SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR ADOLESCENTS INVOLVED IN TRADITIONAL AND
CYBER BULLYING
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Child Development
(Theory and Research)
by
Ilanit Offen
SUMMER
2012
© 2012
Ilanit Offen
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR ADOLESCENTS INVOLVED IN TRADITIONAL AND
CYBER BULLYING
A Thesis
by
Ilanit Offen
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Melina Bersamin
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Ilanit Offen
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Department Chair
Dr. Ana Garcia-Nevarez
Department of Child Development
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR ADOLESCENTS INVOLVED IN TRADITIONAL AND
CYBER BULLYING
by
Ilanit Offen
Social support may mitigate the negative effects adolescents might experience when
exposed to bullying. This study aimed to identify who adolescents turned to when they
experienced bully victimization and whether their choice of support differed by type of
bullying (traditional or cyber), role in the bullying (bully, victim, bully-victim,
uninvolved) or gender of the victim and /or aggressor. This study included a secondary
data analysis of survey data from 64 7th and 8th graders from one middle school in
Northern California. Analysis showed that sources of support differed by gender and type
of bullying. Adolescents who were cyber bullied in chat rooms and group sites (e.g.
MySpace, Facebook) relied on their best friends for social support. However, when
encountering traditional bullying, only females relied on their best friends and adults for
social support.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When I started this journey more than two years ago, I had no idea whether or
when I would reach the finish line. Now, looking back I know I could not have made it
without the help and support of my mentors, family members, and friends.
First, I would like to thank Dr. Juliana Raskauskas whose support and guidance
throughout the way enabled and encouraged me to keep on going. Dr. Raskauskas not
only allowed me to use her current data but also provided me with constant support and
feedback about data analysis, relevant readings, writing, formatting, as well as graduate
requirements and deadlines. Thank you Dr. Raskauskas for the wonderful guidance and
support along the way.
I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Malina Bersamin. Dr.
Bersamin’s reviews and feedback have been invaluable for the thesis and are truly
appreciated.
Finally, I would like to thank my beautiful family. First, my husband, Zeev, my
love, who encouraged me to pursue a master’s degree and supported me by taking upon
himself the chores of the house and the care of three children when I was busy studying.
Second, I would like to thank my three wonderful kids, Yael (14), Tamir (11), and Noa
(6). You are the pride and joy of my life and I could not have made it without your
patience and cooperation. I would also like to thank my beloved parents, Israel and Lizzet
Hanien, who believed in me and encouraged me throughout the way.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………..........1
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………...1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................... 1
Significance of the Study………………………………………………….…...2
Methods…………………………………………………………………….….5
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………….……6
Limitations……………………………………………………………….…….7
Organization of the Thesis……………………………………………….…….8
2. REVIEW OF LITERAURE………………………………………………………9
Traditional Bullying…………………………………………………………...9
Cyber Bullying ................................................................................................ 10
Differences and Similarities Between Traditional and Cyber Bullying ..........12
Bullying Roles………………………………………………………………..14
Social Support………………………………………………………………..18
Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………….27
Implications for the Present Study…………………………………………...32
3. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 34
Design of the Study…………………………………………………………..34
Research Questions…………………………………………………………..34
Participants……………………………………………………………….…..35
Measure………………………………………………………………………36
vii
Procedures……………………………………………………………….…..40
4. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………….….42
Gender Comparisons…………………………………………………….….…43
Types of Bullying……………………………………………………….……..45
Role in Bullying…………………………………………………….…………47
Efficacy and Actual Social Support……………….……….………….………51
Social and Academic Support………….………………….…………………..52
5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................54
Key Findings ......................................................................................................54
Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................58
Appendix A. Parents’ Consent Form ....................................................................... 63
Appendix B. Students’ Self-Report Questionnaires ................................................. 67
Appendix C. Student Assent Form ............................................................................86
References .................................................................................................................. 88
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Role in Bullying…………………………………….……………………………..40
2. Access of Actual Support……………………………….……………………….. .42
3. Social and Academic Percentage of Participants Reporting High* Self-Efficacy...43
4. Gender and Actual Social Support...........................................................................44
5. Gender and Social Self-Efficacy – Adult…………….……………………............45
6. Cyber Bullying and Best Friends’ Actual Social Support…………………………46
7. Correlational Table Between Adults and Friends’ Social Support and Online
Bullying……………………………………………………………………………47
8. Role in Bullying and Actual Social Support………………………………………49
9. Role in Bullying and Social Self-Efficacy…………..…………………………….50
10. Actual Parents’ Social Support and Social Self-Efficacy ………………..……....51
11. Prosocial Behavior and Adults and Peers’ Social Self-Efficacy………..……..…52
12. Perceived Academic Support and Social Self-Efficacy…………………...……..53
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
Numerous studies indicate that bullying is associated with negative consequences
and that social support can play a protective role for adolescents who are involved in
bullying (see Espelage & Swearer for review). The purpose of the present study was to
examine adolescents’ accessing of social support when they experience bully
victimization and whether their choice of support differs by type of bullying (traditional
or cyber), role in the bullying (bully, victim, bully-victim, uninvolved) or gender (female
or male). The difference between social support accessed for bullying and perceived
social support in relation to these variables was also examined.
Statement of the Problem
Bullying is a significant issue in the lives of many school students (McElearney,
Roosmale, Cocq, Scott & Stephenson, 2008). Adolescents who are exposed to bullying
may suffer from poorer physical and psychological health, which can negatively
influence school attendance, academic performance, social and emotional development
2
(Bowes, Maughan, Caspi, Moffitt, & Arseneault, 2010; Due, Lynch, Gabhain, Scheidt, &
Currrie, 2005; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
According to research, social support from peers, teachers, and parents helps
reduce the negative effects associated with bullying (Rothon, Head, Klineberg &
Stansfeld, 2011; Wang, Iannotti, Nansel &Tonja, 2009; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010).
Still, a significant number of adolescents who experience bullying do not share this
information with nor seek help from others (McElearney et al., 2008). For example,
Smith and Shu (2000) found that 30% of victims tell no one about the bullying.
Matsunaga (2009) found that victims of traditional bullying do not disclose their situation
to their families. An even higher number of adolescents do not seek help with cyber
bullying. Juvoenen and Gross (2008) reported that 90% of cyber bullied adolescents in
their research did not tell adults about their experience with online aggression. Gaining a
better understanding of how adolescents make use of the available social support
resources in and outside of school and individual characteristics of those who seek help
may help to reduce negative impact on future victims.
Significance of the Study
Although today bullying is more openly discussed in schools than it was in the
past, many students still do not tell others that they are being bullied (Smith & Shu,
2000). According to Wang et al. (2009), only 58% of eight graders reported they would
share bullying victimization with a parent, and only 31% of eighth graders reported that
3
they would approach a teacher for help (Oliver & Canadappa, 2007). Even though
adolescents perceive peer support as the least risky option, about 70% of eight graders
report sharing bullying experiences with friends (Oliver & Candappa, 2007).
Many factors may influence social support seeking behavior. Gender may be a
primary factor in the help-seeking decisions adolescents make. Studies indicate that girls
and boys differ in the way they perceive and react to bullying (Wang et al., 2009). Girls
tend to be more supportive of victims than boys (Holt & Espelage, 2007; Smith & Shu,
2000) and are more likely to seek help (Hunter, Boyle & Wardern, 2004; Smith & Shu,
2000) by telling a parent, a peer, or a school staff member (Craig, Pepler, & Blais, 2007).
Hunter et al. (2004) found that 86% of female victims tell someone about the
victimization, as compared to 64% of male victims. This may be due to societal norms
that make it less acceptable for males to be vulnerable and ask for help than females
(Crick & Grotepeter, 1995; Holt & Espelage, 2007).
The type of bullying may also influence adolescents’ selection of help seeking.
Cyber bullying seems to be more elusive and harder to detect than traditional bullying
since it is often anonymous (Dehue, Bolman, Vollink, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004),
and often experienced outside of school (Dehue et al., 2008; Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho,
Fisher, Russell, & Tippett, 2008), both of which may limit opportunities to access social
support and concern about who to go to. Even though social support for cyber bullying
victims can only be provided if the victims report the bullying, the limited research on
cyber bullying suggests that many victims are reluctant to report such incidents (Patchin
& Hinduja, 2006; Raskauskas, 2010). Much of the fear in reporting is not retaliation like
4
with traditional bullying but the fear that parents or school officials will take away their
technology to reduce access of the bully to the victim, but also effectively isolating them
from their peer group and potential support (Raskauskas, 2010).
Traditional and cyber bullying, their negative symptoms, and the importance of
coping such as the use of social support have been researched for years. Social support
can help decrease the negative effects bullying may have on involved adolescents
(Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Flaspohler, Elfstom, Vanderzee, Sink, & Birchmeier, 2009;
Rothon et al, 2011; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010). While parental social support can
promote resilience to bullying victimization (Bowes et. al., 2010) and reduce the levels of
behavioral and emotional problems victims may have (Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010),
peers’ social support can protect victims from poor academic achievement (Rothon et. al,
2011) and inhibit peer victimization for all youth (Ladd, Kochenderfer-Ladd, Eggun,
Kochel & McConnell, 2011). In addition, teachers’ social support is associated with
lower levels of adolescents’ behavioral and emotional problems from bullying (Davidson
& Demaray, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010).
Even though the positive effects of social support have been studied, there is little
research regarding the strategies and choices adolescents make as they seek help from
these available social supports. This study examined who adolescents turn to (peers,
teachers, or parents) when they encounter or witness traditional or cyber bullying.
Additionally, the study investigated whether adolescents’ help seeking strategies are
influenced by factors such as the adolescent’s role in bullying, the type of bullying, or
gender of those involved.
5
Social support from teachers, parents and peers can do much to prevent bullying
as well as mitigate its negative effects (Holt & Espelage, 2007; Wang et al., 2009). But
this can only happen if adolescents seek out this support. Results in this study can help
teachers and parents understand better how adolescents perceive the social supports
available to them as well as how factors such as type of bullying, bullying roles, or
gender may influence their help seeking choices. Additionally, this study can help
educators enhance students’ use of already preferred social support sources (e.g. peers,
uninvolved students) to reduce bullying while guiding others (e.g. parents, teachers) on
how to handle bullying in a way that will encourage adolescents to approach them for
help.
Methods
The present study was a secondary analysis of pilot data collected prior to a larger
study conducted by Dr. Juliana Raskauskas (Sacramento State University). The study
employed a quantitative, correlational design that included self-report questionnaires. In
the pilot 66 7th and 8th grade students from a single school completed two surveys about
bullying and social support of peers, teachers, and parents. This is the data included in the
presents study.
