The Effects of Bullying on Depression and Self-Esteem - Lab Report Example

1003PSY Research Methods and Statistics 1 Assignment Due Date: Friday, 5th September, 2012 SURVIVING THE PLAY GROUND: A RESEARCH ON BULLYING AND EFFECTS ON STUDENTS’ WELLBEING [Insert name here] [Insert student number here] Word count: [Insert word count here] Statement of originality: I declare that this assignment is my own work and other than the material that was provided in the template document, it does not include: (i) material from published sources used without proper acknowledgement; or (ii) material copied from the work of other students Abstract This report was done to find the effect of bullying on school children. The study was done on school children in grades 5,6 and 7. There was a total of 120 respondents for this experiments with varying ages. The study was done to control for depression that may be caused by recent unfortunate events in the life of the respondents. This was measured on the Student’s stress score. Based on the literature review the experiment was done to test for the effects of bullying on self-esteem and depression. The results returned serve to corroborate those in the literature reviewed and indicate that bullying has negative effects on the self-esteem of the respondent. This experiment varied from older ones by weighting bullying and measuring it on an interval scale as opposed to older ones that treated bullying as a grouping variable and returned results that support former findings. Introduction The significant social impact of schoolyard bullying was vividly illustrated in August 2009 when Jai Morcom died as a result of a playground brawl at Mullumbimby High School (New South Wales, Australia). News of the 15 year-olds death led to public outcry and a mass protest by students and staff at the school (Stolz, 2009). A poll conducted by the Queensland newspaper The Courier Mail showed that 92% of the 604 respondents responded Yes to the question of Do you think bullying is out of control in our schools? While this sample is likely to be biased, placing doubts over the extent to which this opinion is shared by the general population, it does suggest a perception of a high incidence of bullying in Australian schools. Additional research conducted by the Queensland Education Department indicates that approximately five children in each class are verbally or physically bullied each week and that up to 70% of suspensions relate to bullying behaviour. Research conducted in other countries support these findings in reporting that 5 to 15% of primary school and 3 to 10% of secondary school children being the victims of bullying on at least a weekly basis (Olweus, 1994; Genta, Menesini, Fonzi, Costabile, & Smith, 1996). The high prevalence of bullying in schools indicates that more information is needed on what variables are associated with bullying and what impact it has on children. Prior research on the victims of bullying has revealed that several variables are associated with bullying. Boys are more likely to be bullied than girls (e.g., Slee & Rigby, 1993; Nansel et al., 2001), particularly when bullying includes physical harm and threats (Baldry, 1998). Younger children are also more likely to report being the victim of bullying than older children (Whitney & Smith, 1993). Victims also tend to be more introverted, passive, submissive, and lonely (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). In victims, the amount of bullying received is positively associated with levels of anxiety (e.g., Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001) and depression (e.g., Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008; Craig, 1998), and negatively associated with self-worth (e.g., Slee & Rigby, 1993), popularity (Olweus, 1978), and physical health (Abada et al., 2008). The negative psychological variables that are associated with bullying indicate that victimisation is likely to lead to considerable stress (Newman, Holden, & Delville, 2005) and be a risk factor for subsequent mental health problems (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Rantanen, & Rimpelä, 2000). Coggan, Bennett, Hooper, and Dickinson (2003) reported the findings of a large cross-sectional survey of 3,265 randomly selected secondary school students in New Zealand. The students were categorised as experiencing chronic bullying (physical violence, verbal teasing, sexual harassment, and racist comments) or not across a six month period. A comparison between the groups revealed significant differences on several psychological measures. Bullied children were less likely to feel good about themselves, had a lower self-esteem, more likely to have attempted self-harm and suicide, and more likely to have higher scores for depression, stress, and hopelessness. Coggan et al. argued that the findings indicated an association between chronic bullying and negative mental health outcomes in secondary school children. Further, the authors stressed that their findings highlight the need for positive youth development strategies in conjunction with prevention and intervention strategies to reduce bullying at school. The present study aimed to extend the findings of Coggan et al. (2003) in two main ways. First, we changed the sample of students that were studied. Students were sampled from primary schools in Queensland, Australia. Second, rather than treating bullying as a categorical variable (i.e., bullied versus not bullied), we treated it as a quantitative variable (i.e., frequency of bullying incidents). An analysis of the (hypothetical) resulting data set sought to provide descriptive statistics on the extent of bullying in students and those psychological variables that might be associated with victims of bullying. Previous research shows that children subjected to bullying are more likely to be lonely and introverted. This would then also lead to respondents returning skewed subjective measures on self-esteem (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). This