bullying Flashcards
bullying definition
strategic aggressive behaviour that the perpetrator repeatedly inflicts on a victim with the intention to cause harm, and occurring within a relationship in which there is an imbalance of power
- strategic
- repeatedly
- intention
- imbalance
types of bullying
physical
verbal
social/covert
cyber bullying
importance of a clear, shared defintion
- all literature will be measuring the same thing
- everyone will have the same understanding
measurement of bullying behaviour
self report:
- individual view
- conveys experiences that others may not see
- subjective
peer report:
- more objective
- multiple raters
- classmates typically have info hidden from adults
- peers under report bullying behaviours
parent/teacher report:
- info on behaviour for whole class
- useful for young children
- adults do not always see
items on measurement tools
- single item question
- behaviour based scale
- specific bullying behaviours
- cut off - how many times it has to happen to be considered bullying
prevalence of bullying
design = cross sectional, across 25 countries, 11-16 year olds
- definition presented
- single item for bully and victim
- 2 or more times
- 11% were victims
- 10% admitted to bullying
- 6% reported being both bullies and victims
BIG cross country differences
but no asian or african in sample
lasting mental outcomes for victims of bullying
bully-victims and victims more likely to have/go on to have:
- health problems
- poor emotional adjustment
- poor school adjustment
- poor relationships with classmates
bullies:
- health problems
- more alcohol use
why do bullies bully:
cognitive/individual approach
- bullying is aggression
3 origins:
1. social information processing biases
2. socio-cognitive strengths/weaknesses
3. social goals
social information processing biases
- how do they interpret social world
- measured using ambiguous and non-ambiguous social situation stories > what would you do?
ambiguous: you’re in a busy hall and someone bumps you
- links social adjustment and social information processing
aggressive children pattern of social information processing
crick and didge: social information processing
attend to fewer social cues
more inclined to think of the intentions of others as hostile
have goals of social dominance
choose aggressive solutions to social problems
when this works i.e. they aren’t hit/bumped again this behaviour is reinforced
Theory of mind and bullying
- ability to understand that other people are mental agents and their thoughts and desires influence how they behave
- bullying = ‘strategic’ and ‘intentional’
- bullying may be best achieved when the perpetrator has a strong grasp on the internal mental stages of victims
TofM and bullying study
- 200ps
- 10 year olds
bully: active, initiator, leader
assistant: active, follower
only leaders have high TofM
e.g. harry potter vs crab and goyle
- bullies has higher rated TofM, assistants have lower than average TofM
moral understanding and engagement
- bullies have lower moral sensitivity
- they feel like they have achieved a goal e.g. stolen sweets
- bullies have more moral disengagement: bullies are more likely to use these mechanisms
moral sensitivity
understanding right and wrong and the repercussions of moral transgressions
bullies have decreased moral sensitivity
moral disengagement
tendency to use cognitive mechanisms that can disengage moral compass and justify the use of aggressive and violent behaviours e.g. friends pressured me
social approach to understanding why bullies bully
- group process
- with many different actors/roles
17-20% defenders
20-29% reinforcers or assistants
10% no role
diversity of bully roles
- bully / victim / bully-victim
- assistant
- reinforcer
- defender
- outsider/bystander - present in 85% of incidents
3 key social goals
- agentic - dominance and leadership
- communal - positive relations
- submissive - low social profile
social goals and bullying roles
bullies = agentic goals
victims = submissive goals
defender = communal goals
how you behave in the social group is a good refliction of your social goals
peer status
bullying = linked to peer rejection
some bullies have high social standing in peer group
perceived popularity: children asked who is the most popular with bullies often nominated as popular (Even if not liked)
dominance and visibility in peer group = perceived as popular
perceived popularity
popularity is associated with dominance and visibility rather than likeness
school climate
school/classroom climate: the extent to which student feel connected or safe in their school and have positive perception of their teacher and peers
done well = lower levels of bullying
- this is a malleable aspect - can be used to reduce bullying
school climate study
poor school climate is consistently linked to greater bullying and victimisation over characteristic of child and demographic
societal inequality
bullying not associated with economic level of country
was associated with country-level income inequality –> if a big gap between poor and rich
bullying intervention components
- use methods that target social climate
- target peers and parents and teachers
- rather than focusing on individual
