Bullying Flashcards
define bullying
Bullying is behaviour by an individual or group, repeated over time, that intentionally hurts another individual or group either physically or emotionally. Bullying can take many forms (for instance, cyber-bullying via text messages or the internet) DFE, 2014)
Explanations of bullying:
Personality (cog deficits and lack of empathy)
Ecological system theories
Personality – cog dimension explanation
Those doing the bullying are deficient in understanding others’ mental states and deficient in judgement. Hostile attribution bias affects encoding and interpretation (Coie and Dodge 1998)
Theories focusing on sociocognitive deficits have drawn on models used to account for aggressive behaviour more generally. They aim to explain how within-child factors may influence the development of bullying behaviours through affecting the child’s interactions with others within their microsystem.
social information processing model
The most influential of these theories is the social information processing (SIP) model described by Crick and Dodge (1994), it has 6 stages.
A wide range of evidence supports the view that skilful processing at each of the six stages is associated with social competence, whereas biased processing can lead to aggression and social problems (Crick and Dodge, 1996; Zelli et al., 1999).
Aggressive children are found to encode fewer benign social cues, attending preferentially to hostile cues.
There is a bias towards making more hostile attributions of intentions and to select instrumental goals (achieving desired outcomes for themselves) rather than relational goals (maintaining positive relationships with others).
Aggressive children generate fewer prosocial responses and they evaluate aggressive responses more favourably, expecting that positive outcomes will result.
They also feel more self-confident in their ability to enact the aggressive behavior successfully.
CA about the SIP model
But It is disputed whether bullying, as distinct from other forms of aggression, is caused by sociocognitive deficits in processes such as those depicted in the model.
Challenge to the assumption that bully have a cog deficit - pepler and Craig 1995
Pepler and Craig (1995) reported that peers are present in some 85 per cent of bullying episodes. They also highlighted subtler, relational bullying, and they argued that some bullying seems to require a high level of sociocognitive skill
sutton 1999 point about bullies not having a cog deficit
Sutton et al. (1999a, p. 118) argued that, ‘Many bullies may in fact be skilled manipulators, not social inadequates’.
They investigated one type of sociocognitive skill in particular, theory of mind (ToM) abilities, ToM involves the ability to attribute mental states, such as beliefs, desires and intentions, to others and to predict behaviour accordingly.
sutton 1999 study
Sutton et al.’s 1999 study explored the performance of bullies, victims, outsiders and other roles on cognitive false-belief tasks and on emotion-based false-belief tasks.
They found:
Bullies scored higher than any other participants on both versions of the tasks
sutton explanation about how some bullies seem social inadequates and some socially intelligent
Drawing on the finding that bullies had higher scores than victims and controls on the psychoticism scale of the Eysenck personality questionnaire (Slee and Rigby, 1993), they suggested that it may be that the traditional angry bullies fit the social deficit explanation and the cold proactive aggressors may fit the idea that bullies have sound social cognition. (Sutton et al., 1999a).
ToM and bullying - recent longitudinal study finding Shakoor et al 2012
They found that adolescents who had been involved in bullying had significantly poorer ToM at the age of 5 years, the effect being strongest for bully–victims.
‘Poor ToM in childhood appears to be a robust developmental marker for later victim or bully–victim status’ (p. 258), and highlighted that poor ToM may affect children’s social relationships.
Shakoor reflections about poor ToM and bullying
They reflected that, where children find it difficult to understand others’ perspectives, they may then rely on their own direct experiences. Where these are negative, these may then lead children to interpret ambiguous situations in a negative light, leading to an aggressive response.
Hence, both victims and bully–victims would have social information processing deficits in perceiving and interpreting social cues at the early stage of the model proposed by Crick and Dodge (1994), whereas proactive bullies may show skills in these areas, but have different goals and means of achieving them.
CA; ToM and bullying but what did smith 2017 suggest ?