Two surveys were administered over two weeks. Items from these two surveys
measured rumor-spreading, exclusion, hitting, pushing or name-calling, as well as social
support seeking behavior, help offering and caring for peers, perceived support available
6
were included in this study. Since both surveys included numerous questions about varied
topics, my secondary analysis focused only on the survey items directly related to the
research questions in this study. Analytical methods including descriptive statistics,
correlations, T-test, ANOVA, and Chi-square were used to examine similarities and
differences between adolescents’ use of peer and adult social support, their social selfefficacy as well as differences within gender, role in bullying, and type of bullying. .
Definition of Terms
“Bullying” is defined as repeated aggression that is imposed from a position of
power in which the victim cannot stop the abuse (Craig et al., 2007). There are two types
of bullying: “traditional bullying” and “cyber bullying”. Traditional bullying typically
occurs in a face-to-face encounter and includes three different forms: “physical bullying”
(e.g. hitting, pushing, tripping, spitting), “verbal bullying” (e.g. threats, insults, putdowns), and “relational bullying” (e.g. social exclusion, malicious gossip). Cyber
bullying, on the other hand, refers to activities where technology is used to bully others,
for example, sending mean e-mails or text-messages, posting mean pictures or messages
online, or creating defamatory profiles online (Craig et al.2007; Kraft & Jinchang, 2009).
There are different roles that individuals can assume in a bullying episode. The
“bully” is the person who is exhibiting the bullying behavior/s. The “victim” is the person
who is the target of the bullying behaviors. The “bully-victim” is an individual who is a
bully and a victim at the same time, and an “uninvolved” person is an individual who is
7
neither a victim nor a perpetrator of bullying (Flaspohler et al., 2009). A bystander is an
individual who witnesses the bullying whose role may vary from assisting the bullies to
defending the victims (Oh & Hazler, 2009).
Limitations
It is important to note the limitations of this study in interpreting results and
drawing conclusions. First, the study employed quantitative methods that allowed
researchers to examine a number of participants in a relatively short period. However,
these types of measures do not provide the kind of in depth understanding of participants’
perceptions that could have been revealed with open-ended questions or interviews.
Second, since the study was a correlational design, the ability to draw causal conclusions
about the results is limited (Wang et al., 2009). Third, since data collection was a selfreport survey of the adolescent students, the veracity of their responses is uncertain. The
credibility of adolescents’ reports of their use of social support is also limited by the fact
that no corroborating data were collected from either parents or teachers. In addition, this
study was based on a secondary data which limited the author’s opportunity to include
more relevant items on social support and to add more questions that would refer to
parents and teachers separately. Finally, the use of a non-representative convenience
sample of participants may affect generalizability of results. Since the sample was
composed of volunteers recruited from only one public school there may be a threat to
8
external validity and results cannot be generalized to the rest of the adolescent
population.
Organization of the Thesis
The current chapter provided an overview of this study of adolescents’ use of
social support in response to bullying. Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature
related to bullying, such as types of bullying, bullying roles, gender differences, and
different social support strategies. Chapter 3 explains the methods used in this research.
Chapter 4 reports the results of the data analyses. Finally, chapter 5 presents a summary
of the findings, discussion of the limitations, and suggestions for further research.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Traditional Bullying
Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior that is repeated over time, characterized
by an intent to do harm, and imposed from a position of power such that it is difficult for
the victim to defend themselves or stop the bullying (Craig et al., 2007; Espelage &
Swearer, 2003). Traditional bullying can involve verbal acts (e.g. threats, insults),
physical acts (e.g. hits, pushes, spitting), or aggression that uses relationships, commonly
called relational aggression (e.g. social exclusion, malicious gossip) (Crick & Gropeter,
1995; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Bullying is considered direct when it is done face-toface or indirect when it is behind someone’s back, uses other people or technology to
harm, or causes distress without confrontation (Craig et al. 2007; Due et al., 2005;
Rothon et al., 2011).
Bullying is a significant issue in the lives of many school students (McElearney et
al., 2008). About 32% of U.S. adolescents report being bullied at school (National Crime
Victimization Survey, 2007). But the effects of bullying are not limited to victims.
Traditional bullying may cause serious short- and long-term negative consequences for
all participants in the bullying scene (Due et al., 2005; McElearney et al., 2008). Victims
may report more internalizing symptoms, such as anxiety, depression and loneliness as a
10
result of being bullied (Nishina, Juvonen & Witkow, 2005). Bullies may demonstrate a
higher level of externalizing problems such as delinquent, rule-breaking and aggressive
behavior (Due et al., 2005; Menesini, Modena & Tani, 2009; Nishina et al., 2005; Rothon
et al., 2011). Bully-victims seem to be a particularly high-risk group (Holt & Espelage,
2007) with studies indicating that bully-victims may exhibit higher levels of the
internalizing and externalizing behaviors exhibited by bullies and victims but also show
poorer social skills (Menesini et al., 2009).
Cyber Bullying
Cyber bullying is defined as “ any behavior performed through electronic or
digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive
messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). It is
similar to relational and verbal bullying where bullies use messages, pictures, and
webpages to spread rumors, insults, secrets, or threats to hurt or socially exclude their
victims (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Raskauskas, 2010). About 20-40% of adolescents
have experienced cyber bullying at least once in their lives according to recent
publications (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Tokunaga, 2010).
Unlike traditional bullying, a cyber-bullying attack is not constrained by any
physical location (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Tokunaga, 2010). Cyber bullying victims
claimed to be affected by the online behaviors not only at school but also at home, or
with friends (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). This is due to the
11
mobility of the technology used to commit cyber bullying. In a large Internet-based
survey by Patchin and Hinduja (2006), 30% of respondents reported having been cyber
bullied on their cell phones and/or computers. Access and frequent use of technology,
such as access to a cell phone (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006), having a computer in one’s
bedroom (Law, Shapka & Olson, 2010), having an active profile on social networking
sites, and participation in chat rooms (Mesch, 2009) increase the likelihood that students
will engage in cyber bullying
Even though most of the research on cyber bullying is in its infancy, studies have
already demonstrated that cyber bullying can have lasting social and psychological
effects on victims. It can vary from trivial levels of distress to severe mental,
psychological and social problems (Tokunaga, 2010). While cyber bullies behavior can
be related to delinquency (Dilmac, 2009; Hay, Meldrum & Mann, 2010; Oh & Hazler,
2009), cyber victims’ behavior may be associated with internalizing distress, such as
increased social anxiety ( Juvonen & Gross, 2008), low self-esteem (Patchin & Hinduja,
2010), depression (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) and self-harm (Hay & Meldrum, 2009; Hay,
Meldrum & Mann, 2010). In Raskauskas (2010), 38% of text-message victims reported
feeling anxious and depressed and text-victims reported significantly more depression
than non-victims (Raskauskas, 2010). In other studies, cyber victims reported feeling sad
and powerless to stop anonymous harassment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Raskauskas &
Stoltz, 2007). Because cyber bullying is elusive and harder to stop, social support may be
both more important to buffering against negative effects and less effective in preventing
future victimization than in traditional bullying. Students who are text bullied are often
12
reluctant to turn off their phones or to report the harassment. The fear of phones being
taken away inhibits them from telling others and thus increases their feelings of
hopelessness to stop the harassment (Raskauskas, 2010). Adolescents may also perceive
their parents as unable to stop the bullying if they know less about technology (Holt &
Espelage, 2007; Oliver & Candappa, 2007) or potentially making it worse if they take
ineffective action (Oliver & Candappa, 2007Adults are often unaware of adolescents’
online interactions which limits their ability to observe and supervise them. Therefore,
cyber bullying is generally outside of the regulatory reach of parents and teachers, and
adult help can be provided only when the victims themselves seek it (Patchin & Hinduja,
2006; Tokanuga, 2010).
Differences and Similarities Between Traditional and Cyber Bullying
Bullying is a significant issue in the lives of many school students (McElearney et
al., 2008). Both traditional and cyber bullying intend to inflict repeated harm on victims
who find it difficult to defend themselves or stop the bullying (Braig et al, 2007;
Expelage & Swearer, 2003; Tokunaga, 2010). While traditional and cyber bullies use
different methods to harm their victims, cyber bullying is similar to relational and verbal
bullying where bullies use pictures, messages, and webpages to spread rumors, secrets,
insults, and threats to socially exclude their victims (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007;
Raskauskas, 2010). Both traditional and cyber bullying can cause negative consequences
for all involved participants (Due et al., 2005; McElearney et al., 2008). Victims of
13
traditional and cyber bullying may suffer from internalizing symptoms, such as
depression, loneliness, and social anxiety (Dilmac, 2009; Hay et al., 2010:Nishina et al,
2005; Oh & Hazler, 2009; Tokunage, 2010), whereas traditional and cyber bullies may
demonstrate higher delinquency and rule-breaking behaviors (Due et al, 2005; Nishina et
al., 2005; Rothon et al., 2011).
Examining the possible differences between traditional and cyber bullying can
help us better understand the role or the help seeking strategy adolescents may choose
when they encounter bullying. Wolak, Mitchell and Finkelhor (2007) suggest that online
bullying is not as intimidating as traditional bullying since the victims are not exposed to
face-to-face aggression. Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) dispute this finding, arguing in
contrast that electronic bullying may have a bigger impact due to the anonymous nature
of harassment where students do not know the identity of their bully and feel powerless
to stop it. Furthermore, while traditional bullying takes place mainly on school grounds,
cyber bullies use their access to the electronic world to harass their victims both at school
and beyond the school ground (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006) and can make them feel unsafe
even in their own homes (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Since cyber bullying is more
elusive and harder to detect by adults (Dehue et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2008) and many
cyber victims are reluctant to report such incidents (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006;
Raskauskas, 2010), the opportunity that those victims have for social support may be
more limited.
Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) identified some areas of overlap between traditional
and cyber bullying. For example, traditional victims were often also electronic victims.
14
In addition, some Internet victims were engaged themselves in traditional bullying
behaviors such as physical bullying, teasing, rumor spreading, and exclusion. According
to Patchin and Hinduja (2006), cyberspace and life in the real world are often
inseparable; adolescents spend their days at school with the same friends they chat with
online at night. Thus there is no clear separation between the incidents that happen at
school during the day and the rumor spreading, name-calling, threats, or gossip that
circulate online.
Bullying Roles
Past research about bullying has focused primarily on the roles and behaviors of
bullies and victims. More recent studies have brought attention to another important
group - the bully-victims group (also known as aggressive victims). Preliminary studies
suggest that each group has its own unique characteristics that influence the behaviors of
its members as well as relationships within and between groups. Thus there is a need for
the current research to include all three groups (bully, victim, bully-victim) in order to
create a better understanding of the bullying phenomenon.
Characteristics of Bullies
Bullies use power and control to distress others (Craig et al., 2007). They may
have more positive attitude toward violence and may use it against peers, parents, and
teachers. Male bullies are likely to be physically stronger than males in general and they
15
have the need to dominate others while showing little empathy toward victims of bullying
(Olweus, 1993). Studies indicate that somewhere between 14% and 17% of adolescents
can be categorized as bullies (Boulton & Underwood, 1993; Holt & Espelage., 2007).
