Bullying psych theories Flashcards
What are the theories
SLT
Ecological systems theory
ToM
SLT strengths
Clear Mechanism
Empirical Support
Media Influence
Applicability to Interventions
SLT weaknesses
Individual Differences
Lack of Emotional Focus
Simplistic View
Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) overview and mechanisms
Overview: Bullying results from multiple interacting environmental systems.
Mechanism: Influences include:
o Microsystem: Immediate family and peers.
o Mesosystem: School climate.
o Macrosystem: Cultural norms.
Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) Strengths
Holistic Approach
School Climate
Practical Interventions
Cultural Relevance
Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) weaknesses
Broad and Complex: The theory’s broad scope makes it difficult to pinpoint specific causal mechanisms or predict individual behavior.
Resource-Intensive: Addressing multiple systems requires significant time, effort, and resources, making it challenging to implement in practical settings.
Lacks Focus on Individual Traits: The theory does not emphasize individual differences, like personality or genetic predispositions, may contribute to bullying.
ToM overview and mechanism
Theory of Mind: Difficulty understanding others’ thoughts and emotions.
Empathy: Lack of sharing or responding to others’ feelings.
ToM strengths
Empirical Support
Explains Emotional Insensitivity: Deficits in empathy help explain why bullies may disregard the distress of their victims.
Targeted Interventions: Programs designed to enhance empathy and perspective-taking skills have shown promise in reducing bullying.
ToM weaknesses
Skilled Manipulators
Varied Roles of Empathy
Overlooks Environmental Factors
Clear Mechanism (S) for what
SLT provides a clear and practical explanation of how bullying behaviours are acquired and reinforced through modeling and imitation.
Empirical Support (S) for what
Research demonstrates that children exposed to aggressive role models, such as parents who use harsh discipline, are more likely to adopt similar behaviours (Olweus, 1993).
Rigby and Slee (1991) explored peer influences, finding that children who witnessed peers engaging in bullying were more likely to imitate such behaviors to gain acceptance or avoid becoming targets themselves.
Media influence (S) for what
Anderson & Bushman (2001) showed that violent video games could increase aggressive tendencies in children.
Applicability to interventions (S) for what
SLT highlights the importance of positive role models, which can guide intervention strategies.
Individual differences (L) for what
Not all children exposed to aggressive models display bullying behaviours, suggesting that genetic predispositions, personality traits, or other protective factors are overlooked.
Lack of emotional focus (L) for what
SLT
The theory does not adequately consider emotional regulation or cognitive processes, such as moral reasoning, that influence bullying.
Simplistic view (L) for what
SLT tends to oversimplify complex behaviours, such as bullying, by reducing them to learned patterns without fully accounting for contextual and situational variability.
Holistic Approach (S) for what
The theory considers multiple layers of influence, from family and school to societal norms, offering a comprehensive understanding of bullying
School climate (S) for what
eco system
Research by Espelage & Swearer (2003) emphasizes the importance of school environments and peer dynamics in encouraging or preventing bullying behaviors.
Practical interventions (S) for what
ECO
Interventions based on this theory can target multiple systems, such as improving family dynamics, promoting positive peer relationships, and fostering supportive school climates.
Cultural Relevance (S) for what
ECO
The theory highlights the role of broader cultural norms, such as tolerance for aggression or power hierarchies, in shaping bullying behaviors.
Empirical backing for EST
Hong and Espelage (2012) explored the mesosystem level, emphasizing how peer group norms and family dysfunction interacted to create conditions conducive to bullying.
Wang et al. (2014) examined macrosystem influences, finding that societal acceptance of hierarchical power structures normalized aggressive behaviors in schools, particularly in collectivist cultures.
Empirical support for ToM
Research by Gini et al. (2007) indicates that lower levels of cognitive or affective empathy are associated with increased bullying behaviors.
Pouwels et al. (2016) demonstrated that interventions targeting empathy development in schools, such as role-playing exercises, reduced the frequency of bullying incidents.
Skilled Manipulators (L) for what
Some bullies demonstrate advanced Theory of Mind skills, using their understanding of others’ emotions to manipulate or dominate peers (Sutton et al., 1999).
Varied role of empathy (L) for what
The role of empathy may depend on the type of bullying (e.g., proactive vs. reactive), which the theory does not fully address.
Caravita et al. (2009) differentiated between proactive and reactive bullies, showing that proactive bullies often had intact ToM but used it to manipulate and dominate peers.
Overlooks environmental factors (L) for what
Empathy deficits alone cannot explain bullying without considering peer influence, school climate, or family dynamics.
Olweus 1993 Crit Ev
Seminal work in the field of bullying research, offering valuable insights and practical applications.
However, a reliance on self reports, limited cultural generalisability and excluded cyberbullying.
Good foundation but limited generalisation
Hong and Espelage 2012 crit ev
Significant contribution to literature offering valuable insights
However, reliance on secondary data, lack of focus on cyberbullying and challenges in operationalising its model limits the practical applicability
Gini et al 2007 crit ev
Significant contribution highlight the role of empathy.
Methodological limitations such as reliance on self reports and lack of contextual analysis limits the explanatory power of the study
