning within ‘shared affective spaces’ to reduce bullying: A sociocultural perspective. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.04.002 50. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976. tb00381.x 51. Gredler, M. E. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom: Is it too late? Educational Psychology Review, 24, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9183-6 52. Harré, N. (2011). Psychology for a better world: Strategies to inspire sustainability. 2018 edition available for download at psych.auckland.ac.nz/psychologyforabetterworld. 53. Flood, P. C., & Carroll, S. (2010). Using aesthetics and the arts in persuasive leadership. In P. C. Flood & S. Carroll (Eds.), The persuasive leader: Lessons from the Arts (pp. 21–36). Wiley. 54. Morris, B. S., Chrysochou, P., Christensen, J. D., Orquin, J. L., Barraza, J., Zak, P. J., & Mitkidis, P. (2019). Stories vs. facts: Triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change. Climatic Change, 154, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02425-6 55. McRobie, H. (2014). Martha Nussbaum, empathy, and the moral imagination. Open Democracy, 7 March 2014. Accessed December 7, 2020 at https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/ martha-nussbaum-empathy-and-moral-imagination/ 56. Dedousis-Wallace, A., Shute, R., Varlow, M., Murrihy, R., & Kidman, A. (2014). Predictors of teacher intervention in indirect bullying at school and outcome of a professional development presentation for teachers. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 862–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.2013.785385 57. Krause, R. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2020). Strategic storytelling: When narratives help versus hurt the persuasive power of facts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853845 58. Albarracín, D., Kumkale, G. T., & Poyner-Del Vento, P. (2017). How people can become persuaded by weak messages presented by credible communicators: Not all sleeper effects are created equal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 171–180. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jesp.2016.06.009 59. Pfundmair, M., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2017). Whatever? The effect of social exclusion on adopting persuasive messages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(2), 181–193. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1192098 60. Bernd, S., & Oakes, J. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59, 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706062760 61. Haner, D., Pepler, D., Cummings, J., & Rubin-Vaughan, A. (2010). The role of arts-based curricula in bullying prevention: Elijah’s kite—A children’s opera. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509349031 62. Schott, R. M. (2014). The life and death of bullying. In R. M. Schott & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 185–206). Cambridge University Press. 63. Johnson, A. B., Augustus, L., & Agiro, C. P. (2012). Beyond bullying: Pairing classics and media literacy. English Journal, 101(6), 56–63. Accessed 8.11.2020 at https://www.jstor.org/ stable/23269409 64. Johnson, A. B., Augustus, L., & Agiro, C. P. (2012). Beyond bullying: Pairing classics and media literacy. English Journal, 101(6), 62. Accessed November 8, 2020 at https://www.jstor. org/stable/23269409 65. Hughes, J., & Laffier, J. L. (2016). Portrayals of bullying in young adult literature: Considerations for schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(3), 1–24. Accessed August 10, 2021 at https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/2150

292

16 Getting Creative—Further Ideas for Practice

66. Shafer, K. S., & Silverman, M. J. (2013). Applying a social learning theoretical framework to music therapy as a prevention and intervention for bullies and victims of bullying. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 40, 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2013.07.004 67. Cox, G., Newbold, P., Owens, L., Shute, R., Slee, P., Wight, S., & Wotherspoon, A. (2005). Reducing bullying: Evidence-based strategies for schools (DVD-based professional development resource). Government of South Australia and Flinders University. 68. Toda, Y., & Oh, I. (Eds.). (2020). Tackling cyberbullying and related problems: Innovative usage of games, apps and manga. Routledge. 69. Ieshima, A. (2020). Level of Immersion in Media Experience (LIME) model. In Y. Toda, & I. Oh (Eds.), Tackling cyberbullying and related problems: Innovative usage of games, apps and manga. Routledge. 70. Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006). Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds. Educational Psychology, 26, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/014434 10500344167 71. Slee, P. T., & Skrzypiec, G. (2016). No more bullying: An analysis of primary school children’s drawings of school bullying. Educational Psychology, 36(8), 1487–1500. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01443410.2015.1034089 72. Khanolainen, D., & Semenova, E. (2020). School bullying through graphic vignettes: Developing a new arts-based method to study a sensitive topic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920922765 73. Skrzypiec, G., Murray-Harvey, R. & Krieg, S. (2013). The PhotoStory method as a legitimate research tool in evaluations: More than a nice story. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(3), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F183693911303800305 74. Slee, P. T., Skrzypiec, G., Sandhu, D., Kaur, K., & Campbell, M. (2018). PhotoStory: A legitimate research tool in cross-cultural research. In P. K. Smith., S. Sunduram, B. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schafer, & D. Sandhu, (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools (pp. 189–207). Cambridge University Press. 75. Acarón, T. (2018). Movement decision-making in violence prevention and peace practices, Journal of Peace Education, 15(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2018.1463913 76. van der Vyver, J., Abrams, D., Spinner, L., Pelletier, J., Ali, S. Y., & Kapantai, I. (2019). Participatory arts interventions promote interpersonal and intergroup prosocial intentions in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 65, Article 101069. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101069 77. Packenham, M., Shute, R., & Reid, R. (2004). A truncated functional behavioral assessment procedure for children with disruptive classroom behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 9–25. Accessed August 10, 2021 at JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/42899781 78. Shute, R. H. (2016). ‘Promotion with parents is challenging’: The role of teacher communication skills and parent-teacher partnerships in school-based mental health initiatives. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 64–74). Routledge. 79. De Coninck, K., Valcke, M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). A measurement of student teachers’ parent–teacher communication competences: The design of a video-based instrument. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465656 80. O’Brien, N. (2019). Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1984, p. 8. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2019.01984 81. Kuntze, J., van der Molen, H. T., & Born, M. P. (2009). Increase in counselling communication skills after basic and advanced microskills training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X313758 82. Symeou, L., Roussounidou, E., & Michaelides, M. (2012). “I feel much more confident now to talk with parents”: An evaluation of in-service training on teacher–parent communication. School Community Journal, 22, 65–87. 83. Dotger, B. H., Dotger, S. C., & Maher, M. J. (2010). From medicine to teaching: The evolution of the Simulated Interaction Model. Innovations in Higher Education, 35, 129–141. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9128-x