research treats bullying as a scale variable instead of a grouping variable. This will then allow us to measure the correlation between self-esteem and bellying and see the strength and direction of the variable, it will also allow us to correlate self-esteem and depression on the student scale. This will be tested against all the other variables associated with bullying (depression, self-esteem and stress). This will allow us to assess the direction and strength of the variables to see if there is indeed a skewed relationship between with bullied respondents in regard to self-esteem and stress. Since this research measures frequency of bullying it is going to measure the correlation between bullying and recent stressful events. Previous research reports that that bullying causes significant stress (Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008; Craig, 1998). It is then expected that students with more cases of bullying will score higher on stress based the student scale. This research will test for this correlation. Correlational analyses were used to test several hypotheses in relation to what variables are associated with bullying: 1. Bullying leads to an increased in perceived stress 2. There is a direct correlation between bullying and stressful life events 3. Students with more cases of bullying will also have a higher score in stress the student scale 4. Bullying leads to increased self-reported depression and Method Sampling Method The methods used to sample the students and to measure the variables were given approval by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee. The target population was deemed to be Queensland primary school children in grades 5, 6, and 7. The potential participants were those students that were randomly selected to receive a survey pack that contained the self-report measurement instruments. To obtain the list of potential participants, five state schools in Queensland were first randomly selected to participate in the study. Each school consisted of a preparatory year and grades 1 to 7. The number of enrolments at the schools varied from 423 to 845 students. The enrolment list for each school was next obtained and 30 students in grades 5, 6, and 7 were randomly selected. These students became the potential participants and were each given a survey pack to take home. The pack included an information sheet and consent form that the parent or guardian was required to complete as acknowledgement of informed consent. In addition, the pack included the questionnaires to obtain information regarding demographic characteristics, frequency of bullying, perceived stress, stressful life incidents, depression, and self-esteem. The students were asked to return the completed questionnaires within one week. Of the 150 survey packs handed out, 80% were returned thus giving an actual sample of 120 students. Measures Self-report measures were used to obtain demographic information and to measure each variable of bullying, perceived stress, stressful life incidents, depression, and self-esteem. Demographic characteristics. Three questions were used to obtain information about gender (male, female), age (in whole years), and grade level (5, 6, or 7). Frequency of bullying. The amount of bullying experienced by a student was measured as the number of times the student reported being a victim of four possible behaviours. A question asked In school over the past week, how many times have you experienced each of the following? The four items were Another child was physically violent towards me, Another child teased me, Another child made racist comments to me, and Another child made sexually harassing comments to me. The number of times each incident occurred was summed across the four items to give a single measure of the frequency of bullying the child experienced over the past week. Perceived stress. The level of stress perceived by the student was measured with four items. These were It is hard for me to tell people I am angry, I feel stressed by expectations to do well or better at school, I feel ‘stressed out’, and Difficulties seem to pile up so high that I feel that I cannot overcome them. Ratings were made on a scale that ranged from 1 to 25, where higher ratings indicate higher agreement with the statements. The sum of the ratings for all four items (maximum score = 100) provided the measure of perceived stress. Stressful life incidents. The Student Stress Scale (Janis & Mann, 1977) was used to measure stressful life incidents. The scale is an adaptation of Holmes and Rahe’s (1967) Social Readjustment Rating Scale in which students were asked to indicate what events they had recently or were currently experiencing (e.g., Death of a close family member, Change in eating habits, Divorce between parents). Some items were omitted (e.g., Pregnancy) or modified to better reflect the age level of the students in the sample (e.g., Change of university was modified to Change of school). Each event is given a score in terms of Life-change units with a higher number of Life-change units given for more stressful incidents (e.g., Death of a close friend versus Change in number of family get-togethers). A higher total score across all items indicates a higher overall impact of stressful life incidents. Depression. The students’ depression was measured with the four items of I feel lonely, I feel that people dislike me, I feel depressed, and I feel that nobody truly cares about me. Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to each statement on a scale from 1 to 10, where higher ratings indicate higher agreement. The total score across the four items (maximum score = 40) provided the measure of depression. Self-esteem. Four items were used to measure self-esteem. The items were I feel that I have a number of good qualities, I certainly feel useless at times, I wish I could have more respect for myself, and I take a positive attitude toward myself. Each item was rated on a four-point scale of 1 to 4, where higher ratings indicate greater agreement with the statement. The sum of ratings across the four items (maximum score = 16) was used as the measure of the students’ self-esteem. Statistical Analysis A students score was collected to correct for depression based on recent unfortunate life events in the respondents life. The score if too high would be used to judge the final outcome of the data analysis. If respondents were found to have more than one standard deviation above the mean score on the student stress scale then they would be filtered to get them out of the data set if they had lower scores on bullying. If they also had a high score on bullying that is equal to or greater than the mean the particular respondent was not filtered out of the data set. This being the case Pearson product correlations tests were used to measure correlation and t-tests were not be used since we do not have any grouping variables that are relevant to our hypotheses. Results Demographic Characteristics Table 1 Descriptive statistics for gender Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid male 55 45.8 45.8 45.8 Female 65 54.2 54.2 100.0 Total 120 100 100.0 Missing System 0 0 Total 120 100.0 Table 2 Descriptive statistics for age Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation age 120 9.00 12.00 10.55 1.004 Valid N (listwise) 120 This was report was done with a total of 120 respondents, of who 55(45.8%) were male and 65(54.2%) were female. The respondents were in grade 5, 6 and 7 with the distribution being 5th grade (n= 42, 35.0%), 6th grade (n=34, 28.3%) and 7th grade (n=44, 36.7%). The ages of the respondents varied from 9 to 12 (M = 10.55, SD = 1.004) Descriptive Statistics In this research project the respondent score on frequency of bullying was recorded as (M = 10.55, SD = 4.427) and perceived stress returned a result of (M=52.41, SD=17.874). Stressful life incidents measured on the student scale returned a result of (M=91.57, SD=53.08). Depression measured (M=21.00, SD=9.567) and finally self-esteem returned a returned a measure of (M=8.68, SD=3.94). The following bar graphs show this distribution. Figure 1 Histogram for distribution of depression scores Figure 2 Histogram showing distribution of self esteem scores Figure 3 Histogram for distribution of stress measured on the student scale Figure 4 Histogram showing distribution of perceived stress scores Figure 5 Distribution of bullying score Variables Associated with Bullying A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between depression and bullying scores. This with bullying being the independent variable and depression being the dependent variable. It was found that there was statistically significant positive correlation between the two variables r= 0.264, n=120, p = 0.004 as shown in Table 3 and Figure 6. Table 3 Table for correlation of bullying and depression Bullying Score Depression Score Bullying Score Pearson Correlation 1 .264** Sig. (2-tailed) .004 N 120 120 Depression Score Pearson Correlation .264** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .004 N 120 120 Figure 6 Scatter plot of depression score against bullying (n=120) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between self-esteem and bullying scores. It was found that there was strong statistically significant negative correlation between the two variables r= -0.438, n=120, p < 0.05 as shown in Table 4 and Figure 7. Table 4 Table for correlation between self-esteem and bullying Correlations Self Esteem Score Bullying Score Self Esteem Score Pearson Correlation 1 -.438** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 120 120 Bullying Score Pearson Correlation -.438** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 120 120 Figure 7 Scatter plot of self-esteem against bullying score (n=120) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between self-reported perceived stress and bullying scores. It was found that there was strong statistically significant negative correlation between the two variable r=0.203, n=120, p= 0.026 as shown in Table 5 and Figure 8 Table 5 Correlation of bullying against stress on student score Correlations Bullying Score Perceived Stress Score Bullying Score Pearson Correlation 1 .203* Sig. (2-tailed) .026 N 120 120 Perceived Stress Score Pearson Correlation .203* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .026 N 120 120 Figure 8 Scatter plot for bullying score against stress score (n=120) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between stress scores on the student scale and bullying scores. It was found that there was no statistically significant negative correlation between the two variable r=0.120, n=120, p= 0.190 as shown in Table 6 and Figure 9. Table 6 Correlation between stress on student scale and bullying score Correlations Bullying Score Stress on Student Scale Perceived Stress Score Pearson Correlation 1 .120 Sig. (2-tailed) .190 N 120 120 Stress on Student Scale Pearson Correlation .120 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .190 N 120 120 Figure 9 Scatter plot for bullying against stress on student scale (n=120) Discussion This experiment returned findings to indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between depression and bullying r(120) = 0.004, p = 0.264. The result findings also showed there was no need to filter for recent traumatic life experiences. The Pearson’s correlation score for correlation between depression and depression returned an insignificant result r(120)=0.847, p=0.018. This shows that the result was not adversely influenced by the students stress score and can be used as valid grounds to accept the earlier hypotheses that bullying leads to increased depression. This research returned finding so indicate that there is a inversely proportional relationship between self-esteem and bullying r(120) < 0.05, p = -.438. There was statistically significant drop in self-esteem levels with increased bullying. The results were also checked for correlation to values against perceived stress and returned no