Even though bullies are less prosocial, they seem to enjoy high peer acceptance within
their own bully-like group (Craig et al. 2007; Perren & Hornung, 2005; Perren &
Alsaker, 2006) but experience lower perceived teacher and parent support (Demaray &
Malecki, 2003). Holt and Espelage (2007) found that bullies often receive stronger peer
support than victims or bully-victims, particularly if they affiliate with other bullies and
form a group that supports their bullying behaviors. In contrast, bullies who belong to a
group that does not approve the use of aggression experience more rejection and lower
levels of peer social support. Several other studies confirm that bullying behavior is
correlated with a high level of externalizing problems (Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidson &
Gillberg, 2005; Menesini et al, 2009; Perren & Hornung, 2005) which results in higher
scores on delinquent and aggressive behaviors than victims and uninvolved adolescents
(Menesini et al.,2009). Olweus (1993) suggested that bullies have developed a certain
degree of hostility toward the environment and that they derive satisfaction from
inflicting injury on others.
Characteristics of Victims
Victims, on the other hand, do not condone the use of aggression. They are often
withdrawn and perceived as unable to defend themselves from the abuse of their peers
(Perren & Hornung, 2005). In a representative sample of U.S. adolescents (n=7,182),
16
Wang and colleagues (2009) found that many adolescents have been victimized by one or
more forms of bullying. Over a two month period, adolescents reported being bullied
physically (20.8%), verbally (53.6%), socially (51.4%) or electronically (13.6%).
Previous research has indicated that bullied individuals tend to be more submissive,
isolated, less sociable and cooperative, and have fewer leadership skills than non-victims
(Perren & Alsaker, 2006). They are less satisfied with their lives and feel less socially
supported by peers but more socially supported by teachers (Flaspohler et al., 2009;
Perren & Hornung, 2005). Victims are also typically less successful academically than
their non-bullied peers (Rothon et al., 2011).
Studies comparing victims, bullies and uninvolved adolescents indicate that
victims exhibit more internalizing symptoms such as withdrawal, somatic complaints,
anxiety or depression (Menesini et al., 2009; Perren & Hornung, 2005). According to
Menesini et al., stable victims (victims who have been victimized over time) report an
even greater degree of suffering than victims who have only been involved in bullying
incidents once or twice. In addition, as the duration of the bullying increases, the
victim’s ability to stop the bullying seems to decrease and internalizing problems increase
(Due et al., 2005; Perren & Hornung, 2005).
It is unclear from the research how social support may reduce bullying or mitigate
its effects for victims. While Rothon et al. (2011) found that adolescents who have high
levels of peer social support are less likely to be bullied; Holt and Espelage (2007) claim
that high levels of peer social support do not help buffer victims against bullying.
However, research on traditional bullying indicates that being in the company of at least
17
one friend has been found to significantly decrease the likelihood of being victimized
(Hodges & Perry, 1999; Rothon et al., 2011). Associations with friends who can provide
protection or comfort against bullying is buffering, while having friends with low social
skills who are not capable of providing protection can contribute to internalizing
problems and victimization (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Further
studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of social support in preventing and
minimizing the effects of bullying. The present study sought to gain a better
understanding of how social support is used by adolescents involved in bullying.
Characteristics of Bully-Victims
Adolescents who engage in bullying and are bullied by others are called
aggressive victims or bully-victims (Perren & Hornung, 2005). Bully-victims often
demonstrate reactive aggression; they respond to provocations since they perceive hostile
intent in others. They are also more aggressive than bullies (Demaray & Malecki, 2003;
Perren & Assaker, 2006). According to several studies, bully-victims are a particularly
high-risk group (Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Holt & Espelage, 2007); they demonstrate
higher levels of criminal thinking and reactive aggression (Ragatz, Anderson, Fremouw
& Schwartz, 2011), problems in peer relations (O’brennan, Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2009),
and the poorest psychological health and school attitudes in relation to bullies, victims, or
uninvolved students (Stein, Dukes &Warren, 2007) . These symptoms may lead them to
choose delinquent pathways that might result in maladjustment (Perren & Hornung,
2005). Menesini et al. (2009) reported that bully-victims exhibited higher levels of
18
externalizing and internalizing problems. This is because bully-victims tend to show a
bully-like profile for externalizing problems (e.g. aggressive and delinquent behavior) as
well as a victim-like profile for internalizing problems (e.g. anxiety, depression,
withdrawal). In Flaspohler et al.’s study of bullying groups (2009), bully-victims
consistently fared the worst, reporting less life satisfaction and less social support from
teachers and peers than bullies, victims, or uninvolved students.
Social Support
Social support has been defined as “information leading the subject to believe that
he is cared for and loved, esteemed, and a member of a network of mutual obligations”
(Cobb, 1976, p. 300). Supportive interactions among people are found to be protective
against many life stresses (Cobb, 1976). However, many children who experience
bullying do not seek or share social support (McElearney et al., 2008). Even though
victims/ bully-victims place greater importance on social support than other groups, they
report lower levels of perceived social support (Demaray & Malecki, 2003). Victims also
perceive their coping strategies (e.g. self-defense, stand up to the bully, seek social
support) as mostly being ineffective in reducing bullying (Tenenbaum, Varjas, Meyers &
Parris, 2011). However, victims may tend to seek more social support in cases of direct
bullying where showing evidence is easier (e.g. physical bullying) rather than in indirect
bullying (e.g.relational bullying, psychological bullying, verbal bullying, social
exclusion) which may be more manipulative and harder to prove unless others have
19
witnessed the bullying (Kristensen & Smith ,2003). Smith and Shu (2000) found that
30% of victims tell no one about the bullying. In some cases, victims may fear being
made fun of or being labeled as a tattle-tale or mama’s boy (Oliver & Candappa, 2007,)
while in other cases victims are afraid that involving an adult would upset the bully and
increase the bullying (Tenenbaum et al., 2011). Older victims who are developing a
greater sense of personal autonomy as they reach adolescence may try to solve bullying
issues on their own (Kristensen & Smith, 2003; Oliver & Candappa 2007).
A complex process of risk assessment is involved in the process of deciding
whether to tell others about bullying and who to tell. The adolescent needs to understand
the social dynamics that operate in their everyday school and family lives in order to
decide if telling is risky or helpful (Oliver et al., 2007). In addition, adolescents’ social
support systems go through change, with closeness and intimacy with parents declining
in adolescence and friendships becoming more valuable, intimate, and supportive
(Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). These changes may influence adolescents’ decisions
about whom to approach for support when bullying occurs.
Below the existing literature on use of parents, teachers and peers as social
support is reviewed. The literature about gender differences in social support and the
positive effects of social support are also presented.
Parents
Family functioning variables, such as social support, discipline, monitoring,
structure, and beliefs have a role in the exposure of the child to community violence
20
(Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004; Lynch & Cicchetti, 2002; Proctor, 2006).
According to Hammack, Richards, Edlynn, and Roy (2004) variables such as, maternal
closeness and the time spent with family had a protective-stabilizing effect in the lives of
adolescents, while adolescents who felt less secure with their caregivers and reported
higher levels of separation anxiety and negative maternal behavior were associated with
more exposure to community violence (Lynch & Cicchetti ,2002). Similarly, GormanSmith et al. (2004) found that youth from struggling families who were consistently
exposed to poor parenting practices and low levels of emotional cohesion were more
likely to be exposed to community violence, which was also related to later violence
perpetration. Familial social support can buffer the relation between violence exposure
and anxiety (Kliewer, Murrelle, Mejia, De G., & Angold, 2001) as well as weaken the
association between violent exposure and poor child outcomes (Proctor, 2006).
Families are a source of support that protects and buffers adolescents against the
risk of peer victimization (Rothon et al., 2011; Stadler, Feifel, Rohrmann, Vermeiren &
Poustka, 2010). Parental support may protect adolescents from all forms of bullying, such
as physical, verbal, relational, and cyber (Wang et al., 2009). For example, parents can
promote their children’s social development by inviting friends over, role-playing social
situations, and getting involved in social organizations that promote the child’s strengths.
They can also enhance their child’s physical development by encouraging the child to
participate in individual sports, such as swimming, running, or karate (team sports might
increase social rejection)(Crothers & Kolbert, 2008). Smith, Twemlow, and Hoover
(1999) found that children who could not appreciate the harm they inflicted on others had
21
parents who did not spent time with them, read to them, or provided them with structured
and consistent environment. Relationship with parents affected the way bullies and
victims saw and experienced their lives.
When available, parental support helps buffer children from the negative
outcomes of bullying victimization and also promotes children’s resilience to it (Bowes et
al., 2010).It is particularly effective in protecting peer-victimized girls (Stadler et al.,
2010) and reducing all adolescents’ depression symptoms (Conners-Burrow, Johnson,
Whiteside-Mansell, Mckelrey & Gargus, 2009).
Unfortunately, students’ willingness to share bullying experiences with parents
declines over time. In their research, Oliver et al. (2007) found that 78% of fifth graders
felt it was ‘quite easy’ or ‘very easy’ to share information about bullying with their
parents as compared to only 58% of eight graders. Even though children appreciate their
parents’ support and guidance, they are wary of parents who are over protective. Such
parents may take an action that is against the child’s wishes, which undermines the
child’s autonomy and can result in a more stressful situation at school (Oliver et al.,
2007). Rothon et al. (2001) found that parental social support is most effective when it is
done in a moderate way and in conjunction with the child.
Conversely, other studies imply that parental social support is not highly effective
in deterring bullying. Holt and Espelage (2007) found that maternal social support does
not buffer against bullying since adolescents do not share bullying experiences with their
mothers or access support from them. This lack of effectiveness is particularly evident
with cyber bullying, where the fear of parents’ restrictions deters youth from sharing their
22
online bullying experiences. In one study, 90% of adolescents reported not telling adults
about online aggression; the primary reason reported for not telling parents was the fear
that parents would restrict their use of electronic devices in order to prevent further
bullying incidents (Juvonen & Gross, 2008).
Teachers
In general, children tend not to share their experiences of bullying with adults,
and this is even more the case with their teachers. Children believe that telling teachers is
the riskiest course of action and this belief strengthens as children mature. In Oliver et
al.’s study (2007), 51% of fifth graders reported they would inform their teachers about
bullying as compared to 31% of eight graders. There are several reasons why students
may not approach teachers for help. Victims are concerned that teachers may share the
information with others in a way that will trigger retaliation or hurt their reputation with
their peer. Adolescents especially value secrecy from friends about matters that occur
and to breech this confidence even to get help can get you labeled as a “snitch” within the
peer group. Victims also fear that severe consequences to the bullies will only escalate
the bullying and present a further risk for the victims (Oliver et al., 2007; Tenenbaum et
al., 2011). However, it has been shown that teachers that respond effectively can get
students to seek their help. Once adolescents perceive teachers’ ability to resolve a
conflict as effective they may choose to approach the teachers for support rather than
retaliate in aggression (Aceves, Hinshaw, Mendoza-Denton & Page-Gould, 2010).