References

293

84. Giles, D. (2010). Developing pathic sensibilities: A critical priority for teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1511–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2010.05.007 85. Shute, R. H. (in press). Communication between parents and teachers regarding school bullying: A complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective. In F. Arcidiacono (Ed.), Parents and teachers: Perspectives, interactions and relationships. Nova Science. 86. Askell-Williams, H., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2016). Professional education for teachers and early childhood educators about mental health promotion. In R. Shute, & P. Slee (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 75–86). Routledge. 87. Burrows, L. (2011). Practising relational mindfulness in school communities. In R. H. Shute, P. T. Slee, R. Murray-Harvey, & K. L. Dix (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives (pp. 213–223). Shannon Research Press. 88. Demerath, L., & Suarez, D. (2019). Teaching complexity as transdisciplinarity. In T. Carmichael, A. Collins, & M. Hadžikadi´c (Eds.), Complex adaptive systems (pp. 223–250). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20309-2_11 89. Demerath, L., & Suarez, D. (2019). Teaching complexity as transdisciplinarity. In T. Carmichael, A. Collins, & M. Hadžikadi´c (Eds.), Complex adaptive systems (pp. 244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20309-2_11 90. Allen, P. (2018). Complex, evolving social systems: Unending, imperfect learning. In E. Mitleton-Kelly, A. Paraskevas, & C. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in complexity science (pp. 18–44). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Glossary of Colloquial Expressions

to take on board to accept or adopt an idea shock jock a radio host (disc jockey) who deliberately expresses offensive or shocking opinions (generally right wing) fighting against the tide working hard to act against the normal flow of events or opinions to bring to the table to contribute ideas to a discussion food for thought an idea that may promote further thinking fresh lease of life revival of something that was fading to dish out to distribute in an unthinking or negative fashion cricket bat instrument for hitting the ball in the game of cricket to get the slipper to be hit on the backside with a soft shoe posh upper class six of the best six strikes with a teacher’s cane faggot offensive word for a homosexual person silos separate containers (literally, for grain) in a manner unbecoming act in an unworthy way, below the best moral standard bushfire Australian term for wildfire mobile phone, or mobile cell phone (UK and Australia) have a crush on someone be obsessively attracted to someone (especially in adolescence) snail mail regular paper-based post, as opposed to digital correspondence to keep track to purposefully follow and remember a sequence of events selfie photograph of oneself taken by oneself (usually by mobile phone) sci-fi science fiction free-for-all a situation such as a fight with no rules to constrain behaviour to throw out the baby with the bathwater to discard everything, and lose the good parts in the process cool good, up-to-date, socially approved by one’s peers zero-tolerance punishable with no option for leniency to ditch to throw away, discard © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5

295

296

Glossary of Colloquial Expressions

fag offensive term for a homosexual person nerd somewhat offensive term for a studious person lezzo lesbian on steroids boosted, extreme form of a phenomenon to be stuck up to consider oneself superior to others slut a woman considered to be too sexually free at first blush at first sight bowler hat a black rounded hat typically worn by British businessmen, especially financiers, in the twentieth century trolling making derogatory comments about others online black sheep the ‘bad’ person in a group such as a family cussing cursing, teasing “ew” term used by young people to express disgust to cop it to be on the receiving end of a negative action sexting spreading sexual material such as photos by digital devices, with or without the consent of the subject or recipient suck it up accept bad treatment without complaint traffic jam situation where vehicles on a busy road are unable to progress to ‘butch someone up’ to make an effeminate male appear more masculine to blank someone to stare at or past someone as though you do not know them more bang for our buck greater value for money ‘the vibe’ the general atmosphere or feeling (from the Australian film The Castle)

Index

A Abjection, 51, 110, 111, 120, 189 Abrams, D., 89, 175 Academic adjustment, 216 Acarón, T., 285 Acedo-Carmona, C., 20, 21 Adaptation, 38, 99, 167, 191–193, 231, 252 Adolescence, 25, 39, 55, 62, 90, 92, 111, 117, 132, 133, 169, 175, 216 Aesop, 216 Affiliation, 21, 37, 98, 115, 275 Affirmation, 164, 165, 177, 259, 276 Afghanistan, 171, 173 Africans, 41, 112, 113, 142, 145, 169, 174, 216 Ageism, 36 Agency, 26, 39, 131, 152, 170, 236, 252, 255, 272, 275 Agent, 148, 162, 165, 172, 173, 186, 192, 193, 207, 210, 238, 252, 262 Agent-based Modelling, see Complex Systems Modelling Aggression, 1, 2, 9–11, 22, 23, 36, 37, 53–56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 71, 75, 82, 87, 90, 91, 98, 102, 104, 105, 110, 114, 115, 127, 128, 142, 166, 170, 174, 189, 190, 193, 194, 217, 262, 263, 277, 278 Ahmed, S., 97, 118 Ainsworth, M., 26 Akiba, M., 52, 100 Allen, P., 4, 288 Allport, G., 268 Altruism, 37, 159 Anderson, A., 148 Anger, 38, 74, 112, 172–174, 237, 282, 285

Anorexia nervosa, 24 Anti-bullying programs, 2, 4, 9, 60, 72, 75, 91, 101, 133, 141, 166, 171, 184, 195, 230–233, 235–237, 239, 246, 258, 259, 268–270, 276, 279 Ants, 191, 192, 203, 232 Anxiety, 52, 71, 109–111, 116, 117, 133, 205, 231, 258 Arete, 162 Aristotle, 20, 160, 161, 168, 276 Armitage, C., 277 Aronson, E., 19, 83 Arsenault, L., 49, 69, 135 Arts, 26, 105, 161, 267, 280, 282, 284, 285, 287 Asia, 38 Askell-Williams, H., 287 Attachment, 26–28, 115, 162 Attractor state, 189, 196, 254 Attunement, 24 Aurea mediocritus, 160, 162 Australia, 19, 21, 28, 50, 58–60, 84, 87, 89, 112–114, 125, 145, 148–155, 169, 171, 206, 212, 218, 221, 274 Autism, 49, 134, 151 Autonomy, see Agency Ayres, M., 130

B Baboons, 37, 189 Bacon, F., 3 Banaji, M., 273, 274 Bandura, A., 162, 170–172, 174 Barenboim, D., 268 Barnes, A., 230, 232