significant results r(120)=0.475, p=-0.066. There was also no significant correlation with students score r(120)=903, p=0.011. This allows us to qualify our formerly formed hypotheses that self-esteem is negatively affected by bullying while also filtering for recent adversely negative events (score on students scale) and also filtering for perceived stress. This experiment returned results to indicate that there is no statistically significant relationship between stressful life incidents (student scale score) and bullying (r=0.120, n=120, p= 0.190). This is result allows us to reject our formerly formed hypotheses that bullying will increase the respondents score on the student scale. This research returned results to show there is a statistically significant relationship between bullying and self-reported stress (r=0.203, n=120, p= 0.026). This will allow us to qualify the hypothesis that stress leads to increased depression. It however does not filter for the respondents individual predisposition to stress. As stated earlier, most students subjected to bullying are introverted and loners (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). This may mean that students who are bullied would par se report higher scores for stress and the strength of the relationship in this case may be over stated. But it shows that the correlation is not coincidental and we are not questioning the direction of the correlation but just the strength of the Pearson correlation test. This research produced findings to show that there is a statistically significant inversely proportional relationship between age and bullying r(120) = -0.412, p = 0.006. This may indicate that bullying incidences and cases reduce with increase in age of the respondents. This may serve to corroborate earlier findings (e.g., Slee & Rigby, 1993; Nansel et al., 2001) that claim that older children were less likely to report cases of bullying than younger ones. This correlation variable was not measured again compared to that of the correlation between age and increased stress r(120)= 0.095, p=0.301. This showed that there is no statistically correlation between age and stress so increase in stress with corresponding increase in bullying could not have been a natural progression with age. This is grounds enough to support our earlier stated hypothesis that with increase in age children are less likely to report cases of bullying while successfully filtering for age. References Abada, T., Hou, F., & Ram, B. (2008). The effects of harassment and victimization on self-rated health and mental health among Canadian adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 557-567. Baldry, A. C. (1998). Bullying among Italian middle school students. School Psychology International, 19, 361–374. Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480–484. Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, selfperceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315–329. Coggan, C., Bennett, S., Hooper, R., & Dickinson, P. (2003). Association between bullying and mental health status in New Zealand adolescents. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 5, 16-22. Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123–130. Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., Costabile, A. & Smith, P. K. (1996). Bullies and victims in schools in central and southern Italy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XI, 97–110. Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying at school – an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661-674. Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 51–54. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094. Newman, M. L., Holden, G. W., & Delville, Y. (2005). Isolation and the stress of being bullied. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 343-357. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipping boys. New York: Wiley. Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 1171–1190. Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). Australian school children’s self appraisal of interpersonal relations: the bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23, 273–282. Stolz, G. (2009). Mullumbimby High School walkout over bullying. The Courier Mail. Accessed 10/10/09 from: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26002921 -953,00.html Whitney, L., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25. Appendix A : variables Variable Name Variable Measure Variable Type Bullyingscore Bullying Score Scale Perceivedstress Self-reported Perceived Stress Scale StudentScale Stress Score measured on student Scale Scale Depression Depression Score Scale Selfesteem Self-esteem Score Scale Appendix B GET FILE='C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav'. Warning # 67. Command name: GET FILE The document is already in use by another user or process. If you make changes to the document they may overwrite changes made by others or your changes may be overwritten by others. File opened C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%2 DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT. EXAMINE VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF /COMPARE GROUPS /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. Explore Notes Output Created 05-SEP-2012 10:51:11 Comments Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File 120 Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for dependent variables are treated as missing. Cases Used Statistics are based on cases with no missing values for any dependent variable or factor used. Syntax EXAMINE VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF /COMPARE GROUPS /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. Resources Processor Time 00:00:04.59 Elapsed Time 00:00:03.59 [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent student id no 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% gender 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% grade 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% age 