23
Even though adolescents tend not to share bullying experiences with their
teachers, those who do experience lower incidences of emotional and behavioral
problems as compared to adolescents with low levels of teacher support (Yeung &
Leadbeater, 2010). Studies of victims’ reports suggest that teachers are more helpful in
dealing with bullying than family or peers most likely because of their authority role
within the school (Smith & Shu, 2000). Other reasons teachers are good sources of
support for children being bullied: (1) Teachers are often the first, or only, adults on the
scene that can respond immediately and offer help; (2) Teachers provide an extrafamilial
source of support for adolescents who are seeking more autonomy from parents in
solving their problems (Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010).
Teachers use different practices to assist victims of bullying. In Stauffer, Heath,
Coyne and Ferrin (2012), teachers who were aware of cyber bullying tended to talk with
the cyber bully and the victim while some took away the cyber bully’s privileges if the
bullying happened at school. A school in Kansas (Smith et al., 1999) with the highest
state retention rates offered its students a special program called “Gentle Warriors” where
students learned martial arts techniques, coping skills, meditation, and self-control that
led to improved self-esteem and anger control. Crothers & Kolbert (2008) suggest that
teachers can encourage victims to establish social connections and focus more on the
effort rather than the result. They can instruct victims to use more confident body
language, positive thinking, and verbal strategies to deal with bullying. They may also
help victims’ parents develop a perspective of their child as competent, able to deal with
bullying incidents, and able to develop friendships with guided assistance.
24
Peers
Victims perceive that telling peers of bullying experiences is a less risky option
than telling parents or teachers, and the likelihood of their doing so remains consistently
high as victims get older (Oliver et al., 2007). Oliver et al. reported that 68% of 5th
graders and 71% of 8th graders find it ‘quite easy’ or ‘very easy’ to share bullying
experiences with friends, because they believe that the emotional support of a friendship
can help them cope better with bullying (Flaspohler et al., 2009; Oliver et al., 2007). It
may also be easier since peers are likely to have seen or be aware of the bullying already.
Peer social support can also help to reduce occurrences of bullying. Peer support
can protect adolescents from being selected as targets of bullies because adolescents with
more friends are less likely to be victims (Wang et al., 2009; Rothon et al., 2011).
Having the support of a best friend may also decrease victimization (Holt & Espelage,
2007) and buffer against the negative consequences of bullying (Woods, Done & Kalsi,
2009), such as social withdrawal, anxiety or depression (Menesini et al., 2009). However,
research suggests that there are gender effects related to peer support. In their study,
Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) found that peer support benefitted mainly
nonvictimized boys (and victimized girls), who received more support, sympathy, and
help from peers than did victimized boys. Thus, one purpose of the present study was to
examine the role of gender in peer support.
25
Gender
Females and males differ in the way they perceive and react to bullying. Males
seem to be more involved in direct bullying such as physical and verbal forms while
indirect bullying such as relational or social victimization is more common among
females (Craig et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2009). Females may be bullied by either females
or males, while males are bullied mainly by males (Smith & Shu, 2000). Some research
indicates that males are more likely to be cyber bullies and females are more likely to be
cyber victims (Mesch, 2009; Wang et al., 2009) while other research has shown no
significant differences in victim gender (Raskauskas, 2010; Smith et al., 2008).
Females are more likely to seek help from others (Hunter et al., 2004; Smith &
Shu, 2000) by telling a parent, sibling, school staff or another student (Craig et al., 2007).
Hunter et al. (2004) found that 86% of female victims tell someone about the
victimization as compared to 64% of male victims. Females were more likely to view
support as the best strategy of stopping the bullying, and sharing it with others helps them
feel better. According to Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) peer social support is
more effective for victimized females than for victimized males. Asking for a peer’s help
seems to buffer victimized females from social problems, but seems to lead to a lower
peer preference for males. Therefore, males tend to choose more confrontational
strategies to stop the bullying, such as physical aggression, humor, revenge, distracting or
ignoring the bully, while females rely more on social support (Craig et al., 2007).
Females seem to be less affected by the stress of bullying (Rothon et al., 2011), most
likely due to their greater dependence on outside social support.
26
Positive Effects of Social support
Parents, peers, and teachers’ social support can help decrease the negative effects
bullying may have on involved adolescents (Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Flaspohler et
al, 2009; Rothon et al, 2011; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010). High levels of family social
support are important in promoting good mental health (Rothon et. al., 2011) and
resilience to bullying victimization (Bonanno & Hymel, 2010; Bowes et. al, 2010).
Family support can reduce the levels of adolescents’ behavioral and emotional problems
(Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010) and protect victims from maladjustment (Stadler et. al.,
2010). It may also moderate the relationship between victimization and internalizing
distress for females (Davidson & Demaray, 2007) and protect all adolescents from
physical, verbal, relational, and cyber bullying (Wang et. al, 2009).
High levels of peers social support provide the strongest buffer against the
negative effects of bullying (Flaspohler et. al, 2009); it can protect victims from poor
academic achievement (Rothon et. al, 2011) and may reduce anxiety and depression
symptoms among bullies, victims, and bully-victims (Holt & Espelage , 2007). Close
friends were found to moderate the relationship between victimization and externalizing
distress from bullying for females (Davidson & Demaray, 2007) and inhibit peer
victimization for all youth (Ladd et al., 2011).
Teachers’ social support was also found to buffer against the effects of
victimization (Flaspohler et al, 2009; Stadler et. al, 2010). Teachers’ emotional support
was associated with lower levels of adolescents’ behavioral and emotional problems
27
(Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010) and was found to moderate the relationship between
victimization and internalizing distress from bullying (Davidson & Demaray, 2007).
Even though the positive effects of social support have been studied vastly, there
seems to be little research regarding the strategies and choices adolescents make as they
seek help from these available social supports. This study therefore examined who
adolescents turn to (peers, teachers, or parents) when they encounter or witness
traditional or cyber bullying. Additionally, the study investigated whether adolescents’
help seeking strategies were influenced by factors such as the adolescent’s role in the
bullying, the type of bullying, or the gender of the participant.
Theoretical Framework
In order to understand some aspects of bullying better, the following section will
review Bandura’s social cognitive theory that may help explain how social networks can
influence bullying behaviors and adolescents’ perceptions of bullying and aggression.
According to Bandura’s social cognitive model (Bandura, 1996 as cited in Card,
2011) experimental and observational learning in different contexts, such as home, peers
or school influences aggressive behavior on three cognitive components. The first
cognitive component is self-efficacy and the ability of the aggressor to enact aggression.
The second component is the outcome expectation and the belief that the aggression will
result in positive outcome for the aggressor. The third component is the outcome values
for the aggression and the perceived desirability that can be obtained via the use of
28
aggression. The outcomes of the model are subjective and depend upon the interaction
between the three components called reciprocal determinism.
Individuals are social beings who seek and appreciate another’s
acknowledgement, comfort, and support. For example, children seek the feeling of
acceptance and pride of others such as parents and their development is greatly
influenced by them (Berger, 2006; Miller, 2011). According to Bandura, people learn
through cognitive processes where observed or learned behaviors are mentally
manipulating and interpreted in the context of the child’s perceived ability and feedback
from those around them (Flaspohler et al., 2009; Miller, 2011; Oliver et al., 2007).
Adolescents are more influenced by modeling and feedback from peers than other age
groups. Thus, adolescents who are associated with peer aggression behavior may also
demonstrate aggression because they model the behavior of their aggressive friends
(Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach & Urger, 2004).
People who are perceived by adolescents as having high status, competence, and
power are more likely to be imitated (Miller, 2011). Children have the ability to abstract
general concept from observing specific behaviors. Once they reproduce the behaviors
they have seen and receive feedback they process the information and decide how to
behave in similar future instances accordingly (Miller, 2011). For example, the
reinforcement bullies may get from their surroundings serves as an incentive which
encourages them (or discourages them) to continue with the behavior if it provided them
with self-satisfaction, competence, or attention from others. Bandura believed that
viewing aggression, especially if it is not punished, leads to imitation that may cause/
29
increase further aggression (Miller, 2011) Mouttapa et al. (2004)(YEAR?) found that
aggressive adolescents had friends who were also aggressive while nonaggressive
adolescents were more associated with other nonaggressive adolescents and were
involved in less aggressive behaviors. This set up provides bullies and bully-victims with
both modeling and reinforcement for their aggressive behavior (Craig et al. 2007; Perren
& Alsaker, 2006; Perren & Hornung, 2005).
Gender can also influence the type of aggression adolescents decide to engage in.
Gender development is influenced from the interaction between interpersonal, behavioral,
and social influences that includes parents, peers, teachers, and other social institutions
(Miller, 2011). Even though biological factors are important, individuals are greatly
influenced by observational learning, self-regulation, and socialization (Miller, 2011).
This may explain why males tend to be more physically aggressive than females (Wang
et al., 2009) whereas females tend to engage more in indirect forms of bullying, such as
social exclusion or rumor spreading (Craig et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2009). Even though
females and males may be exposed to similar models in society and the media, the
behaviors they observe other females engaging in and being rewarded for will be indirect
aggression and for males direct aggression. The youth are more likely to take on and use
the behaviors modeled by the gender they identify with (Miller, 2011). Social inhibitions
also effect the amount of support adolescents get and perceive from their peers which
affects the way adolescents react to bullying. It is more socially acceptable for females to
be vulnerable in front of their friends than males, therefore females are more likely to
30
view support as a viable option in stopping the bullying, and sharing it with others helps
them feel better than males (Craig et al., 2007; Hunter et al., 2004; Smith & Shu, 2000).
According to Bandura, individuals’ self-efficacy is connected to their perceptions
and interpretations of how they see themselves within their social context. It is their
belief in their own ability to succeed at a new task or in a new situation, a belief that is
related to their self-understanding, self-confidence, social reflection, and feelings on how
competent they are in dealing with their environment (Berger, 2006; Miller, 2011).
Femalesperceive their peers as supportive when it comes to victimization (Craig et al.,
2007; Hunter et al., 2004; Smith & Shu, 2000) which should make them rate their selfefficacy in getting support from peers higher.
Adolescents with low self-efficacy tend to attribute their failure to low ability
which may deter them from trying again. High self- efficacy is essential for persisting in
the face of challenge (Miller, 2011). Adolescents who have high self-efficacy for
aggression tend to use aggression with their peers in order to reach their goals (Miller,
2011). Victims, on the other hand, do not have high self-efficacy in their ability to stop
the bullying; they perceive their coping strategies as mostly being ineffective in reducing
bullying which may deter them from using social support strategies (Tenenbaum et al.,
2011). Social self-efficacy can be affected by the duration of bullying; the longer the
abuse continues the more powerless and unable to defend themselves adolescents
perceive they are (Perren & Hornung, 2005). In addition, type of bullying also affects
adolescents social self-efficacy; adolescents tend to perceive social support with direct
bullying as more effective than with indirect types of bullying (e.g. relational bullying,
31
verbal bullying) since direct bullying is easier to prove (Kristensen & Smith ,2003) and
thus get others’ support.