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 R. H. Shute and P. T. Slee, School Bullying and Marginalisation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7676-5

297

298 Bauer, E., 185 Baumeister, R., 114 Beinecke, R., 142, 219, 241 Belonging, 19, 28, 39, 51, 53, 59, 72, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 97, 105, 109, 111, 112, 115, 126–128, 134, 146, 152, 164, 168, 173, 189, 190, 204, 205, 209, 210, 213–217, 229, 234, 237, 245, 259, 269, 273, 275, 278, 281, 282, 285 Beneficence, 166 Benson, T., 273 Bentham, Jeremy, 276 Berdahl, J., 59, 273 Bertalanffy, von, L., 185, 186 Bias-based bullying, 57, 92, 132, 205, 267, 270, 274 Bickmore, K., 237 Billig, M., 102, 103, 212, 234 Biopsychosocial, 185, 209 Bjorkqvist, K., 53 Black Books, 214 Blackburn, E., 118 Black Lives Matter, 218, 274 Blakemore, S., 168 Blue eyes-Brown eyes, 83, 142, 269 Bonding, 21, 27, 173, 211, 285 Borg, S., 240 Boundary spanner, 239, 260 Bowlby, J., 26 Bradshaw, C., 231 Brazil, 129 Brenick, A., 184 Britain, see UK Bronfenbrenner, U., 41, 69, 112, 170, 184, 185, 188, 207, 209, 210 Brothers, L., 20 Bryson, B., 28 Buddhism, 41 Bullies 2 Buddies, 35 Bullying, bias-based, 57, 92, 132, 205, 267, 270, 274 Bullying, definitions, 146 Bullying, latent, 146, 275 Bullying paradigms paradigm 1, 9, 25, 48, 50, 53, 57, 59, 62, 70, 116, 135, 145, 154, 168, 197, 206, 209, 221, 241, 275 paradigm 2, 9, 10, 25, 41, 42, 49, 51, 53, 60, 62, 69, 72, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 86, 89, 92, 101, 110, 111, 116, 125, 133–135, 141, 168, 171, 183, 184,

Index 196, 197, 206, 221, 237, 252, 257, 274, 275, 282, 283 Bully-victims, 23, 70, 109, 126, 129, 174, 188, 215, 216, 231 Burrell, G., 6, 7, 254 Butler, J., 110 Bystander, 8, 9, 50, 75, 90, 101, 133, 168–170, 173, 256, 258, 276, 283

C Cameron, L., 269 Canada, 57, 82, 145, 148, 233, 237 Carlisle, N., 109 Carroll, P., 24 Carroll, S., 280 Catastrophising, 127, 128, 130, 215 Catholic, 60, 150, 153, 154, 188, 212 Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., 6 Cefai, C., 134 Chapman, A., 103 Checkland, P., 186, 192, 229, 242, 243 China, xvii Chrysippus, 161 Christianity, 83 Clarke, A., 128, 131 Clauss-Ehlers, C., 132 Clinical psychology, 75, 259, 286 Clutton-Brock, T., 174 Cognition, 25, 184, 189, 204, 240 Cognitive bias, 100, 101, 214 Collaboration, 147, 164, 236, 239, 242, 253, 287 Collectivist, 9, 26, 47, 52, 104 Colombia, 144 Colonisation, 11 Communication, 10, 24, 87, 88, 98, 115, 143, 147, 185, 188, 193, 205, 263, 280, 286, 287 Communication Accommodation Theory, 87, 92, 188 Competition, 35–38, 42, 47, 62, 85, 99, 175, 187, 267, 268, 271 Complex adaptive systems, 191, 197, 209, 235, 240, 267 Complexity, 4–6, 19, 37, 38, 41, 72, 88, 101, 104, 142, 147, 169, 170, 174, 184, 191, 193, 196, 197, 213, 217, 219–221, 232, 235, 238, 240, 245, 246, 269, 282, 287 Complex Systems Modelling, 193 Conflict resolution, 35, 37, 47, 133, 154, 237, 262, 263, 280

Index Conscience, 143, 162 Constitutive relationalism, 209 Contempt, 10, 24, 41, 55, 56, 104, 111, 120, 129, 205, 219, 245 Contos, C., 212 Control, see Agency Convention on the Rights of the Child, 7, 143, 275, 286 Cooperation, 35, 37, 38, 40, 47, 115, 176, 194, 212, 241, 245, 258, 267, 268, 283, 287 Cooperative breeding, 27, 38 Cooperative learning, 268, 274 Coping, 24, 55, 98, 115, 117, 120, 125–131, 133, 134, 205, 214–216, 267, 284 Corporal punishment, 7, 8 Cowie, H., 116, 133, 256 Cox, K.”, 39 Critical psychology, 4, 6 Crnkovic, G., 186 Cross, D., 150, 230–232 Crossed categorisation, 91 Crotty, M., 219, 221 Culture, 2, 5, 8, 24–27, 37, 39, 41, 50, 52, 57, 58, 60, 69, 72, 83, 87–89, 104, 111, 113, 114, 116, 129, 144, 147–149, 163, 166–168, 184, 189, 204, 207, 211, 213, 230, 238, 241, 244, 254, 273, 279, 280 Cyberball, 114 Cyberbullying, 2, 5, 55, 57, 63, 71, 86, 99, 119, 151, 153, 170, 176, 184, 195, 206, 256, 284 Cynefin framework, 191 Cyprus, 161

D Dadds, M., 174 Dance, 24, 280, 285 Dark Triad, 70, 72 Darley, J., 168 Darwin, C., 3, 36, 74, 111, 159, 271 Davies, 213, 236, 260 Da Vinci, Leonardo, 103, 268 Dawkins, R., 36, 99 De Blasio, T., 37 Deception, 21, 97, 99, 100 De Coninck, K., 287 Dedousis-Wallace, A., 60 Dehumanisation, 101, 168 Delby, H., 36, 61, 171 Deleuze, G., 184