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% bullying score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% precieved stress score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% score on student scale 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% depression score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% self estem score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% Descriptives Statistic Std. Error student id no Mean 60.5000 3.17543 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 54.2123 Upper Bound 66.7877 5% Trimmed Mean 60.5000 Median 60.5000 Variance 1210.000 Std. Deviation 34.78505 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 120.00 Range 119.00 Interquartile Range 60.50 Skewness .000 .221 Kurtosis -1.200 .438 gender Mean 1.5417 .04568 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 1.4512 Upper Bound 1.6321 5% Trimmed Mean 1.5463 Median 2.0000 Variance .250 Std. Deviation .50035 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 2.00 Range 1.00 Interquartile Range 1.00 Skewness -.169 .221 Kurtosis -2.005 .438 grade Mean 6.0167 .07759 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.8630 Upper Bound 6.1703 5% Trimmed Mean 6.0185 Median 6.0000 Variance .722 Std. Deviation .84995 Minimum 5.00 Maximum 7.00 Range 2.00 Descriptives Statistic Std. Error grade Interquartile Range 2.00 Skewness -.032 .221 Kurtosis -1.621 .438 age Mean 10.4833 .09166 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 10.3018 Upper Bound 10.6648 5% Trimmed Mean 10.4815 Median 10.0000 Variance 1.008 Std. Deviation 1.00405 Minimum 9.00 Maximum 12.00 Range 3.00 Interquartile Range 1.00 Skewness .173 .221 Kurtosis -1.045 .438 bullying score Mean 10.5500 .40408 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 9.7499 Upper Bound 11.3501 5% Trimmed Mean 10.5278 Median 10.0000 Variance 19.594 Std. Deviation 4.42652 Minimum .00 Maximum 21.00 Range 21.00 Interquartile Range 5.75 Skewness .218 .221 Kurtosis .385 .438 precieved stress score Mean 52.4083 1.63168 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 49.1774 Upper Bound 55.6392 5% Trimmed Mean 52.2963 Median 52.0000 Variance 319.487 Std. Deviation 17.87421 Descriptives Statistic Std. Error precieved stress score Minimum 6.00 Maximum 95.00 Range 89.00 Interquartile Range 18.00 Skewness .115 .221 Kurtosis .137 .438 score on student scale Mean 91.5667 4.84552 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 81.9720 Upper Bound 101.1613 5% Trimmed Mean 87.1667 Median 72.0000 Variance 2817.491 Std. Deviation 53.08005 Minimum 20.00 Maximum 232.00 Range 212.00 Interquartile Range 51.50 Skewness 1.469 .221 Kurtosis 1.204 .438 depression score Mean 21.0000 .87335 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 19.2707 Upper Bound 22.7293 5% Trimmed Mean 21.0741 Median 20.0000 Variance 91.529 Std. Deviation 9.56710 Minimum .00 Maximum 39.00 Range 39.00 Interquartile Range 14.75 Skewness .012 .221 Kurtosis -.813 .438 self estem score Mean 8.6750 .35821 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 7.9657 Upper Bound 9.3843 5% Trimmed Mean 8.6944 Descriptives Statistic Std. Error self estem score Median 9.0000 Variance 15.398 Std. Deviation 3.92399 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 16.00 Range 15.00 Interquartile Range 6.00 Skewness .002 .221 Kurtosis -.833 .438 Frequency Table gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid male 55 45.8 45.8 45.8 female 65 54.2 54.2 100.0 Total 120 100.0 100.0 grade Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 5.00 42 35.0 35.0 35.0 6.00 34 28.3 28.3 63.3 7.00 44 36.7 36.7 100.0 Total 120 100.0 100.0 age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 9.00 20 16.7 16.7 16.7 10.00 47 39.2 39.2 55.8 11.00 28 23.3 23.3 79.2 12.00 25 20.8 20.8 100.0 Total 120 100.0 100.0 a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 2.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. b. Only a partial list of cases with the value 1.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. c. Only a partial list of cases with the value 7.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. d. Only a partial list of cases with the value 5.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. e. Only a partial list of cases with the value 12.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. f. Only a partial list of cases with the value 9.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. g. Only a partial list of cases with the value 20.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. h. Only a partial list of cases with the value 2.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. i. Only a partial list of cases with the value 45.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. Descriptives Notes Output Created 05-SEP-2012 10:56:50 Comments Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File 120 Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User defined missing values are treated as missing. Cases Used All non-missing data are used. Syntax DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX. Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.02 [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation student id no 120 1.00 120.00 60.5000 34.78505 gender 120 1.00 2.00 1.5417 .50035 grade 120 5.00 7.00 6.0167 .84995 age 120 9.00 12.00 10.4833 1.00405 bullying score 120 .00 21.00 10.5500 4.42652 precieved stress score 120 6.00 95.00 52.4083 17.87421 score on student scale 120 20.00 232.00 91.5667 53.08005 depression score 120 .00 39.00 21.0000 9.56710 self estem score 120 1.00 16.00 8.6750 3.92399 Valid N (listwise) 120 EXAMINE VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF HISTOGRAM /COMPARE GROUPS /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES EXTREME /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. Explore Notes Output Created 05-SEP-2012 10:57:10 Comments Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File 120 Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values