Besides self-efficacy, a person has an agency that influences his behavior,
thoughts, emotions, and one’s course of development (Miller, 2011). Once an adolescent
has a peer self-efficacy, he will have the agency to approach a friend for social support in
case of bullying. According to Bandura, there are four core properties of human agency:
intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness (Miller, 2011). First,
people form goals and plan to reach them. Then, thinking about future goals motivates
them to carry out their plans. They regulate themselves to achieve their goal in selfreflectiveness. Finally, they reflect on their self-efficacy on achieving their goals and
adjust their actions if necessary. We can apply this model to social support efficacy; if the
goal of an adolescent is to achieve peers’ acceptance and attention, bullying may be a
route to choose. To get maximum support, the bully may affiliate himself with other
bullies who encourage the abuse (Craig et al. 2007; Perren & Hornung, 2005; Perren &
Alsaker, 2006). The bully will repeat the abuse and even ‘improve’ his techniques based
on the social cues he gets from other bullies and the victim himself. On the other hand,
Aceves et al. (2010) found that a victim whose goal is to stop the bullying may choose to
approach a teacher for social support if that teacher has proved to be affective in dealing
with similar situations in the past. The victim assess the teacher’s social support and once
it seems to be affective he may get motivated to do so by regulating his behavior to
approach the teacher for support rather than retaliate in aggression.
32
Implications for the Present Study
This review has presented an overview of the types and roles of bullying, and the
various social supports adolescents may seek when they are involved in bullying.
Although the research shows that all forms of social support (parents, teachers, peers) can
help reduce life stress and buffer the risk of bullying victimization, the benefit degree of
social support may change due to factors of gender, age, or the source of the social
support. There continues to be a lack of research regarding which source of support
adolescents approach when they seek help once they encounter bullying.
The literature also suggests important differences in how adolescents perceive the
different options they have for receiving social support. Adolescents may perceive
telling peers of bullying experiences as a better and safer option than telling parents or
teachers (Oliver et al., 2007). There also appear to be gender differences in support
seeking. Female adolescents may view social support as the best strategy of stopping the
bullying (Hunter et al., 2004) while males may choose more confrontational strategies
(Craig et al., 2007). Further research is needed to examine social help seeking, its reasons
and effects on adolescents.
Considering the previous research, the overall aim of this study was to examine
which sources of social support adolescents seek when they are confronted with bullying
as well as their self-efficacy or perceived ability to elicit support when needed. In
addition, the research examined whether there were differences in help seeking
behaviors related to an adolescent’s gender or to bullying role (victim, bully, bully-
33
victim, uninvolved). Since students today may be victims of either traditional or cyber
bullying, the researcher also sought to determine whether there were differences in help
seeking behavior related to the type of bullying experienced. An additional question of
interest was whether help seeking or giving was influenced by the individual’s role in the
bullying incident. A better understanding of how adolescents seek and provide social
support will help schools and families prevent all forms of bullying and mitigate its
effects.
34
Chapter 3
METHODS
Design of the Study
This research was based on a secondary data analysis of 66 7th and 8th grade
students from a single junior high school in Northern California. Participants completed
two self-report surveys that provided information about their academic achievements,
traditional/ cyber bullying and victimization, and actual social support, as well as social
self-efficacy at and outside of school. This study used a correlational design to examine
relationships between variables with actual social support and social self-efficacy and see
if these relationships differ by groups, specifically in terms of gender differences, role in
bullying, and type of bullying.
Research Questions
There seems to be a lack in research that focuses on who adolescents turn to for
social support, their help seeking strategies and social self-efficacy. Therefore, the main
questions that were examined are:
1.
Who do adolescent report utilizing for actual social support around
bullying and what is their self-efficacy for obtaining support?
35
2.
Do differences in social support access or efficacy emerge by gender?
3.
Do differences in social support emerge by role in the bullying (victim,
bully, bully-victim, uninvolved)?
4.
Do differences in social support emerge by type of bullying/
victimization experienced (traditional/ cyber)?
5.
Is there a correlation between perceived academic support and social
support efficacy?
In addition, prosocial behavior was examined in relation to role in bullying and
social self-efficacy.
Participants
All students in 7th and 8th grades at a single middle school who had courses from
the teacher hosting the study were invited to participate (Approximately 150 students).
66 students completed the surveys which was a 44% participate rate. Student participants
were 12 to 14 years old (M=12.8, SD= 0.6); 72% studied in the 7th grade while 25%
studied in the 8th grade. 52% of the participants were female and 46% were male.
The school the sample was drawn from was middle-to-upper socioeconomic
status. 58% of students at the school have parents who have attended college and 32%
have a college degree. Only 52% of students qualified for free and reduced lunch. The
ethnic breakdown of the school was 28% Hispanic, 26% White, 24% African American,
and 22% Asian/Pacific Islander. Even though it was a public school, students had to pass
36
admission tests for enrollment since the school focused on technology and offered
advanced technological programs. When asked how they would consider their academic
performance at school, only 6% perceived their grades to be below average level while
82% self-reported getting Bs and above.
The present study was conducted with the pilot data from a larger research
project. It includes the data from students in 7th and 8th grades at a single middle school
who had courses from the teacher hosting the study. In the present study, the researcher
conducted a secondary data analysis based on the work of my sponsor, Dr. Juliana
Raskauskas. This is an ongoing study visiting middle schools to collect data on bullying
and social cognitive factors over time. The pilot school is used in this study because it
was the only school from which complete data had been collected at the start of this
thesis.
Measure
Dr. Raskauskas’ study employed a quantitative correlational survey design using
two self-report questionnaires (Appendix B). The surveys were drawn from existing
measures or scales. The first survey included items from five measures: The Children
Social Behavior Scale (Crick & Grotepeter, 1995), the Being Bullied Scale of Ladd and
Kochenderfer (1996), the Aggression Questionnaire ( Buss & Perry, 1992), the
Attributions about Bullying scale (Raskauskas, 2005), and The Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). In this survey, some questions were
37
about rumor-spreading, exclusion, hitting, pushing or name calling others, while other
questions focused on offering help or caring for peers. Students also chose which
individuals they reached for help and how often they bullied or were bullied.
The second survey included items from the following measures: the Adolescent
Egocentrism Scale (Enright, Lapsley, & Shukla, 1979), the Children’s Self-Efficacy
Scale (Bandura, 2006), and the Gray Scale (1969) which examined cognitive reasoning of
youth aged 6-18. In this survey, some of the questions were about who the participants
turned to for help and how confident, supportive, friendly, or self-conscious they believed
they were. In addition, the second survey included four hypothetical items that assessed
passive-aggression (e.g. “What types of rumors do people usually start at your school?”,
“Why would someone do this?”, “How would that make you feel?”, “What would you do
about it?”).
The participants also reported demographic information related to their grade
level, gender, academic performance, absenteeism, and technology access at the
beginning of each survey. To enhance confidentiality participants used a code rather than
their names. The questions/data sources used in the current study are described in more
detail in the next section.
Data Sources and Instruments
Social Support Actual. Items were added to the bullying measures asking
students if they had ever accessed social support when being picked on. Items included
four questions about accessing help from a teacher, parents, classmates or best friends.
38
These items, which had “Yes” or “No” answers, were taken from the Ladd and
Kochenderfer scale (1996) and were used to examine which social sources (e.g. parents,
teachers, classmates, best friends) participants used when they were exposed to bullying.
Social Self-Efficacy. The researcher used four items to examine participants’
social self- efficacy from adults or peers in relation to social problems and schoolwork.
The items were taken from Bandura’s Children’s Self-Efficacy Scale (2006) and
examined the degree of confidence participants had to (1) Get teachers to help when they
got stuck on schoolwork; (2) Get another student to help when they got stuck on
schoolwork; (3) Get adults to help when they had social problems; (4) Get a friend to
help when they had social problems. The answers where rated in a 0 (“Cannot do it at
all”) to a 100 (“Highly certain I can do it”) scale and were used to examine if actual
social support correlated with social support efficacy and whether efficacy in getting help
on schoolwork correlated with efficacy in getting social support from adults or peers.
Bullying and Victimization. This study used only the questions that related
directly to the research. In order to examine aggression The Children’s Social Behavior
Scale of Crick and Grotpeter (1995) was divided into three subscales. The mean of five
items was used to create the relational aggression subscale. “Some kids tell lies about a
classmate so that the other kids won’t like the classmate anymore. How often do you do
this?” is an example of a relational aggression item. The physical aggression subscale
was computed by using the mean of two items, for example: “Some kids hit other kids at
school. How often do you do this? “Verbal aggression included one item: “Some kids
yell at others and call them mean names. How often do you do this? “Survey A also
39
included a cyber-bullying subscale that used the mean of three items, for instance: “Some
kids post mean things about others in chatrooms or on group sites like MySpace or
Facebook. How often do you do this? “Participants rated their answers on a Likert scale:
Never (1), Almost Never (2), Sometimes (3), Almost All the Time (4), and All the Time
(5).
The researcher also examined four types of victimization. The physical
victimization subscale was computed by taking the mean of two items, for instance:
“Since January how often have you been pushed around or hit at school?” The relational
victimization subscale was also computed by taking the mean of two items. An example
for such an item is: “Since January how often have kids said mean things about you to
other kids behind your back?” The researcher used one item to examine verbal
victimization: “Since January how often have kids said mean things to you at school?”
Three items were used to compute the cyber victimization subscale, for example: “Since
January how often have you been bullied in chatrooms or group sited like MySpace or
Facebook?” Participants rated their answers in a Likert scale: Not at All (1), Only Once
(2), 2 or 3 Times (3), Once a Week (4), and More than Once a Week (5).
In order to examine role in bullying in relation to social support, the researcher
created new variables: bully, victim, bully-victim, and uninvolved. First, the researcher
examined the reliability among the bully scale (M =.18, SD = .39,  = .74) and the victim
scale (M =.76, SD=.84,  =.88). The victim scale was composed of 8 items that included
physical, verbal, relational, and cyber victimization (Appendix B). Answers included a 5option Likert scale: (1) Not At All, (2) Only Once, (3) 2 or 3 Times, (4) Once a Week, (5)
40
More Than Once a Week. Participants who were considered ‘victims’ were the ones who
chose options 3, 4, and 5. The bully scale was composed of 11 items about physical,
relational, verbal, and cyber bullying (Appendix B). Answers included a Likert scale of
(1) Never, (2) Almost Never, (3) Sometimes, (4) Almost All the Time, (5) All the Time.
‘Bullies’ were the ones who chose options 3, 4, and 5. ‘Uninvolved’ were the ones who
chose options 1 and 2. ‘Bully-victims’ were the participants who were both ‘bullies’ and
‘victims’. A ‘Role in Bullying’ variable was composed and included the 4 different roles
(Table 1).