299 Demerath, L., 287 Danish, 9, 28, 51, 104, 141, 213, 269 Dennett, D., 25 Depression, 27, 28, 70, 110, 115, 117, 118, 127, 133, 196, 231 Derrida, J., 6 Descartes, R., 3 Deutsch, M., 35, 53, 164 Developmental Intergroup Framework, 183, 221 Developmental Model of Subjective Group Dynamics, 89 Dewey, J., 147, 148 Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 261, 280 Dignity, 10, 72, 75, 128, 143, 205, 213, 215, 235, 245, 257 Disability, 1, 49, 59, 61, 110, 112, 151, 195, 211, 267, 275 Discrimination, 23, 59, 83, 86, 87, 92, 112, 115, 130, 132, 142–144, 267, 275 Dispositif , the, 184–186, 196, 204, 207 Dixon, R., 1, 11, 48, 73, 101, 104, 112, 195–197, 204, 206, 221 Domestic violence, 50, 101, 205, 270 Dominance, see Status Dörnyei, Z., 207, 251 Dotger, B., 287 Downey, G., 115 Drawings, 3, 35, 142, 143, 153, 155, 164, 274, 283, 284 Dress/clothing, 23, 40, 50, 85, 87, 92, 111, 212, 245 Duffy, A., 90 Dunbar, R., 20, 21 Duncan, N., 9, 57–61, 84, 163, 190, 205 Dunn, E., 253 DuPre, E., 231 Durkheim, É., 115 Durlak, J., 231 Duschinsky, R., 111 Dynamic processes, 163, 204, 216, 229 Dynamic Systems Theory, 22, 189, 197 Dysfunction, 49, 50, 74, 75, 173

E Earnshaw, V., 112, 113, 183 Ecological systems, 41, 112, 126, 134, 147, 183, 185, 187–189, 197, 207, 209, 274 Educational change, 235, 244 Elliott, J., 83, 128, 142 Ellis, A., 160

300 Ellwood, 213, 236, 260 Emergence, 75, 149, 186, 187, 194, 203, 204, 207, 217, 229, 230, 232, 255, 287 Emotion, 20, 24, 25, 27, 38, 84, 100, 116, 125, 160, 162, 172, 173, 175–177, 210, 211, 213–216, 234, 267, 279, 281, 283–285 Empathy, 1, 11, 22, 25, 27, 38, 47, 71, 72, 100, 105, 129, 162, 170, 172–177, 206, 234, 256, 269, 275, 276, 281, 282, 284, 285 Empowerment, 148, 153, 194, 237, 252 Environment, 4, 22, 28, 56, 57, 72, 74, 144, 147–150, 152–154, 161, 162, 176, 183–187, 191, 193, 194, 207, 230, 239, 240, 252, 253, 280 Epictetus, 161, 216 Epigenetics, 22, 42, 72, 118, 209 Epistemology, 4, 9, 160, 165 Equation-based analysis, 253 Erikson, E., 39, 92, 164 Espelage, D., 59, 60, 188 Eswatini, 146 Ethics, 159–161, 165–167, 276, 277 Ethnicity, 59, 62, 86, 110, 112, 205, 267, 269, 275 Eudaimonia, 160–162, 177 Evaluation, 3, 4, 21, 98, 141, 147, 151, 152, 155, 169, 193, 221, 229, 230, 233, 236, 239, 252, 255, 257, 261, 267, 269, 272, 283, 285 Eve-teasing, 58 Evidence, 3, 22, 36, 38, 41, 47, 53, 55, 61, 69, 70, 72, 73, 81, 86, 90, 99, 102, 117, 119, 127, 132, 149, 152, 167, 174, 176, 177, 195, 197, 208, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218, 220, 230, 232, 238, 240, 255, 256, 258, 268, 270, 275, 281, 286 Evolution, 20–22, 25, 28, 36, 37, 39, 40, 99, 114, 142, 159, 176, 204, 233 Exclusion, 10, 22, 40, 51–53, 56, 71, 72, 89, 105, 109, 114, 119, 128, 134, 166, 183, 190, 204, 205, 210, 214, 215, 245 Exosystem, 147, 188, 209, 260, 271

F Facebook, 23, 60, 113, 237, 282 Faces, 1, 6, 8, 23, 24, 36, 37, 57, 58, 85, 105, 126, 128, 149, 167, 170, 177,

Index 185, 197, 211, 217, 220, 236, 259, 268, 276, 281, 284 Family, 3, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 37, 39, 41, 49, 56, 63, 69, 70, 73–75, 81, 87, 99, 102, 109, 118, 153, 154, 170, 185, 187, 188, 192, 196, 197, 203, 209–213, 216, 218, 221, 230, 237, 245, 257, 259, 260, 280, 281 Family therapy, 74, 190, 218, 239, 259, 281 Farrington, D., 233, 256 Feedback, 6, 164, 165, 185, 191, 194, 207, 244, 252, 255, 277 Felix, E., 160 Femininity, 271 Feminism, 83, 163, 272 Fiarman, S., 273 Field, E., 49, 238 Fiji, 50 Fine, C., 22 First Nations, 26, 27, 56, 84, 113, 151, 280 First-order change, 165, 189–191, 241, 258, 268 Flood, P., 280 Flourishing, see Wellbeing Folkman, S., 125 Ford, D., 145 Foucault, M., 2, 5, 184 Fox, C., 103 Francesco, di, G., 195 Frances, J., 273 Frazier, S., 240 Freud, A., 128 Freud, S., 27 Friendly Schools, 231, 232, 258 Friends, 1, 11, 19, 21, 23, 37, 38, 47, 48, 55–58, 61, 87, 89, 91, 97, 100, 104, 105, 116, 119, 126, 127, 129, 154, 174, 187, 193, 206, 220, 237, 245, 256, 269, 270, 277, 279, 282 Frimer, J., 163 Fuentes, A., 37 Fullan, M., 235, 236, 244, 261 Functionalism, 6, 7, 74 G Gale, E. K., 283 Gallois, C., 88 Gandhi, M. K., 141–143, 162, 167 Garandeau, C., 176 Geertz, C., 26 Gelfand, M., 89 Gender, 50, 57, 59–62, 71, 85, 86, 91, 98, 110–112, 118, 130, 131, 134, 149,