for dependent variables are treated as missing. Cases Used Statistics are based on cases with no missing values for any dependent variable or factor used. Syntax EXAMINE VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF HISTOGRAM /COMPARE GROUPS /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES EXTREME /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. Resources Processor Time 00:00:03.39 Elapsed Time 00:00:03.36 [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent student id no 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% gender 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% grade 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% age 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% bullying score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% precieved stress score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% score on student scale 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% depression score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% self estem score 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0% Descriptives Statistic Std. Error student id no Mean 60.5000 3.17543 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 54.2123 Upper Bound 66.7877 5% Trimmed Mean 60.5000 Median 60.5000 Variance 1210.000 Std. Deviation 34.78505 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 120.00 Range 119.00 Interquartile Range 60.50 Skewness .000 .221 Kurtosis -1.200 .438 gender Mean 1.5417 .04568 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 1.4512 Upper Bound 1.6321 5% Trimmed Mean 1.5463 Median 2.0000 Variance .250 Std. Deviation .50035 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 2.00 Range 1.00 Interquartile Range 1.00 Skewness -.169 .221 Kurtosis -2.005 .438 grade Mean 6.0167 .07759 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 5.8630 Upper Bound 6.1703 5% Trimmed Mean 6.0185 Median 6.0000 Variance .722 Std. Deviation .84995 Minimum 5.00 Maximum 7.00 Range 2.00 Descriptives Statistic Std. Error grade Interquartile Range 2.00 Skewness -.032 .221 Kurtosis -1.621 .438 age Mean 10.4833 .09166 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 10.3018 Upper Bound 10.6648 5% Trimmed Mean 10.4815 Median 10.0000 Variance 1.008 Std. Deviation 1.00405 Minimum 9.00 Maximum 12.00 Range 3.00 Interquartile Range 1.00 Skewness .173 .221 Kurtosis -1.045 .438 bullying score Mean 10.5500 .40408 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 9.7499 Upper Bound 11.3501 5% Trimmed Mean 10.5278 Median 10.0000 Variance 19.594 Std. Deviation 4.42652 Minimum .00 Maximum 21.00 Range 21.00 Interquartile Range 5.75 Skewness .218 .221 Kurtosis .385 .438 precieved stress score Mean 52.4083 1.63168 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 49.1774 Upper Bound 55.6392 5% Trimmed Mean 52.2963 Median 52.0000 Variance 319.487 Std. Deviation 17.87421 Descriptives Statistic Std. Error precieved stress score Minimum 6.00 Maximum 95.00 Range 89.00 Interquartile Range 18.00 Skewness .115 .221 Kurtosis .137 .438 score on student scale Mean 91.5667 4.84552 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 81.9720 Upper Bound 101.1613 5% Trimmed Mean 87.1667 Median 72.0000 Variance 2817.491 Std. Deviation 53.08005 Minimum 20.00 Maximum 232.00 Range 212.00 Interquartile Range 51.50 Skewness 1.469 .221 Kurtosis 1.204 .438 depression score Mean 21.0000 .87335 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 19.2707 Upper Bound 22.7293 5% Trimmed Mean 21.0741 Median 20.0000 Variance 91.529 Std. Deviation 9.56710 Minimum .00 Maximum 39.00 Range 39.00 Interquartile Range 14.75 Skewness .012 .221 Kurtosis -.813 .438 self estem score Mean 8.6750 .35821 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 7.9657 Upper Bound 9.3843 5% Trimmed Mean 8.6944 Descriptives Statistic Std. Error self estem score Median 9.0000 Variance 15.398 Std. Deviation 3.92399 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 16.00 Range 15.00 Interquartile Range 6.00 Skewness .002 .221 Kurtosis -.833 .438 Extreme Values Case Number Value student id no Highest 1 120 120.00 2 119 119.00 3 118 118.00 4 117 117.00 5 116 116.00 Lowest 1 1 1.00 2 2 2.00 3 3 3.00 4 4 4.00 5 5 5.00 gender Highest 1 3 2.00 2 6 2.00 3 7 2.00 4 8 2.00 5 9 2.00a Lowest 1 120 1.00 2 117 1.00 3 116 1.00 4 114 1.00 5 110 1.00b grade Highest 1 1 7.00 2 2 7.00 3 3 7.00 4 4 7.00 5 6 7.00c Lowest 1 120 5.00 2 114 5.00 3 112 5.00 4 111 5.00 5 110 5.00d age Highest 1 1 12.00 2 2 12.00 3 6 12.00 4 12 12.00 5 18 12.00e Lowest 1 112 9.00 Extreme Values Case Number Value age Lowest 2 111 9.00 3 108 9.00 4 101 9.00 5 95 9.00 bullying score Highest 1 5 21.00 2 34 21.00 3 60 21.00 4 2 20.00 5 3 20.00 Lowest 1 120 .00 2 119 .00 3 114 1.00 4 24 1.00 5 115 2.00 precieved stress score Highest 1 27 95.00a 2 41 94.00 3 102 94.00 4 115 91.00 5 8 85.00 Lowest 1 120 6.00b 2 114 10.00 3 21 10.00 4 26 23.00 5 3 23.00 score on student scale Highest 1 3 232.00c 2 25 232.00 3 7 231.00 4 60 228.00 5 118 225.00 Lowest 1 38 20.00d 2 14 21.00 3 110 29.00 4 97 42.00 5 111 45.00 depression score Highest 1 34 39.00e 2 119 39.00 Extreme Values Case Number Value depression score Highest 3 3 38.00 4 58 38.00 5 108 38.00 Lowest 1 120 .00 2 115 2.00 3 75 2.00 4 6 2.00 5 101 4.00 self estem score Highest 1 116 16.00 2 117 16.00 3 118 16.00 4 119 16.00 5 120 16.00 Lowest 1 5 1.00 2 4 1.00a 3 3 1.00 4 2 1.00 5 1 1.00 a. Only a partial list of cases with the value 2.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. b. Only a partial list of cases with the value 1.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. c. Only a partial list of cases with the value 7.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. d. Only a partial list of cases with the value 5.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. e. Only a partial list of cases with the value 12.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. f. Only a partial list of cases with the value 9.