But Smith 2017 suggests it is actually the victims who may be deficient in such skills
Theories of familial influence – social learning theory explanation
Argues that bullying behaviour is acquired through modelling and reinforcement of behaviour, and that early experience is particularly influential.
evidence to support SLT x2
A range of supportive evidence suggests higher levels of hostility and punitive responses by parents towards children who bully (Bowers et al., 1994).
For example, Olweus (1994) reports high levels of physical aggression and emotional hostility in interactions between parents of bullies and their children.
This contrasts with the parenting style of victims’ mothers, which is described as over-involved and overprotective (Bowers et al., 1994; Olweus, 1994).
CA about evidence for SLT
Much of this research has been correlational and so open to alternative interpretations – maybe parents of bullies are reacting to their children’s behaviour
Schwartz 1997 study about parental behaviour and bullying findings
A longitudinal study by Schwartz et al. (1997) suggest that parental behaviour is instrumental in the development of bullying in some children. They carried out assessments of boys and their home environments, first when the boys were preschoolers and again when they were 8–10 years of age. They found;
Physical abuse, domestic violence, maternal hostility and harsh discipline in the early home environment were associated with later bully–victim status.
However Schwartz et al. (1997) point out that they did not assess overprotective parenting.
Theories of group processing: Social dominance theory
These theories seek to identify the functions that may be served by bullying in social groups.
Nishina 2004 suggestion about bullying and SDT
Nishina (2004) suggests that bullying behaviour could serve particular social functions that may have been adaptive in evolutionary terms. It is argued that groups with clearly established dominance hierarchies are likely to be more successful, both because within-group conflict will be minimised and because good organisation will lead to higher levels of success in between-group conflicts.
what does research with primate victims within stable hierarchies suggest?
Research with primates suggests that, within stable group hierarchies, there is little need for within-group aggression, and the relative disadvantages of being low ranking are attenuated.
On this analysis, bully–victims are children who refuse to ‘accept their place’ in a group and challenge higher- as well as lower-status individuals.
Bullying and belonging what does nishina suggest?
It is also suggested that involvement in the bullying of someone outside a group can create feelings of belonging within the group and so represent a strong motivational force.
Nishina stresses that this kind of analysis should not be used to excuse bullying as being a part of human nature. Rather, it may be helpful in explaining why the behaviour appears pervasive and difficult to eradicate. It may also suggest ways in which the school environment can impact on the incidence of bullying.
For example, the ways in which adults in the school establish their dominance over the children might be expected to influence how dominance hierarchies among children are established.
Ecological system theories
Hong & Espelage 2004) developed a ecological system analysis of risk factors associated with bullying using Bronfenbrenners ecological ecosystems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci 1994) which conceptualises an individuals environment as 5 interconnected systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem.
E.g at each levels there are risk factors e.g at micro – school environment, exosystem – exposure to media violence and macro – culutral attitudes.
Less work has been done on ecological factors associated with bullying.
what did sharp say about bullying?
Sharp et al 1999 is one of many authors who argue that bullying can only be fully understood by means of multilevel analysis
what did Payne and Gottfriedson (2004) find about school factors related to bullying?
They found:
Lower levels of bullying were found in schools where teachers were likely to discuss bullying with pupils, recognise bullying behaviour, show interest in stopping bullying and actually intervene in bullying incidents.
More negative pupil attitudes to bullying were also associated with lower levels of the behaviour.
Pupil cooperativeness was negatively correlated with bullying and victimisation.
intervention 1 for bullying - organisational level
- Staff and students working together to develop a clear set of guidelines for everybody which specify what bullying is and what they should do when they know or suspect it is going on.
- Long-term curriculum work about bullying and other forms of antisocial behaviour, including teaching students how to manage personal relationships assertively and constructively.
- Peer-led approaches, such as peer counselling and buddying, to offer support to pupils who are new to the school or who are feeling lonely, rejected or victimized.
.