Index

301

164, 175, 176, 189, 203, 205, 210, 211, 213, 262, 267, 270, 271–273, 275, 279 Genetics, 22, 25, 40, 72 Genocide, 11, 82 Genovese, K., 168 Gerald of Wales, 102 Germany, 111, 129 Gianiotis, C., 218 Gilbert, P., 159 Giles, H., 87 Gilligan, C., 164, 167 Global School-based Student Health Survey, 145 Golding, W., 36 Gomila, A., 20, 21 Goodes, A., 56, 113 Good life, the, 160, 177 Goossens, F., 169 Gorillas, 21, 187, 207 Gossip, 21, 36, 71, 97–99, 104, 105, 128, 130, 212 Greece, 114 Greek philosophy, 176 Grey, K., 172, 174 Grey systems, 6, 7, 191, 217 Gross, E., 115, 116, 126 Guineafowl, 21 Gumpel, T., 170 Guttormsen, D., 88, 194, 213, 219

Hełkain, A., 91 Henggeler, S., 259 Henrich, J., 203 Henriques, G., 171 Heteronomy, 26 Hierarchy, see Social status Hilliard, L., 271 Hilpert, J., 209, 236, 251, 253 Hippel, von W., 100 History, 3–5, 59, 60, 74, 83, 86, 88, 101, 114, 231, 234, 251, 278, 288 Hitler, A., 101, 280 Hiu, C. F., 141, 145 Holism, 207 Homo narrans, 280 Homophobia, see LGBTI Homo sacer, 113, 114 Homo sapiens, 19, 171, 173, 204 Hood, R., 242 Hooke, R., 103 Hormones, 118, 173 Horton, P., 69, 113, 125 Hrdy, S., 27, 36 Hughes, J., 283 Human rights, 7, 47, 60, 141–144, 149, 154, 159, 160, 183, 205, 234 Humiliation, 116, 214 Humour, 21, 40, 97, 102–105, 212 Hyland, T., 168 Hymel, S., 82

H Haavind, H., 39, 41, 49, 56, 57, 62, 70, 100, 116, 127 Haggis, T., 192, 232 Haidt, J., 172 Halgunseth, L., 184 Haner, D., 282 Hansen, H. R., 28, 141, 148 Harassment, 2, 11, 36, 57–60, 62, 83, 87, 98, 102, 103, 105, 110, 118, 126, 130, 146, 149, 163, 205, 237, 272, 274, 275, 280 Hard-to-tame problems, 133, 236 Harré, N., 280 Harvey, R., 190, 206 Hawe, P., 232 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children, 145 Hearing impairment, 118 Hein, N., 9, 73, 234, 257, 258 Held, V., 164

I Identity, 35, 39–42, 51, 57, 59, 75, 82, 84–92, 97–99, 102–105, 109–111, 115, 135, 164, 165, 167, 168, 175, 183, 188, 194, 197, 204, 205, 209–221, 229, 242, 254, 259, 267–270, 275, 277, 287 Identity Signalling Theory, 41, 92 Ieshima, A., 284 Ijime, 8, 26, 52, 55, 57, 62, 82, 86, 127, 148, 166, 212, 234 Implementation, 23, 60, 147, 153, 215, 230, 231, 233, 235, 239, 244, 255, 260–262, 270, 272 Implicit Association Test, 273, 274 India, 39, 58, 112, 143, 167 Individualist, 26, 37, 177 Infancy, 102, 268 Inflammation, 118 Ingroups/outgroups, 20, 83, 92, 254, 267, 269

302 Integrated Bullying Framework, 204, 207, 208, 221, 229 Intentionality, 2, 9, 50, 164, 274, 285 Intersectional, 59, 130 Interventions, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 23, 55, 56, 60, 73–75, 112, 113, 129, 131, 133, 134, 141, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 160–162, 164, 165, 168–170, 173, 175, 177, 185, 191–193, 206, 217–219, 221, 229–231, 233, 235, 237–239, 245, 251, 256, 258, 259, 261–263, 270–272, 276–278, 285, 287 Invisible hand of the teacher, 240 Iraq, 84 Irwin, A., 117 Israel, 170 Italy, 146, 203 J Jacobson, M., 217 Jamaica, 146, 147 James, C., 82, 83, 101 Japan, 8, 24, 52, 87, 148, 166 Javanmardi, E., 6, 7, 254 Jennifer, D., 62, 116, 207, 283 Joel, D., 22 Johnson, A., 282 Johnston, T., 42, 141, 163–165, 277 Jones, S., 91, 194 Juvonen, J., 115, 116, 126, 269 K Kagitcibasi, Ç., 26, 39, 168, 239 Kalman, I., 35, 177, 232, 237, 238, 258 Kant, Immanuel, 167 Karmiloff-Smith, A., 22 Kelly, G., 5, 7, 186 Keshavarz, N., 192 Khanolainen, D., 284 KidsMatter, 151, 255 Killen, M, 183 Kim, M., 163 Kin, 22, 26, 27, 36–38, 40, 99 Kindness, 11, 72, 73, 134, 135, 151, 159, 162, 165, 173, 175, 218, 267, 276, 279, 283, 285 King, Martin Luther, 83, 142, 280 KiVa, 258 Kiyonaga, K., 8 Knifsend, C., 269 Kofoed, J., 5, 184, 185, 206

Index Kohlberg, L., 163, 164, 166, 167 Koo, H., 166 Korea, 146, 147, 166 Kounai bouryoku, 166 Krause, R., 281 Kristeva, F., 110 Kuhn, L., 245 Kuhn, T., 4 Kumar, A., 254 Kurzban, R., 37, 38

L Laffier, L., 283 Lambe, L., 170 Language, 20, 22, 25, 40, 51, 69, 73, 85, 87, 88, 134, 143, 171, 188, 189, 212 Latané, B., 168 Latin America, 55 Laughter, see Humour Lausten, C., 184 Laws, 3, 39, 59, 82, 88, 99, 112, 113, 118, 145, 153, 185, 186, 188, 204, 211, 221, 237, 252 Lazarus, R., 125 Leadership, 147, 150, 152–155, 189, 219, 221, 231, 232, 235, 240, 241, 262, 279, 280 Leaper, C., 126, 130, 131 Leary, M., 114 Lebanon, 146, 147 Lendrum, A., 188 Levasseur, C., 160, 171 Levy, M., 170 LGBTI, 86 Liben, L., 271 Lifting Limits, 271, 274 Light Triad, 72 LIME model, 284 Lindqvist, J. A., 282 Linear, 5, 163, 170, 185, 192, 206, 217, 229, 230, 233, 241, 252, 253, 263, 272 Liu, L., 238, 239 Lizards, 19 Ljister, G.”, 272 Logic models, 252, 272 Lorenz, K., 35, 36 Luther King Jr., M., 83, 142, 280

