Bullying in Schools - Essay Example

Bullying in Schools Bullying behavior among children can have long term effects on both the bully and the victim. “It is surprisingly common; there is evidence that over half of children have been victimized and over half have been bullies. It causes immediate harm and distress to the victim and has negative long-term consequences for the victim’s mental health. It also has negative consequences for the bully” (Farrington, 1993: 382). Evidence suggested in numerous studies indicates that bullying behavior in school can provide some indication of an individual’s participation in criminal behavior as an adult. In addition, children who are consistently targeted for victimization by bullies in school have a higher risk for later maladjustment (Schwartz, Dodge & Cole, 1993: 1755). However, because bullying behavior typically occurs on a recurrent basis between two individuals who know each other, it can also often be identified and prevented much easier than more deviant behavior in later years, perhaps with the result of a reduction in criminal behavior among adults. Before teachers and administrators can reduce the effects of bullying in the schools, though, they must first have an idea of the prevalence, development and identification of the problem as well as have knowledge of those approaches that have demonstrated successful reduction of these behaviors among schoolchildren. Literature review By definition, the term bullying is used to describe a specific behavior pattern, usually found more among boys than among girls. “Bullying is characterized by bigger and stronger youngsters’ ‘victimizing’ their peers through the repeated use of negative actions, such as physical, verbal or relational aggression” (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000: 700). This gender difference is generally believed to be the result of a stronger male association with physical aggression as an appropriate means of establishing and maintaining peer status or dominance (Maccoby, 1998). For many of these children, whether victims or bullies, the patterns for their later treatment in school can be seen to be established to some extent at home. A study conducted by Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit and Bates (1997) found that children who grew up to be aggressive victims in primary school had most often experienced punitive, hostile and abusive family relationships during their preschool years while those engaged in aggressive acts had witnessed greater incidences of adult aggression but had not experienced this aggression firsthand. However, those children who emerged as passive victims of bullying behavior in school demonstrated little difference between their early home life with those children who were not victims. Early studies looking into the general category of what was initially termed ‘undesirable behavior’, which included acts of bullying, discovered that behavior problems such as bullying increased with age, reaching a peak between the ages of 9 and 13, then decreasing into young adulthood, and that the type of undesirable behavior manifested differed depending on age and IQ (Hurlock and McDonald (1934). While bullying wasn’t the specific topic of a questionnaire sent out to six different countries including Denmark, France, West Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Belgium in more recent times, researchers found that four of the five countries (Denmark excepted) responding listed bullying as among their top concerns when dealing with disruptive behavior in their schools (Lawrence, Steed & Young, 1984: 15). This study also found that violence in schools was occurring at younger and younger age groups throughout Europe and incidents of violence had been increasing generally since the 1970s. Researchers in another study conducted in 1991 (Coie, Dodge, Terry & Wright) found that the patterns of bullying differed even among elementary school children. “In the first grade, aggressive boys were more often the target of bullying acts than nonaggressive boys, whereas the reverse was true among third graders. This fact suggests that first-grade bullying is not so much bullying in the sense that individuals are being targeted for humiliation and abuse” (Coie, Dodge, Terry & Wright, 1991: 821). However, the patterns of bullying and the social rejection that results from this type of behavior have been shown to be established early. A study conducted by Dodge et al (1990) suggested that boys often come into play situations with a specific set of behavioral characteristics that are quickly recognized and categorized by other boys. A child with overly aggressive tendencies will quickly become labeled as a bully and will be socially rejected from the group, contributing to further disruptive behavior. A study conducted in 1977 on adolescent and pre-adolescent boys found the same results, indicating that aggressive behavior patterns, once established, tend to stick for the long-term and become difficult for instructors to modify (Olweus, 1977). There have been many theories trying to identify the reasons why some individuals behave in more aggressive or bullying ways. An early study (Durea, 1937) conducted attempting to distinguish between the way in which a ‘delinquent’ boy thinks as opposed to a ‘normal’ boy concluded that delinquents have decidedly different value systems than the control group. “It is clear that juvenile offenders differ from non-offenders rather generally in characteristics, such as things considered wrong; worries, fears, and