Table 1
Role in Bullying
Role
Percentage
Uninvolved
65.2
43
Bully
10.6
7
Victim
16.7
11
7.6
5
Bully-victim
n (Out of66)
Procedures
Data were collected in three steps over a three-week period. After permission
from the school district was obtained, researchers visited the classrooms for the first time
41
and gave a 5- minute presentation about bullying and its effects. Consent forms
(Appendix A) were sent home with students to be signed by their parents as a condition
for participation in the study. Confidentiality and the right not to participate were
explained at each visit. The researchers returned to administer the first survey a week
later and the second survey a week after that (Appendix B). Out of the 150 who were
invited to participate, 70 consent letters were returned and 66 parents/ guardians allowed
their children to participate. Out of the 66 who had permission to participate, 64 were
present the day of data collection, signed the assent form (Appendix C) and participated
in the study.
The classroom teacher was present in the classroom while the two surveys were
administered by the researchers. It took the students approximately 20-30 minutes to
complete each survey. The students who did not wish to participate in the research were
asked to move to one side of the classroom and worked individually on a classroom
assignment, while the students who took the survey were seated in the two to three right
rows of the classroom. Students who handed in the survey got a ‘glow-in-the-dark’
silicone bracelet with the words “Safe Schools for All” printed on it.
42
Chapter 4
RESULTS
In this study, the researcher examined who adolescents turned to when they
experienced bully victimization and whether their choice of support differed by type of
bullying (traditional or cyber), role in the bullying (bully, victim, bully-victim,
uninvolved) or gender of the victim and/or the aggressor. The choice of support refers to
actual support (Table 2) and self-efficacy support (Table 3).The researcher presents the
results of the survey in this chapter, using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Table 2
Access of Actual Support (N=59)
______________________________________________________________________
Actual Support of
Percentage
M
SD
________________________________________________________________________
Parents
27.9
.44
.50
Teachers
16.2
.26
.45
Peers
17.6
.29
.46
Best friends
41.2
.65
.48
43
Table 3
Social and Academic Percentage of Participants Reporting High* Self-Efficacy (N=59)
Self-Efficacy Items
Percentage
M
SD
Teachers’ Schoolwork
26.5
66.75
29.73
Peers’ Schoolwork
20.6
64.63
31.25
Adults’ Social Support
14.7
48.02
35.62
Peers’ Social Support
17.6
59.81
33.69
Note. * High Self-efficacy is defined as score of 80 or greater on a 100 scale.
Gender Comparisons
In order to examine gender and actual social support of teachers, parents, and
peers a chi-square test was conducted to see if the distribution of use of social support by
gender differed than expected by chance. Participants chose ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to indicate if
they approached one of the sources. No significance was found between gender and
asking teachers, parents, or classmates for social support (Table 4). However, a
significance was found between gender and asking a best friend for help, χ² (1) = 4.72, p
= 0.3. More girls asked for help from their best friends than would boys (19 girls vs. 9
boys).
44
Table 4
Gender and Actual Social Support
Teachers
Parents
Classmates
Best Friends
Male – Yes (n)
6
5
6
9
Female – Yes (n)
5
10
6
19
χ²
.83
.42
.04
4.72*
Note *p<.05
The researcher used an independent t-test to examine whether genders differed on
social self-efficacy. On a scale of 0-100 participants rated whether they would approach
adults or friends when they needed help with social problems. There was a significance
difference between female and male and adults’ social self-efficacy, t (57) = 2.11, p =
.04, d= -.56 (Table 5). Findings indicate that females reported significantly more efficacy
for getting help from adults than males. No significant differences were found for gender
and peers’ social support efficacy.
45
Table 5
Gender and Social Self-Efficacy - Adult
Adults
n
M
SD
t
p
d
Females
33
40.00
34.19
2.11
.04
-.55
Males
26
59.27
35.35
Types of Bullying
Traditional and Cyber Victimization and Actual support
Conducting a t-test, no significance was found between traditional or cyber
victimization and approaching teachers, parents, and classmates for support. However, a
statistical significance was found between cyber victimization and approaching best
friends for support, t (31) = -4.72, p = .00, d = .41. The researcher used a second t-test to
examine which of the three items of cyber victimization approached significance in
relation to approaching best friends for social support. A significant relationship was
found for adolescents who were bullied in chat rooms or group sites like MySpace or
Facebook and asking best friends for social support, t(41)= -4.87, p = .00, d = .39 (See
Table 6 for mean and standard deviation) . However, no significance was found for those
who were bullied by text-messages, offensive pictures, blogs, or websites.
46
Table 6
Cyber Bullying and Best Friends’ Actual Social Support
________________________________________________________________________
Best Friends’ Support
n
M
SD
t
p
d
Cyber Victimization
Scale – Total
Adolescents Bullied
In Chat rooms – Item
No
15
.04
.17
Yes
28
.38
.84
No
15
.07
.26
Yes
28
.54
1.20
-1.10
.28
-0.67
-1.54
.13
.22
Traditional and Cyber Victimization and Perceived Social Support
There was a correlation between approaching friends and adults for social
support, r(60) = .36, p < .01. There was also a correlation between adolescents who were
bullied online by others creating offensive webpages, blogs, or posting pictures on
themand approaching friends for social support, r (58) = .27, p < .05 (See Table 7 for
correlation values).
47
Table 7
Correlational Table Between Adults and Friends’ Social Support and Online Bullying
1
1. Adults’ Support
2
3
1.00
2. Friends’ Support
.36**
3. Victims of Offensive
-.04
1.00
.27*
1.00
Online Pictures, Websites
and blogs.
Note *p < .05, ** p < .01
Role in Bullying
Actual Social Support
In order to examine role in bullying in relation to social support, the researcher
created 4 new variables: bully, victim, bully-victim, and uninvolved. First, the researcher
examined the reliability among the bully scale (M = .18, SD = .39, α = .74) and the victim
scale (M = .76, SD = .84, α = .88). The victim scale was composed of 8 items that
included physical, verbal, relational, and cyber victimization (Appendix B). Answers
included a 5-option Likert scale: (1) Not At All, (2) Only Once, (3) 2 or 3 Times, (4)
Once a Week, (5) More Than Once a Week. Participants who were considered ‘victims’
were the ones who chose options 3 or more in accordance with findings from Solberg and
48
Olweus (2003) that this cutoff differentiates transient from ongoing victims. The bully
scale was composed of 11 items about physical, relational, verbal, and cyber bullying
(Appendix B). Answers included a Likert scale of (1) Never, (2) Almost Never, (3)
Sometimes, (4) Almost All the Time, (5) All the Time. ‘Bullies’ were the ones who chose
options 3, 4, and 5. ‘Uninvolved’ were the ones who chose options 1 and 2. ‘Bullyvictims’ were the participants who were both ‘bullies’ and ‘victims’. A ‘Role in Bullying’
variable was composed and included the 4 different roles.
The researcher used chi-square to examine the role in bullying in relation to actual
social support and gender. There was no significant difference between roles of bullying,
gender, and approaching teachers, χ² (3) = .02, p = 1, parents, χ² (3) = 5.48, p = .14,
classmates, χ² (3) = .72, p = 1, or best friends, χ² (3) = .69, p = .88 for social support (See
Table 8).
49
Table 8
Role in Bullying and Actual Social Support (N=68)
Teachers
(n = 43)
M
F
Parents
(n = 42)
M
F
Classmates
(n = 43)
M
F
Best Friends
(n = 42)
M
F
Bully
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
Victim
2
1
3
4
1
2
3
5
Bully-Victim
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
Uninvolved
3
3
5
6
3
4
4
10
Approached
For Support
χ2
.83
.42
.04
4.72*
Note. M = Males. F = Females *p < .05.
Social Self-Efficacy
The researcher used ANOVA to examine the role in bullying in relation to social
self-efficacy. On a scale of 0-100 bullies, victims, bully-victims, and uninvolved rated
whether they would approach adults or friends when they needed social support. The one
way ANOVA yielded no significant differences between roles in bullying in regard to
adults’ social self-efficacy, F(3,55) = .678, p = .57. No significant difference was found
between roles in bullying and friends’ social self-efficacy, F(3,54) = .275, p = .84. The
means and standard deviations are presented in Table 9.
50
Table 9
Role in Bullying and Social Self-Efficacy
Role
Adults (N=58)
M
SD
Noninvolved
47.03
Bully
Friends (N= 57)
M
SD
34.84
58.69
32.67
42.00
39.62
58.00
24.90
Victim
63.33
38.08
68.89
40.45
Bully-Victim
40.00
39.37
66.00
35.78
Prosocial Behavior and Role in Bullying
It was also an interest to look at prosocial support in relation to roles in bullying.
One way ANOVA was used to examine which role in bullying (e.g. bully, victim, bullyvictim, uninvolved) was associated with higher levels of prosocial behavior. A prosocial
behavior scale (M = 3.77, SD = 0.75,  = 0.79) was composed of 4 questions (e.g. “Some
kids try to cheer up other kids who feel upset or sad. How often do you do this?”, “Some
kids help out other kids when they need it. How often do you do this?”). Participants
rated their answers in a Likert scale of (1) Never, (2) Almost Never, (3) Sometimes, (4)
Almost All the Time, (5) All the Time. No significance was found between roles in
bullying and prosocial support, F(3,62) = 1.64, p = .19.
51
Efficacy and Actual Social Support
The researcher used t-tests to examine actual social support and social selfefficacy. A statistical significance was found between approaching parents for social
support and adult and peer social self-efficacy, t(34) = -2.29, p = .04 d = .84. See Table
10 for means and standard deviations.
Table 10
Actual Parents’ Social Support and Social Self-Efficacy
________________________________________________________________________
Actual Parents’ Social Support
n
M
SD
t
p
d
Adults’
No
Social Self-Efficacy
23
40.00
Yes
Friends’
No
Social Self-Efficacy
23
36.43
15
70.43
-2.20
64.67
.04
-.75
29.49
28.84 1.48 .15
Yes
15
.49
55.33
33.35
Prosocial Behavior and Social Support Efficacy
It was also an interest to examine prosocial behavior in relation to social selfefficacy. There was a correlation between friends’ social self-efficacy and adults’ social
self-efficacy, r(59) = .36, p = .01. Another correlation was found between prosocial
behavior and friends’ social self-efficacy, r(58) = .31, p = .02 (see Table 11 for
correlation matrix).