M Maccoby, E., 25

Index Macrosystem, 145, 147, 188, 209, 211, 212, 271 Makleff, S., 262 Malaysia, 71 Malta, 134 Manovsky, m., 197 Marchand, G., 209, 236, 251, 253 Marginalisation, 10, 11, 53, 55, 57, 60–62, 73, 75, 81, 82, 92, 99, 101, 103, 104, 110, 111, 114, 115, 127, 134, 141–143, 163–166, 168, 197, 205–207, 211, 217, 256, 268, 269, 271, 273, 275–278, 286 Mascella, R., 203, 204 Masculinity, 58, 129, 131, 219, 270, 272, 273 Mastery, see Agency Mathiassen, C., 146 McAdams, D., 39 McLaren, S., 28 McWilliams, M., 86 Media, 10, 39, 53, 58, 62, 113, 128, 145, 148, 149, 153, 165, 190, 205, 211, 218, 220, 268, 280, 282, 284 Mental health, 28, 61, 70, 75, 86, 87, 98, 109, 110, 113, 117–120, 125, 128, 129, 131, 132, 150–152, 167, 168, 177, 187, 209, 215, 217, 218, 220, 239, 241, 255, 259, 260, 284, 287 Mesosystem, 188, 209, 210 Meštrovi´c, S., 211 Meta-analysis, 71, 174, 175 Methodology, 4, 229, 230, 233, 242, 244, 246 Metis, 254, 255 Me Too, 85, 130, 274 Mexico, 169 Meyer, E., 52, 59, 163 Microsystem, 188, 192, 197, 209, 210, 212, 213, 259, 260, 267 Miller, J., 166, 167 Mill, John Stuart, 276 Mills, M., 270, 272 Mindfulness, 167, 168, 255, 287 MindMatters, 151 Minton, S., 11, 81, 267 Misogyny, 270, 271 Mixed methods, 217, 229, 254, 255, 262 Modelling, 147, 153, 193, 230, 244, 252, 253 Molnar, A., 144 Moore, B., 132, 133, 135

303 Moral disengagement, 99–102, 159, 160, 170, 171, 177, 269 Morality, 5, 26, 134, 159, 162–168, 170, 172, 177, 205, 257, 267, 276, 279, 280, 285 Morgan, G., 6, 7, 254 Morita, Y., 8, 148, 195 Morris, B., 281 Mouffe, C., 47, 83 Mudrak, G., 193, 194, 252 Muetzel, R., 23 Multi-systemic Therapy, 218, 259 Murdoch, I., 167 Murphy, S., 239, 244 Murray-Harvey, R., 125–130, 287 Music, 8, 41, 197, 205, 245, 281, 283 N Narito, A., 52 Nazis, 101 Neal, J. & Z., 207, 209–211 Nelson, B., 150 Nesdale, D., 89, 90, 183 Netherlands, 58, 146, 147, 152, 192 NetLogo, 252 Network analysis, 175, 253 Neuroconstructivism, 22, 187 Neurotransmitters, 118, 173 New Zealand, 148, 176 Nicolis, G., 5 Nielsen, S., 283 No-blame Method see Support Group Method Nonlinearity, 5, 197 Nonverbal behaviour, 212, 271 Non-violent change, 141, 154 Norms, 36–38, 40, 41, 50, 52, 72, 83, 85–92, 100, 101, 104, 105, 111, 112, 116, 118, 134, 167, 169–171, 183, 189, 190, 194, 195, 204, 212, 213, 219, 239–241, 245, 258, 262, 263, 269 Norway, 56, 148 Nucci, L., 170 Nunchi, 25 Nussbaum, M., 281 O O’Brien, N., 57, 286 Objectivity, 4–6, 164 OECD, 141, 142, 145 Oh, I., 284

304 Ojala, K., 90 Olweus, D., 1, 2, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 58, 60, 69, 110, 141, 145, 148, 150–152, 183, 221, 229, 236, 274, 283, 286, 287 Oppression, 50, 57, 164, 237, 272, 276 Optimal Distinctiveness Theory, 41, 92 Ortega, R., 160 Ostracism, 10, 55, 114–116, 126–128, 132, 166, 190, 196, 278 Othering, 39, 41, 83, 113, 189, 194, 213, 267 Owens, L., 10, 11, 53–55, 61–63, 73, 82, 87, 105, 115, 116, 119, 127–130, 189, 190 Oxytocin, 173

P Page, E., 91 Pandemic, 144, 152, 167 Paradigms, 3–8, 47, 49–51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 75, 101, 104, 110, 113, 117, 127–129, 152, 163, 183, 184, 195, 203, 209, 214, 215, 217, 221, 229, 232, 234, 235, 241, 242, 246, 256, 257, 263, 278 Parents, 24, 37, 50, 61, 69, 73, 74, 86, 115, 119, 126, 130, 134, 144, 149, 152–154, 165, 187, 188, 197, 206, 212, 231, 233–239, 241, 245, 257, 258, 268, 272, 279, 281, 287 Parrots, 169, 174 Partnerships, see Collaboration Pathologising, 48, 236, 275 Patriarchal, 58, 59 Peace, 86, 142, 285, 287 PEACE Pack, 151, 153, 154, 167 Pedagogy, 189, 212, 235, 268, 272, 274, 286 Personal constructs, 5, 7, 186 Persuasion, 100, 261, 282 Phiddian, R., 105 Philby, Kim, 162 Philosophy, 6, 83, 110, 126, 141–144, 154, 160, 161, 165–168, 177, 232, 244, 276, 280 PhotoStory, 285 Piaget, J., 25, 163, 164, 167 Pina, A., 103 Pinker, S., 287 Plasticity, 22, 23 Plato, 160