anxieties; likes and interests; and kinds of people liked or admired” (Durea, 1937: 127). A more recent report suggested that increasing levels of lead may have something to do with the increasing violence in the schools. A study conducted by Herbert Needleman of the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine indicates that high levels of lead in children’s bones could be the cause of significant increases in aggressive and bullying activity between the ages of 7 and 11 (cited in “Lead and Delinquency”, 1996). However, it is probable that the problem of bullying begins primarily within the realm covered by behavioral theories. Dominance theory suggests that each group of individuals defines status through the relationships established between individuals organized from most to least dominant to determine access to valued resources (Hinde, 1980). The necessity of using physically aversive strategies and alliances to enforce this hierarchy is especially important in the early stages of group formation (Dunbar, 1988; Hartup, 1983). For this reason, teachers of pre-adolescents can expect greater incidents of bullying than is exhibited in other age groups. “When younger and smaller individuals enter a group of older and physically larger individuals, we expect their status to decline. Further, when individuals enter a new group, status within this group must be established. They typically use deliberate agonistic strategies, such as hitting, threatening, or social ostracism, or more general forms of bullying to achieve dominance” (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000: 701). Discussion Studies conducted looking into the naturalistic behavior of children on the playground indicate that those children who experience low acceptance levels among their peers tend to “engage in more aggression and disruptive behavior and/or more solitary behavior, whereas high accepted children to participate in more prosocial activities and group games” (Boulton, 1999: 944). Therefore, it becomes important for teachers to recognize the social structures developing in their classroom to be in better position to head off any dangerous behavior before it gets out of hand. Intervention strategies can then be used to assist at risk children in learning how best to handle difficult social situations. Studies conducted in the field have identified several groups that have a higher risk of experiencing bullying behavior as either the aggressor or the victim, which can help teachers in determining when and how intervention is appropriate. Because boys tend to be involved in bullying behavior more often than girls, it is important to recognize the unique issues facing children of this gender group. it has been found that boys who are able to achieve some sort of academic success typically become associated with the feminine among the other boys, leading to them more often becoming the victims of bullying because of a perceived lack of masculinity evidenced by this achievement (Mac an Ghaill, 1994). A study looking into the various ways in which boys perceive school support the conclusion that most boys consider studious behavior to be feminizing, or at the very least, risky for social acceptance. Activities identified as risky include being quiet, being seen in settled study and visibly working hard at a given academic task. Other activities that threaten a young boy’s sense of masculinity within the school setting include reading, being seriously concerned with reported grades and/or publicly acknowledging school is cool. “By engaging or perceived to be engaging in any of these activities/body postures, boys potentially leave themselves open to verbal abuse and ridicule, and are positioned daily as ‘swots’, ‘geeks’, ‘nerds’ and ‘squares’. Two-thirds of the boys went to great lengths to avoid studious behaviors, particularly boys who were deemed high achievers” (Renold, 2001: 373). Common methods these boys used to try to deflect attention from their academic prowess included initial bullying behaviors such as teasing and ridiculing as well as participating or initiating disruptive, rule-breaking behaviors. Teachers who bring attention to a boy’s studious methods, thinking they are handing them praise, could actually be inflicting more harm than good upon this student. Children living in impoverished conditions have also been identified as being of a particularly higher risk of aggressive behavior than others (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Costello, 1989). While it is true that certain populations demonstrate an increased level of bullying behavior when placed in impoverished conditions, it is important that teachers not be too quick to associate a student as a possible bully or victim based solely on their economic status. A study (Barbarin, 1999) working to demonstrate the detrimental effects of poverty on specific populations compared behavior of African American children with the behavior of South African children to determine whether the effects of poverty were consistent across major cultural groups. Because the study found that South Africans rated much higher in those behaviors that resulted in bullying, including breaking rules, destroying property, not being liked by other students and demanding attention at all times, as compared to African American students who tended to internalize many of their issues, this study is important in pointing out the dangers inherent in judging too quickly. Despite these obstacles, teachers working to help prevent bullying behavior must understand it is