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. g. Only a partial list of cases with the value 20.00 are shown in the table of upper extremes. h. Only a partial list of cases with the value 2.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. i. Only a partial list of cases with the value 45.00 are shown in the table of lower extremes. student id no student id no Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 9.00 0 . 123456789 10.00 1 . 0123456789 10.00 2 . 0123456789 10.00 3 . 0123456789 10.00 4 . 0123456789 10.00 5 . 0123456789 10.00 6 . 0123456789 10.00 7 . 0123456789 10.00 8 . 0123456789 10.00 9 . 0123456789 10.00 10 . 0123456789 10.00 11 . 0123456789 1.00 12 . 0 Stem width: 10.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) gender gender Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 55.00 10 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .00 11 . .00 12 . .00 13 . .00 14 . .00 15 . .00 16 . .00 17 . .00 18 . .00 19 . 65.00 20 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Stem width: .10 Each leaf: 1 case(s) grade grade Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 42.00 5 . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .00 5 . .00 5 . .00 5 . .00 5 . 34.00 6 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000 .00 6 . .00 6 . .00 6 . .00 6 . 44.00 7 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Stem width: 1.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) age age Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 20.00 9 . 00000000000000000000 .00 9 . .00 9 . .00 9 . .00 9 . 47.00 10 . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .00 10 . .00 10 . .00 10 . .00 10 . 28.00 11 . 0000000000000000000000000000 .00 11 . .00 11 . .00 11 . .00 11 . 25.00 12 . 0000000000000000000000000 Stem width: 1.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) bullying score bullying score Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 4.00 0 . 0011 2.00 0 . 22 6.00 0 . 445555 12.00 0 . 666667777777 28.00 0 . 8888888888888899999999999999 24.00 1 . 000000000111111111111111 14.00 1 . 22222222222233 17.00 1 . 44444444444455555 4.00 1 . 6677 2.00 1 . 99 7.00 2 . 0000111 Stem width: 10.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) precieved stress score precieved stress score Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 3.00 Extremes (==91) Stem width: 10.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) score on student scale score on student scale Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 3.00 2 . 019 .00 3 . 13.00 4 . 2555666788999 19.00 5 . 0011111124555567788 18.00 6 . 000234455578888999 20.00 7 . 00011222223344557888 8.00 8 . 01158888 5.00 9 . 26889 5.00 10 . 12238 7.00 11 . 1445679 2.00 12 . 05 2.00 13 . 15 1.00 14 . 7 1.00 15 . 9 .00 16 . 2.00 17 . 01 14.00 Extremes (>=185) Stem width: 10.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) depression score depression score Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 1.00 0 . 0 3.00 0 . 222 2.00 0 . 45 2.00 0 . 67 3.00 0 . 888 9.00 1 . 000111111 12.00 1 . 222222222333 6.00 1 . 444455 6.00 1 . 777777 15.00 1 . 888888999999999 8.00 2 . 00000111 1.00 2 . 3 8.00 2 . 44444445 14.00 2 . 66666777777777 6.00 2 . 889999 1.00 3 . 0 9.00 3 . 233333333 8.00 3 . 45555555 1.00 3 . 7 5.00 3 . 88899 Stem width: 10.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) self estem score self estem score Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency Stem & Leaf 5.00 1 . 00000 3.00 2 . 000 2.00 3 . 00 4.00 4 . 0000 14.00 5 . 00000000000000 14.00 6 . 00000000000000 13.00 7 . 0000000000000 4.00 8 . 0000 9.00 9 . 000000000 5.00 10 . 00000 11.00 11 . 00000000000 18.00 12 . 000000000000000000 4.00 13 . 0000 4.00 14 . 0000 5.00 15 . 00000 5.00 16 . 00000 Stem width: 1.00 Each leaf: 1 case(s) CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. Correlations Notes Output Created 05-SEP-2012 10:57:58 Comments Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File 120 Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing. Cases Used Statistics for each pair of variables are based on all the cases with valid data for that pair. Syntax CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=id gender grade age bscore VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.02 [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Correlations student id no gender grade age student id no Pearson Correlation 1 .000 -.180* -.244** Sig. (2-tailed) .998 .050 .007 N 120 120 120 120 gender Pearson Correlation .000 1 -.002 -.074 Sig. (2-tailed) .998 .986 .423 N 120 120 120 120 grade Pearson Correlation -.180* -.002 1 .867** Sig. (2-tailed) .050 .986 .000 N 120 120 120 120 age Pearson Correlation -.244** -.074 .867** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .423 .000 N 120 120 120 120 bullying score Pearson Correlation -.412** .039 .027 .006 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .673 .773 .949 N 120 120 120 120 precieved stress score Pearson Correlation -.048 .054 .152 .095 Sig. (2-tailed) .599 .558 .098 .301 N 120 120 120 120 score on student scale Pearson Correlation .041 .059 -.040 -.111 Sig. (2-tailed) .654 .521 .661 .226 N 120 120 120 120 depression score Pearson Correlation -.219* .132 -.089 -.009 Sig. (2-tailed) .016 .152 .334 .924 N 120 120 120 120 self estem score Pearson Correlation .967** .009 -.162 -.237** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .921 .077 .009 N 120 120 120 120 Correlations bullying score precieved stress score score on student scale student id no Pearson Correlation -.412 -.048 .041* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .599 .654 N 120 120 120 gender Pearson Correlation .039 .054 .059 Sig. (2-tailed) .673 .558 .521 N 120 120 120 grade Pearson Correlation .027* .152 -.040 Sig. (2-tailed) .773 .098 .661 N 120 120 120 age Pearson Correlation .006** .095 -.111** Sig. (2-tailed) .949 .301 .226 N 120 120 120 bullying score Pearson Correlation 1** .203 .120 Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .190 N 120 120 120 precieved stress score Pearson Correlation .203 1 .176 Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .054 