Index Poland, 91, 269 Policy, 9, 48, 50, 86, 88, 112, 113, 118, 126, 132, 133, 144, 147, 148, 150–153, 164, 192, 209, 211, 212, 217, 218, 221, 229, 230, 233–237, 240, 241, 244–246, 267, 268, 274–276, 286, 287 Popularity, 61, 62, 167 Positive assortment”, 40 Positive Psychology, 173, 174 Postmodernism, 5–7, 163 Post-traumatic stress disorder, 27, 118 Power, 1, 2, 36, 48, 50–52, 57–62, 69, 83, 86, 88, 89, 97, 100, 101, 103, 105, 113, 115, 125, 129, 130, 133, 143, 150, 159, 164, 183, 188, 190, 195, 197, 203–205, 212, 213, 216, 220, 254, 263, 270, 274, 276, 280, 282, 283 Prejudice, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 112, 113, 127, 134, 142, 267–270, 274, 275, 286 Preller, J., 283 Preschool, 271, 284 Prevention, 2, 4, 8, 37, 75, 131, 134, 151, 153, 154, 164, 168, 177, 206, 217–219, 231, 267, 272, 277 Prigogine, I., 5, 192 Primates, 20, 21, 36, 37, 99, 102, 117, 119, 174, 187, 204 Prosocial behaviour, 160, 168, 173–176, 212, 279 Protective factors, 118, 132, 133, 188, 216 Psychopathy, 71 Public health, 135, 150, 167, 192, 218, 221, 232 Public policy, 4, 5, 267, 274, 275 Punishment, 8, 38, 52, 56, 63, 69, 74, 89, 91, 99, 114, 144, 164, 167, 171, 234, 256–258, 268 Q Qualitative research, 4, 56, 58, 70, 83, 230, 254 Quantitative research, 9, 49, 59, 70, 72, 87, 104, 141, 230 R Racism, 11, 36, 56, 57, 92, 113, 132, 134, 205, 218, 274, 282, 283 Randomised controlled trials, 4, 141, 231 Rapee, R., 231 Rational-Emotive Therapy, 161

Index Rawlings, V., 60, 237, 275 Rawls, J., 167, 277 Rayburn, A., 218, 260 Reactivity, 118, 133 Reciprocity, 38 Red Dwarf , 99 Reed, D., 163 Refugees, 50, 85, 113, 270 Rejection, 7, 24, 109, 114–116, 166, 168, 271 Relatedness, 26, 39, 132–134, 161, 168 Repeatability (in science), 4, 233 Reputation, 21, 38, 49, 61, 97–99, 102, 105, 115, 127, 134, 173, 220 Resilience, 120, 125, 132–135, 189, 216, 231, 267 Respectme, 275, 276 Revenge, 10, 36, 42, 75, 109, 128, 129, 205, 215 Reward, 23, 36, 38, 53, 74, 117, 128, 169, 175, 258, 271 Rhizome, the, 184–186 Richardson, D., 141, 145 Riefenstahl, L., 280 Rigby, K., 50, 71, 148–150, 215, 218, 235 Rijsewijk, van, L., 175 Rippon, G., 22 Risk factors, 109, 128, 132, 216 Rivers, I., 9, 57, 190 Robbers Cave studies, 267 Roberts, R., 24 Rodger, E., 128 Rofe, E., 109 Rogers, E., 261, 280 Rogoff, B., 279 Rosas, S., 244 Rowe, R., 277 Rucker, D., 281 Rumours, 10, 53, 61, 91, 97, 98, 128, 282 Runions, K., 128 Russia, 209, 284, 285 Rwanda, 81

S Said, E., 268 Salmivalli, C., 8, 90, 91 Salmon, S., 57 Sandhu, D., 58 Sankey, D., 163 Satyagraha, 143 Scaffolding, 279 Scandinavia, 1, 53, 145

305 Scapegoating, 90 Schadenfreude, 105 Schaverien, J., 27 Scholes, J., 186, 192, 229, 242–244 School climate, 37, 52, 62, 72, 89, 134, 147, 148, 150, 176, 209, 212, 217–220, 232, 239, 258, 276, 285 Schott, R. M., 9–11, 41, 42, 48–52, 55, 57, 62, 70, 81, 82, 87, 90, 91, 118, 163, 184–186, 194–196, 203, 204, 221, 282 Science, 3–7, 26, 99, 229, 255, 288 Scottish, 275, 276 Scott, J., 254 Second-order change, 165, 189–191, 217–219, 241, 258, 268 Self, 4, 21, 22, 26, 35, 36, 39–42, 70, 71, 84–86, 88, 91, 92, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 110, 111, 115, 116, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 154, 161, 164–168, 172–174, 177, 185, 190–192, 209–211, 260, 270, 276–279, 283, 287 Self-affirmation, 100, 277, 278 Self-categorisation Theory, 40, 85, 92, 194, 210, 213, 219, 242, 245, 268, 271, 282 Self-deception, 36, 50, 97, 99–101, 105, 127, 216 Self-esteem, 37, 90, 105, 109, 115, 127, 170, 176, 209, 213–215, 234, 258, 278 Self-harm, 116, 128. See also Suicide Selfish genes, see Genetics Self-organisation, 186, 193, 194, 252, 254 Semenova, E., 284 Semwal, S., 193, 194, 252 Sexting, 119, 153 Sexual bullying, 9, 57, 58, 60, 62, 91, 100, 111, 117, 126, 128, 130, 132, 205, 220, 272 Shafer, K., 283 Shakespeare, W., 105, 282 Shalev, I., 118 Shame, 9, 10, 101, 109, 116, 117, 120, 126, 128, 129, 214 Shanafelt, T., 174 Sharp, S., 256 Sherif, M., 267 Shiell, A., 233 Shute, R. H., 54, 209 Silverman, M., 283