52
Table 11
Prosocial Behavior and Adults and Peers’ Social Self-Efficacy
1
2
1. Prosocial Behavior.
1
2. Adults’
Social Self-Efficacy
-.03
3. Peers’
Social Self-Efficacy
3
1
.31*
.36**
1
Note. * p < .05, **p < .01
Social and Academic Support
Perceived Academic Support and Social Support Efficacy
In order to examine if perceived academic support is a proxy for social efficacy a
correlation was used. The researcher correlated between the degree of confidence in
asking teachers for academic support (“Get teachers to help me when I get stuck on
schoolwork”) and the degree of confidence in asking adults for social support (“ Get
adults to help me when I have social problems”). Participants rated their answers in a
scale of 0 to 100 (0- cannot do it at all; 50- moderately sure can do it; 100- highly certain
I can do it). There was a statistical significance in perceived academic support and social
support from adults, r (60) = .51, p < 0.01. The researcher also examined the correlation
between perceived academic support of peers (“Get another student to help me when I am
stuck on schoolwork”) and perceived social support of peers (“Get a friend to help me
53
when I have social problems”). Participants chose their answers on a scale of 0 to 100.
Statistical correlation was found between perceived academic support and perceived
social support of peers, r (58) = .65, p < 0.01. See Table 12 for correlation values.
Table 12
Perceived Academic Support and Social Self-Efficacy
1
2
1. Teachers’ Academic Support.
1
2. Students’ Academic Support.
.45**
1
3. Adults’ Social Self-Efficacy.
.51**
.33*
4. Friends’ Social Self-Efficacy.
.31*
.65**
Note. * p <.05, ** p < .01.
3
4
.36**
1
1
54
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Bullying is a significant issue in the lives of many school students (McElearney et
al., 2008). Researchers agree that bullying is associated with negative consequences for
all involved adolescents (Bowes et al., 2010; Due et al., 2005; Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007). Although social support can help reduce the negative impacts bullying may have
on adolescents (Rothon et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2009; Yeung &Leadbeater, 2010), many
children who experience bullying do not share this information with or seek help from
others (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Matsunaga, 2009; McElearney et al, 2008; Oliver &
Candappa, 2007). The present study examined who adolescents turned to when they
experienced bully victimization and whether their choice of support differed by type of
bullying (traditional or cyber), role in the bullying (bully, victim, bully-victim,
uninvolved) or gender of the victim and /or aggressor.
Key Findings
Gender and Social Support
In the current study, no statistical difference was found between gender and
asking teachers, parents, or classmates for actual social support. On the one hand, these
findings were inconsistent with other findings in the field that indicated that females
tended to rely more on social support and seek more help from teachers, parents, siblings,
55
or peers than males (Craig et al, 2007; Hunter et al., 2004; Smith & Shu, 2000). On the
other hand, other studies suggested that older females do not approach their parents for
support since they feel too mature to do so (Stadler et al., 2010). Although gender and
actual social support was statistically insignificant, females and adults’ social support
efficacy was found to be significant. This may indicate that even though girls do not
approach adults for social support, they are still confident in the help they would get from
adults in times of need. According to Hunter et al. (2004), females were more likely to
view support as the best strategy of stopping the bullying, and sharing it with others
helped them feel better. These findings may be due in part to the small sample size and
small number of students who reported experiencing recent bully victimization.
A statistical significance was also found between gender and asking a best friend
for help which is consistent with expectations. In the current study, 19 females compared
to 9 males asked their best friends for social support. Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner
(2002) found that peer social support was more effective for victimized females than for
victimized males since males who were in a need for social support were perceived by
their peers as somehow socially incompetent. Asking for a peer’s help seems to buffer
victimized females from social problems, but seems to lead to a lower peer preference for
males. Additional research is needed on males coping strategies and which strategies
could be protective for them.
56
Types of Bullying and Social Support
In the present research, differences were not found between traditional
victimization and actual social support. While these results are consistent with findings of
other studies that found that victims do not tend to approach others for social support due
the stigma of being a victim (Oliver & Candappa, 2007) the low number of victimized
students makes this more a measure of overall willingness to access support. It may also
be related to victims’s fear of bullies’ retaliations (Tenenbaum et al., 2011). Victims tend
to perceive their coping strategies as mostly being ineffective which may have also
influenced these findings (Tenenbaum, Varjas, Meyers & Parris, 2011).
Developmentally adolescents often like to solve problems independently which may also
related to low reports of accessing social support (Kristensen & Smith, 2003; Oliver &
Candappa 2007;).
On the other hand, willingness to approach a best friend for support was related
to cyber victimization. However, adolescents reported differences based on the different
types of cyber bulling they were exposed to. While no relationships were found for those
who were bullied by text-messages, offensive pictures, blogs, or websites, approaching
significance was found for adolescents who were bullied in chat rooms and group sites
like MySpace or Facebook and asking best friends for social support. These findings are
consistent with other research suggesting that most adolescents do not tell adults about
online aggression due to their fear that parents would restrict their use of electronic
devices in order to prevent further bullying incidents (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Since
intimacy with parents declines during adolescence, friendships become more valuable
57
and peer support may seem to be the better choice for cyber victims (Furman &
Buhrmester, 1992; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Ladd et al., 2011).
Roles in Bullying and Social Support
There was no significant difference between roles of bullying and approaching
teachers, parents, classmates, or best friends for actual social support or for perceived
social support. Based on prior research it was expected that bullies may often receive
stronger peer support than victims or bully-victims, particularly if they affiliate with other
bullies and form a group that supports their bullying behaviors (Holt & Espelage, 2007).
The inconsistency of this study’s findings with others may be due to the small sample
size or other sample characteristics. For example, since the school that participated in
this study was composed of high middle class students that took part in advanced
academic programs, bullies’ aggressive behavior might have not been approved by other
students, which could have resulted in lower levels of peer social support for these bullies
(Holt & Espelage, 2007). Nevertheless, among the groups associated with bullying,
uninvolved individuals have been found to receive the most social support both in and
outside school. According to Holt and Espelage (2007), uninvolved adolescents receive
greater social support both from their mothers and their friends as compared to victims
and bully-victims. These results are in contrast to the results of the present study.
58
Social and Academic Support
Statistical correlations found between perceived academic support and perceived
social support both from peers and adults, while not central to the current investigation,
was noteworthy. Adolescents who perceive adults can help them with schoolwork also
perceive that adults can help them with social problems. In addition, adolescents who
believe they can approach their peers for academic support also believe they can
approach those friends for social support. Wang, Iannotti and Luk (2011) found that
perceived classmate support was positively associated with academic adjustment and
negatively associated with victimization for both genders. More research on the
correlation between social support and academic support is needed in order to understand
how educators can utilize academic support to encourage social support.
Limitations and Future Research
First, the present study employed quantitative methods which allowed the
researcher to examine a large number of participants in a relatively short period of time.
However, the questionnaires that were used did not provide the kind of in depth
understanding of participants’ social support, many analyses were based on a single item
which can reduce the reliability of self-report data. In addition, the researcher used
existing data which cannot be changed to include follow-up questions the researcher
would have asked if these research questions were the purpose for the larger study, this
can be a potential threat to validity. A future study should include direct items and a
59
larger sample that will provide more power allowing for the use of more advanced
research methods (e.g. MANOVA). Instruments comprised of survey and interview/
open-ended questions specific to accessed and perceived social support could increase
internal validity.
Second, since the study was based on a correlational causal conclusions cannot be
drawn (Wang et al, 2009). Therefore, adding a longitudinal studies that will examine
bullying and social support can shade more light on how adolescents’ perspectives of
social support change through time and which strategies work better for which age level.
Third, since data collection was based on a self-report survey of the adolescent
students, the honesty of their answers is in question. Some adolescents may underrate or
underreport their experiences as victims or as bullies to avoid the stigma that is associated
with it (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010). The adolescents’
perceived social support can also be affected by the current relationship status they have
with their parents or teachers (Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010). The credibility of their use of
social support may be limited by the fact that no corroborating data were collected from
either parents or teachers. Thus, in order to get more objective results and
generalizability, there is a need to add peers, teachers, and parents’ reports.
Fourth, there seems to be inconsistency in the field regarding how many incidents
of victimization a victim needs to experience in order to be considered a victim, a bully,
or a bully-victim. While in other studies a victim is someone who has been victimized
only once (Kraft & Wang, 2009), in the current study a victim is someone who has
experienced victimization at least twice. Inconsistency with other research effects
60
generalizability of results. “Repeated” is a vague part of the definition. Experts in the
field need to come up with a consistent definition for the different roles in the bullying
scene and with a uniformed way to measure those roles.
Finally, the use of a non-representative convenience sample of participants may
also affect generalizability of results. Since the sample was composed of volunteers
recruited from only one public school with unique enrollment requirements, there may be
a threat to external validity and results cannot be generalized to other schools or the rest
of the adolescent population.
61
APPENDICES
62
APPENDIX A
63
APPENDIX A
Parents’ Consent Form
Taken from Dr. Raskauskas’ Research (2011-2012)
Child Development Department
Sacramento State University
Covert Aggression in Middle Schools
PARENT INFORMATION SHEET FOR CHILD
PARTICIPATION
Researcher Introduction
My name is Dr. Juliana Raskauskas and I am an Assistant Professor of Child
Development at Sacramento State University’s College of Education. I am interested in
bullying in schools, specifically why students use covert forms of aggression such as
gossip spreading, exclusion, and cyber bullying. The purpose of this research is to
examine different factors that may better explain the use of covert forms of bullying and
their related effects. All of the students in your child’s class are being invited to
participate in this research.
Importance of the Research
Understanding why students use covert bullying and how it affects them may
help in the formation of bullying prevention programs. This research will also look at
how covert bullying and the related factors are associated with grades and depressive
symptoms. It is important that participants represent all students’ experiences and
include those who have been bullied, those who bully others, and those who have not
been bullied.
Participant Recruitment
All middle schools in you school district are being invited to participate. All the
classes taught by two 7th and 8th grade teachers (including your students’ class) are
being asked to do this survey. Approximately 250-300 students at each school are
eligible.
64
Project Procedures
If your child takes part in this study, he or she will be asked to complete two
surveys one week apart. These surveys are confidential and ask about their experiences
with bullying at school, the quality of relationships at school, the ways they think about
bullying, how others view them, their confidence in dealing with peers, and depressive
symptoms. A copy of the survey is available in the school office for you to review.
To examine the relationship of bullying to academic performance your child’s
GPA for each quarter in the 2010-2011 school year and overall GPA be obtained from
the school district office and matched with their scores on the survey.
An ID number provided by the district will be used to obtain GPA but will not be
associated with the surveys they complete. The GPA information and survey responses
will be entered into a password protected data file on my office computer for analysis
and surveys will be stored in a filing cabinet at the University. Students will be assigned
identification (ID) numbers and their scores will not be associated with their name or
district ID in the data file. After five years the surveys will be destroyed.
This research will be used for scholarly journal articles and presentations;
however no child or school will be identifiable. Scores will be reported as a group and
not individually.
Participant Involvement
As stated above, if your child takes part in this research they will be asked to
complete two confidential surveys. This will take approximately 20 minutes to
complete. Your child will complete the questionnaire in their classroom with the
researcher, while students who do not participate will work with the classroom teacher
on another task.
Risks and Benefits
Some children are uncomfortable or distressed by answering questions about
bullying, especially if in a classroom that includes the child bullying them. Questions ask
about bullying incidents however no questions will ask them to name specific bullies.