N 120 120 120 score on student scale Pearson Correlation .120 .176 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .190 .054 N 120 120 120 depression score Pearson Correlation .264* -.091 .018 Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .321 .847 N 120 120 120 self estem score Pearson Correlation -.438** -.066 .011 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .475 .903 N 120 120 120 Correlations depression score self estem score student id no Pearson Correlation -.219 .967 Sig. (2-tailed) .016 .000 N 120 120 gender Pearson Correlation .132 .009 Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .921 N 120 120 grade Pearson Correlation -.089* -.162 Sig. (2-tailed) .334 .077 N 120 120 age Pearson Correlation -.009** -.237 Sig. (2-tailed) .924 .009 N 120 120 bullying score Pearson Correlation .264** -.438 Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 N 120 120 precieved stress score Pearson Correlation -.091 -.066 Sig. (2-tailed) .321 .475 N 120 120 score on student scale Pearson Correlation .018 .011 Sig. (2-tailed) .847 .903 N 120 120 depression score Pearson Correlation 1* -.248 Sig. (2-tailed) .006 N 120 120 self estem score Pearson Correlation -.248** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .006 N 120 120 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). GRAPH /SCATTERPLOT(BIVAR)=grade WITH gender /MISSING=LISTWISE. Graph Notes Output Created 05-SEP-2012 10:58:24 Comments Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File 120 Syntax GRAPH /SCATTERPLOT(BIVAR)=grade WITH gender /MISSING=LISTWISE. Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.23 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.23 [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\s2807934\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\V80XSMR0\Student%20ID%20ending%20with%204[1].sav Read More

, Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008; Craig, 1998), and negatively associated with self-worth (e.g., Slee & Rigby, 1993), popularity (Olweus, 1978), and physical health (Abada et al., 2008). The negative psychological variables that are associated with bullying indicate that victimisation is likely to lead to considerable stress (Newman, Holden, & Delville, 2005) and be a risk factor for subsequent mental health problems (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Rantanen, & Rimpelä, 2000). Coggan, Bennett, Hooper, and Dickinson (2003) reported the findings of a large cross-sectional survey of 3,265 randomly selected secondary school students in New Zealand.

The students were categorised as experiencing chronic bullying (physical violence, verbal teasing, sexual harassment, and racist comments) or not across a six month period. A comparison between the groups revealed significant differences on several psychological measures. Bullied children were less likely to feel good about themselves, had a lower self-esteem, more likely to have attempted self-harm and suicide, and more likely to have higher scores for depression, stress, and hopelessness. Coggan et al.

argued that the findings indicated an association between chronic bullying and negative mental health outcomes in secondary school children. Further, the authors stressed that their findings highlight the need for positive youth development strategies in conjunction with prevention and intervention strategies to reduce bullying at school. The present study aimed to extend the findings of Coggan et al. (2003) in two main ways. First, we changed the sample of students that were studied. Students were sampled from primary schools in Queensland, Australia.

Second, rather than treating bullying as a categorical variable (i.e., bullied versus not bullied), we treated it as a quantitative variable (i.e., frequency of bullying incidents). An analysis of the (hypothetical) resulting data set sought to provide descriptive statistics on the extent of bullying in students and those psychological variables that might be associated with victims of bullying. Previous research shows that children subjected to bullying are more likely to be lonely and introverted.

This would then also lead to respondents returning skewed subjective measures on self-esteem (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Mynard & Joseph, 1997). This research treats bullying as a scale variable instead of a grouping variable. This will then allow us to measure the correlation between self-esteem and bellying and see the strength and direction of the variable, it will also allow us to correlate self-esteem and depression on the student scale. This will be tested against all the other variables associated with bullying (depression, self-esteem and stress).

This will allow us to assess the direction and strength of the variables to see if there is indeed a skewed relationship between with bullied respondents in regard to self-esteem and stress. Since this research measures frequency of bullying it is going to measure the correlation between bullying and recent stressful events. Previous research reports that that bullying causes significant stress (Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008; Craig, 1998). It is then expected that students with more cases of bullying will score higher on stress based the student scale.

This research will test for this correlation. Correlational analyses were used to test several hypotheses in relation to what variables are associated with bullying: 1. Bullying leads to an increased in perceived stress 2. There is a direct correlation between bullying and stressful life events 3. Students with more cases of bullying will also have a higher score in stress the student scale 4. Bullying leads to increased self-reported depression and Method Sampling Method The methods used to sample the students and to measure the variables were given approval by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee.

The target population was deemed to be Queensland primary school children in grades 5, 6, and 7.

Read More