306 Skrzypiec, G., 1, 70, 125, 126, 131, 284, 285 Slee, P. T., 54, 150, 209 Slotin, L., 169 Smaldino, P., 40, 41, 83, 85, 97, 176, 194 Smith, L., 22 Smith, P., 11, 256 Social brain, 20, 22, 38, 97, 159 Social connectedness, 11, 26 Social exclusion anxiety, 10, 41, 55, 101, 104, 111, 116, 117, 127, 129, 134, 169, 189, 205, 210, 214, 278 Social Identity Approach to Health, 218, 221 Social Identity Development Theory, 89 Social Identity Theory, 82, 89, 92, 97, 111, 112, 175, 203, 219. See also Self-categorisation Theory Socialisation, 22, 61, 126, 131, 134, 188 Social justice, 4, 6, 132–134, 141, 164, 234, 272, 275, 281 Social psychology, 6, 19, 41, 51, 52, 83, 168, 232 Social roles, 167, 197, 242 Social skills, 25, 73, 115, 134, 216, 231, 283 Social status, 21, 52, 61, 97, 105, 118, 119, 131, 205 Social support, 27, 37, 38, 70, 117, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 193, 214, 215, 220, 221 Socio-cognitive, 25, 209 Sociology, 5, 82, 83, 110, 115, 148 Soft Systems Methodology, 242, 243 Søndergaard, D. M., 9–11, 41, 42, 51, 52, 55, 90, 104, 105, 110, 111, 184–186, 189, 196, 203, 204, 221, 233, 245, 255 South Africa, 142 Spain, 148 Spears, B., 150, 153 Staksrud, E., 5 Stanford prison experiment, 83, 173 Status, see Social status Steele, C., 100, 277 Steen, van der, M., 192, 236 Stein, N., 60 Stengers, I., 192 Stereotypes, 132, 263, 271, 283 Stigma, 49, 112, 113, 183, 196 Stoermer, R., 163 Stoicism, 160, 161 Stoppard, T., 47

Index Storytelling, 280–282 Stress, 36, 52, 69, 74, 111, 115, 117–120, 125–128, 131, 134, 205, 209, 214, 216, 238, 285, 287 Struthers, A., 144 Student Assistance Program, 261 Suarez, D., 287 Subjectivism, 254 Suicide, 8, 10, 11, 86, 109, 116, 119, 128, 131, 281 Support Group Method, 235, 256, 286 Swift, J., 83 Swiss, 25, 88 Symeou, L., 287 Systems theory, 154, 165, 177, 184, 185, 187–189, 192, 196 Szalavitz, M., 176

T Tajfel, H., 82, 83, 87, 102 Taki, M., 148 Teacher, 8, 25, 37, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 60, 62, 73, 86, 88, 91, 99, 104, 105, 119, 126, 127, 130, 131, 144, 145, 147–150, 152, 154, 165, 166, 169, 170, 174, 176, 177, 188–190, 192–194, 196, 197, 206, 212, 213, 218–220, 231, 234–241, 245, 255, 257, 258, 260, 261, 268–274, 279–287 Teacher education, 147, 152, 153, 155, 218, 267, 271, 273, 274, 286 Teasing, 24, 56, 58, 59, 87, 102–104, 127, 206, 262, 277 Techne, 254, 255 Telomeres, 118 Terjesen, M., 149 Testosterone, 22 Thales of Miletus, 3 Thelen, E., 22, 163, 189, 254 Theory of mind, 25, 99, 174 Thielking, M., 149 Thomae, M., 103 Thoreau, H. D., 142 Thornberg, R., 36, 61, 171, 188, 189 Threat, 11, 27, 35, 36, 38, 52, 57, 59, 84, 89, 90, 111, 115, 117, 119, 127, 130, 149, 205, 214, 216, 219, 238, 275, 277, 278 Thunberg, G., 211 Timmerman, G., 58 Toda, Y., 8, 87, 167, 284

Index Tolstoy, L., 159, 160, 177 Transphobia, see LGBTI Trauma, 110, 115, 117, 263, 285 Tremblay, R., 22, 23, 206 Trivers, R., 100 Trust, 36, 99, 103, 105, 241 Ttofi, M., 233, 256 Turcotte, D., 98 Turner, I., 217 Turner, J., 82, 87 Twemlow, S., 9, 53, 102 U Unconscious bias, 271, 273, 274, 286 Unconscious processes, 99 United Kingdom, 8 United Nations, 7, 141, 142, 211, 270, 287 United States of America, 143 Unselfing, 167, 168 Uruguay, 146, 147 Utilitarianism, 165, 276 V Vaillancourt, T., 118 Van der Vyver, J., 285 Varga, L., 255 Vicious circle, 192 Victims, 1, 8–11, 25–27, 35, 42, 48–50, 52, 53, 55, 69–73, 75, 90, 91, 100–105, 109, 110, 112, 115–119, 127–129, 132–135, 141, 148, 165, 166, 168–172, 174, 177, 188–190, 192, 194, 205, 206, 210, 215, 234, 237, 238, 256–258, 269, 270, 272, 274, 275, 277, 278, 280, 282–285, 287 Vietnam, 84 Vijver, Van der, K., 190 Violence, 8, 27, 50, 58, 59, 115, 117–119, 128, 142–144, 146–149, 152, 160, 166, 171, 175, 206, 212, 236, 237, 259, 262, 263, 270–273, 282, 285, 287 Virtuous circle, 192 Vortical postmodern ethnography, 254 Vygotsky, L. S., 25, 184, 204, 279 W Wales, 102

307 Walker, L., 163 Wallace, A. R., 36 Walton, L., 218 Walton, M., 236, 255 Wangtta, 166 Waters, T., 219, 241 Webber, M., 165, 276, 277 Wegner, D., 172 Weinstein, H., 190, 206 Wellbeing, 2, 8, 11, 26, 28, 60, 73, 85, 97, 103, 105, 117, 119, 127, 131, 134, 141, 144–146, 148, 150–153, 155, 160, 164, 165, 170, 173, 177, 188, 213–216, 218, 229, 231, 232, 234, 238, 239, 241, 242, 244, 253, 258–260, 281, 286 Wells, H. G., 143 Wenzel, M., 101 West, The, 25, 26, 39, 128, 167, 177, 268 White fragility, 273 Williams, A., 169 Williams, K., 10, 109, 114 Williamson, P., 37 Williams, S., 59, 128 Wilson, D., 176 WiseGuyz, 273 Wojcic, M., 91 Wolf-Branigin, M., 252, 253, 255 Woodcock, S., 132, 133, 135 Woodyat, L., 101 Work-Slivka. J., 218 World Health Organisation, 142 Worldviews, 4–6, 88, 160, 167, 244 World War II, 171 Wotherspoon, A., 284 Wyra, M., 1

Y Ye, Y., 98 Yoneyama, S., 52 Young, S., 256 YouTube, 282

Z Zeno of Citium, 161 Zero-tolerance, 50, 164, 165, 218 Zimbardo, P., 83, 173 Zone of Proximal Development, 279