important to trust his or her instincts regarding a child’s intentions for aggression. According to Dodge and Cole (1987), most teachers can reliably and validly distinguish between proactive (bullying) aggression and reactive aggression (intended to protect). Many teachers, though, especially in the upper grade levels, tend to expect students to solve their own interpersonal problems with classmates (Newman, 2003). This reluctance on the part of teachers to interfere in the development of children serves to reinforce the reported reluctance students feel regarding approaching adults for help when they are unsure of how to handle peer conflicts (Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997). This is significant because many children who are harassed by their peers will react in either passive behaviors, which serve to escalate the violence as it perceived they will not defend themselves, or in other ways that only serve to heighten the danger presented (Olweus, 1978; Pellegrini, 1998; Perry, Kusel & Perry, 1988; Schwartz, Dodge & Coie, 1993). Advice issued as early as 1928 (James) indicate that the best way to deal with bullying behavior is to first give the offending student an oral reproof upon their first offense followed by removal of privileges if the behavior continues. However, few studies are available today that offer real-life workable strategies for intervention of the bullying cycle, whether the student is the aggressor, the victim or both. Because of this teachers are left with an enormous burden in terms of seeking a proper course of action. That some action needs to be taken, however, is evident in the numerous studies that have linked juvenile ‘deviant behavior’ with future criminal activity (Olweus, 1980, 1991; Eron et al, 1987; Lane, 1989). Conclusion By reviewing the available literature, it can be determined that bullying is a growing issue in schools throughout the developed world, with teachers, parents and other officials reporting the problem as among the highest detrimental issues they have to deal with. In addition to the physical danger this places individual children in when they are merely attempting to learn what they need to know for a future career or at least to fulfill state mandates, the problem of bullying has long-term consequences for the bully, the victim and society at large. In many cases, it has even been shown that students can experience the detrimental effects of being both bully and victim, becoming socially ostracized and entering an unending cycle of detrimental self-image. While some of these issues are started at home, in the form of abusive family relationships or impoverished conditions, they are continued and exacerbated in the classroom and on the playground, gradually increasing as children grow older and enter pre-adolescence. It is when children enter one of their most vulnerable periods, when they are attempting to establish a sense of self as they also learn to cope with changing bodies, changing hormones and changing social configurations that bullying emerges at its most virulent. This is consistent with the findings of studies conducted to test the validity of Dominance Theory, which indicates it is necessary for children entering this stage in their lives to establish a new social hierarchy that is typically based upon physical aggression, particularly as it applies to boys. While certain physical health conditions may exist that escalate this problem, such as lead poisoning or behavioral patterns established by altered definitions regarding what is right and just, behavioral theories such as Dominance theory are more likely to improve understanding of why children turn to bullying as a means of enforcing their social positioning. Efforts to reduce the amount of bullying behavior taking place on the playground have several characteristic behaviors and conditions to flag potential problems, but few solutions or real intervention techniques have been proposed. Students with low acceptance levels among their peers are known to be at greater risk of being a participant in bullying behavior, as the aggressor, victim or both. These social patterns have been shown to be established relatively quickly and consistently among playgroups and can possibly provide a means of identifying those children requiring greater attention or instruction in appropriate social integration techniques. Children living in impoverished conditions also demonstrate a stronger tendency to experience behavior problems, but the way in which these issues manifest themselves depends in large part upon their cultural base, making this characteristic difficult to use as an indicator. Because boys tend to be involved in bullying behavior more than girls, this gender group necessarily requires greater study and attention regarding how these behaviors emerge and progress, including real-life strategies on how to intervene and redirect. It is apparent that teachers can play a significant role in this process as they are frequently accurate in identifying those students most involved in disruptive bullying behaviors as well as those most at risk. Yet a demonstrated reluctance on the part of teachers to interfere with a vital growth process equipped with poor information and few proven techniques is exacerbated by a strong tendency among students to resist requesting assistance, even when it could be potentially dangerous not to do so. There remains much to be learned and many studies to be conducted before the complex relationships and effects of bullying behavior can be understood and appropriately addressed in the classroom setting. References Barbarin, Oscar A. (November-December 1999). “Social Risks and Psychological Adjustment: A Comparison of African American and South African Children.” Child Development. Vol. 70, N. 6, pp. 1348-1359. Boulton, Michael J. (July/August 1999). “Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations between Children’s Playground Behavior and Social Preference, Victimization and Bullying.” Child Development. Vol. 70, N. 4, pp. 944-954. Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. (1997). “The Effects of Poverty on Children.” The Future of Children: Children and Poverty. Vol. 7, pp. 55-71. Coie, John D; Dodge, Kenneth A.; Terry, Robert & Wright, Virginia. (August 1991). “The Role of Aggression in Peer Relations: An Analysis of Aggression Episodes in Boys’ Play Groups.” Child Development. Vol. 62, N. 4, pp. 812-826. Costello, E.J. (1989). “Child Psychiatric Disorders and their Correlates: A Primary care Pediatric Sample.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Vol. 28, pp. 851-855. Dodge, Kenneth A. & Coie, John D. (1987). “Social-information Processing Factors in Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children’s Peer Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 53, pp. 1146-1158. Dodge, Kenneth A.; Coie, John D.; Pettit, Gregory; & Price, Joseph M. (October 1990). “Peer Status and Aggression in Boys’ Groups: Developmental and Contextual Analyses.” Child Development. Vol. 61, N. 5, pp. 1289-1309. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1988). Primate Social Systems. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Durea, Marvin A. (June 1937). “Personality Characteristics of Juvenile Delinquents: I.A. Method for the Selection of Differentiating Traits.” Child Development. Vol. 8, N. 2, pp. 115-128. Eron, L.; Huesmann, L.; Dubow, E.; Romanoff, R. & Yarmel, P. (1987). “Aggression and its Correlates Over 22 Years. Childhood Aggression and Violence. D. Crowell, L. Evans & C. O’Donnell (Eds.). New York: Putnam Press. Farrington, David P. (1993). “Understanding and Preventing Bullying.” Crime and Justice. Vol. 17, pp. 381-458. Hartup, W. (1983). “Peer Relations.” Handbook of Child Psychology. E.M. Hetherington (Ed.). Vol. 4. New York: Wiley, pp. 103-196. Hinde, R.A. (1980). Ethology. London: Fontana. Hopmeyer, A. & Asher, S.R. (1997). “Children’s Responses to Peer Conflicts Involving a Rights Infraction.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Vol. 43, pp. 235-254. Hurlock, E.B. & McDonald, L.C. (September 1934). “Undesirable Behavior Traits in Junior High School Students.” Child Development. Vol. 5, N. 3, pp. 278-290. James, H.W. (October 1928). “Punishments Recommended for School Offenses.” The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 29, N. 2, pp. 129-131. Lane, D. (1989). “Violent Histories: Bullying and Criminality.” Bullying in School. D. Tattum & D. Lane (Eds.). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Lawrence, Jean; Steed, D.M.; & Young, P. (February 1984). “European Voices on Disruptive Behaviour in Schools: Definitions, Concern, and Types of Behaviour.” British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 32, N. 1, pp. 4-17. “Lead and Delinquency.” (June 1996). Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 104, N. 6, pp. 600-601. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. Maccoby, E.E. (1998). The Two Sexes: Growing up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Newman, Richard S. (March 2003). “When Elementary School Students are Harassed by Peers: A Self-Regulative Perspective on Help Seeking.” The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 103, N. 4, Special Issue: New Directions in Motivation Research: Implications for Practice, pp. 339-355. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington D.C.: Hemisphere. Olweus, Dan. (December 1977). “Aggression and Peer Acceptance in Adolescent Boys: Two Short-Term Longitudinal Studies of Ratings.” Child Development. Vol. 48, N. 4, pp. 1301-1313. Olweus, Dan. (1980). “The consistency Issue in Personality Psychology Revisited with Special Reference to Aggression.” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 19, pp. 377-390. Olweus, Dan. (1991). “Bully/Victim Problems Among School Children.” The Development of Childhood Aggression. D. Pepler & K.H. Rubin. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pellegrini, A.D. (1998). “Bullies and Victims in School: A Review of and call for Research.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Vol. 19, pp. 165-176. Pellegrini, A.D. & Bartini, Maria. (Autumn, 2000). “A Longitudinal Study of Bullying, Victimization and Peer Affiliation during the Transition from Primary School to Middle School.” American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 37, N. 3, pp. 699-725. Perry, D.G.; Kusel, S.J. & Perry, L.C. (1988). “Victims of Peer Aggression.” Developmental Psychology. Vol. 24, pp. 807-814. Renold, Emma. (September 2001). “Learning the ‘Hard’ Way: Boys, Hegemonic Masculinity and the Negotiation of Learner Identities in the Primary School.” British Journal of Sociological Education. Vol. 22, N. 3, pp. 369-385. Schwartz, David; Dodge, Kenneth A.; & Cole, John D. (December 1993). “The Emergence of Chronic Peer Victimization in Boys’ Play Groups.” Child Development. Vol. 64, N. 6, pp. 1755-1772. Schwartz, David; Dodge, Kenneth; Pettit, Gregory S. & Bates, John E. (August 1997). “The Early Socialization of Aggressive Victims of Bullying.” Child Development. Vol. 68, N. 4, pp. 665-675. Read More