Children have the right to skip any questions they do not want to answer or to stop at
any time. Your child will be reminded of the school counseling services and school
procedures for reporting bullying prior to the survey in case they wish to use these
resources. Students can also call the Teen Line Hotline at (800) 852-8336 if they wish to
speak to someone not affiliated with their school.
You or your child will not receive any direct compensation for participating in
this study. However, a summary of results will be made available to participating schools
65
and parents. Findings will be pooled across schools and no individual classrooms or
students will be indentified. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary of
results please provide your email or mailing address below.
Participant Rights
Participation is completely voluntary; you and your child are under no obligation
to participate. Refusal to participate will not disadvantage your student in any way. Your
child has the right to decide not to answer any particular question and to stop the
survey at any time.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Dr. Juliana
Raskauskas at (916) 278-7029 or by e-mail at jraskauskas@csus.edu.
Your child’s participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Your signature
below indicates that you have read this consent form and agree to allow your child to
participate.

YES I give permission for my child, _____________________________ to
complete the survey. I also authorize________ School District to release
information on my child’s GPA to researchers at Sacramento State University.
________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian

____________________
Date
NO, I do not give permission for my child to participate in this study.
If you would like to receive a copy of the summary of findings at the conclusion
of this research, please provide your mailing or email address below:
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
66
APPENDIX B
67
APPENDIX B
Students’ Self-Report Questionnaires
Taken form Dr. Raskauskas’ Research (2011-2012)
Child Development Department
Sacramento State University
Student ID (Will be provided)_________________________________________
School Name________________________________________________________
Student Questionnaire (Survey A)
Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Please choose the best response
to each question below. The items on this survey will ask about your
relationships at school, bullying at school, and your attitudes to school.
Before we start please tell us a little about you:
What grade are you in school (Circle one):
7
What is your gender (Circle one):
Girl
Boy
8
How old are you now:_______ years old
How are you doing in school? Overall, would you consider your grades…
□ Above Average
□ Average
□ Below average
What grades do you usually get in school?
□ Mostly As
□ Mostly As and Bs
□ Mostly Bs and Cs
□ Mostly Cs
□ Mostly Cs and Ds
□ Mostly Ds
□ Mostly Ds and Fs
□ Mostly Bs
□ Mostly Fs
In the past couple of months (since winter break) how many times have you been
absent from school? _______
68
In the past couple of months (since winter break) how many times have you had
to leave school early because you were sick? ________
Which of the following do you use? (check all that apply)
□ Computer with email
□ Social Website (Myspace, Facebook, Classmate)
□ Cell phone with text-messaging capabilities
□ Cell phone with picture taking capabilities
□ Cell phone with video recording capabilities
□ Cell phone with Internet capabilities
Things I Do At School
We are interested in how kids get along with one another. Please think about
your relationship with other kids and how often you do these things while
you’re with them.
1. Some kids tell lies about a classmate so that the other kids won’t like the
classmate anymore. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
Almost All The Time
3
All The Time
4
5
2. Some kids try to keep certain people from being in their group when it is time
to play or do an activity. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
Almost All The Time
3
All The Time
4
5
3. Some kids try to cheer up other kids who feel upset or sad. How often do you
do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
All The Time
All The Time
4
5
4. When they are mad at someone, some kids get back at the person by not
letting the person be in their group anymore. How often do you do this?
Never
1
Almost Never
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
4
5. Some kids hit other kids at school. How often do you do this?
All The Time
5
69
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
6. Some kids let others know that they care about them. How often do you do
this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
7. Some kids help out other kids when they need it. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
8. Some kids yell at others and call them mean names. How often do you do
this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
9. Some kids push and shove other kids at school. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
10. Some kids tell their friends that they will stop liking them unless the friends
do what they say. How often do you tell friends this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
11. Some kids have a lot of friends in their class. How often do you have a lot of
friends in your class?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
12. Some kids try to keep others from liking a classmate by saying mean things
about the classmate. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
4
All The Time
5
13. Some kids wish that they had more friends at school. How often do you feel
this way?
Never
1
Almost Never
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
4
All The Time
5
70
14. Some kids say or do nice things for other kids. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
15. Some kids post mean things about others in chatrooms or on group sites like
MySpace or Facebook? How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
16. Some kids send others mean text-messages to make them feel bad. How
often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
17. Some kids are mean to other kids online by creating webpages, blogs, or
posting pictures of them. How often do you do this?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
5
18. Some kids have a lot of classmates who like to play with them. How often do
the kids in your class like to play with you?
Never
Almost Never
1
Sometimes
2
3
Almost All The Time
All The Time
4
Bullying At School
The following questions will ask about bullying that occurs at school. Please
choose the best answer for each item. Bullying means that these things
happened more than once, that the action hurt you, either physically or so that
you felt bad, and that they were hard to stop. It is not considered bullying if
people of equal strength fight or if the fighting is playful.
1.
Since January how often have you been picked on by kids at school?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a
week
2.
Since January how often have you been pushed around or hit at school?
5
71
Not at all
week
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a
3.
Since January how often have kids said mean things to you at school?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a
week
4.
Since January how often have kids said mean things about you to other
kids behind your back?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times
Once a Week
More than once a
week
5.
Since January how often have kids left you out of things on purpose?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times
Once a Week
More than once a
week
6.
Since January how often have you been bullied by text-messages?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a
week
7.
Since January how often have you been bullied online by creating
webpages, blogs, or posting pictures of you?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a
week
8.
Since January how often have you been bullied in chatrooms or group
sites like MySpace or Facebook?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a
week
9.
When kids pick on you do you ever ask your teacher for help?
Yes
No
I’ve Never Been Picked On
10.
When kids pick on you do you ever ask your parents for help?
Yes
No
I’ve Never Been Picked On
11.
When kids pick on you do you ever ask other kids in your class for help?
Yes
No
I’ve Never Been Picked On
72
12.
When kids pick on you do you ever ask your best friend for help?
Yes
No
I’ve Never Been Picked On
Relationships with People
Now we have some questions about your relationships with others, both positive
and conflicted relationships. Using the 5 point scale shown below, indicate how
uncharacteristic or characteristic each of the following statements is in describing
you. Place your rating on the line to the right of the statement.
1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me
2 = somewhat uncharacteristic of me
3 = neither uncharacteristic nor characteristic of me
4 = somewhat characteristic of me
5 = extremely characteristic of me
1.. Some of my friends think I am a hothead
2. If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.
3.. When people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they
want.
4. I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them.
5. I have become so mad that I have broken things.
6.. I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with
me.
7. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.
Once in a while, I can’t control the urge to strike another person.
I. am an even-tempered person.
I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers.
I1have threatened people I know.
I1flare up quickly but get over it quickly.
Given
1
enough provocation, I may hit another person.
When
1
people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.
I1am sometimes eaten up with jealousy.
I1can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.
At
1 times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.
I1have trouble controlling my temper.
73
When
1
frustrated, I let my irritation show.
I2sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.
I2often find myself disagreeing with people.
If2 somebody hits me, I hit back.
I2sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode.
Other
2
people always seem to get the breaks.
There
2
are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows.
I2know that “friends” talk about me behind my back.
My
2 friends say that I’m somewhat argumentative.
Sometimes
2
I fly off the handle for no good reason.
I2get into fights a little more than the average person.
What Do You Think?
These are things some kids think or feel when kids pick on them - how would
you feel and what would you think if you were being picked on. Circle how true
is each statement for you.
1.
It was my fault, I am easy to pick on.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
2.
Some kids are just mean to people.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
3.
If I changed the way I act this would probably not happen to me.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
4.
There is nowhere I can go to avoid bullies.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
5.
This always happens to me.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
6.
Sometimes I do things that bother other kids.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
7.
If I were a cooler kid, I wouldn’t get picked on.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
74
8.
It was not my fault, some kids like to pick on other people.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
9.
If I told them to stop, they probably would not do it again.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
10.
Kids like them pick on everyone, there’s nothing I can do about it.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
11.
This is not a safe school for anybody.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
12.
The bully was probably just in a bad mood that day.
Not at All True
Kind of True
Sometimes True
Very True
75
How Do You Feel?
How are you doing? We are interested in how you have been feeling lately
because this is often related to what is going on at school. Please circle the
number for each statement which best describes how often you felt or behaved
this way during the past week.
Since winter break…
Rarely or none Some of A lot of
Most or
of the time
the time the time all of the
time
A. I did not feel like eating.
0
1
2
3
B. I felt I was just as good as other kids.
0
1
2
3
C. I was bothered by things that don’t
0
1
2
3
usually bother me.
D. I felt depressed.
0
1
2
3
E. I had trouble keeping my mind
0
1
2
3
F. I felt hopeful about the future.
0
1
2
3
G. I felt fearful.
0
1
2
3
H. My sleep was restless.
0
1
2
3
I. People were friendly.
0
1
2
3
J. I could not get going
0
1
2
3
K. I felt lonely.
0
1
2
3
on what I was doing.
L. I felt the people I hung out with
0
1
2
3
really didn’t like me
M. I enjoyed life.
0
1
2
3
N. I felt sad.
0
1
2
3
O. I was happy.
0
1
2
3
76
Student Questionnaire (Survey B)
Student ID (Will be
provided)___________________________________________________________
School
Name_______________________________________________________________
Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Please choose the best response
to each question below. The items on this survey will ask about your
relationships at school, bullying at school, and your attitudes to school.
Before we start please tell us a little about you:
What grade are you in school (Circle one):
7
What is your gender (Circle one):
Girl
Boy
8
How old are you now:_______ years old
How are you doing in school? Overall, would you consider your grades…
□ Above Average
□ Average
□ Below average
What grades do you usually get in school?
□ Mostly As
□ Mostly As and Bs
□ Mostly Bs and Cs
□ Mostly Cs
□ Mostly Ds
□ Mostly Ds and Fs
□ Mostly Bs
□ Mostly Cs and Ds
□ Mostly Fs
In the past couple of months (since winter break) how many times have you been
absent from school? _______
In the past couple of months (since winter break) how many times have you had
to leave school early because you were sick? ________
Which of the following do you use? (check all that apply)
□ Computer with email
□ Social Website (Myspace, Facebook, Classmate)
□ Cell phone with text-messaging capabilities
77
□ Cell phone with picture taking capabilities
□ Cell phone with video recording capabilities
□ Cell phone with Internet capabilities
How Important Is It?
This survey will ask about how you think or feel about things. We won’t ask
specifically about bullying this time but these things may be related to bullying
that happens at school. For the questions below we want to know how
important certain things are to you. Please select the best answer for each
statement.
1. When walking in late to class I try not to attract attention
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
2. Being able to daydream about great successes and thinking of other
people’s reactions.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
3. Trying to figure out how other people will react to my accomplishments
and failures.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
4. Trying to get other people to know what it is like to be me.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
5. Knowing my own thoughts and feelings.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
6. Accepting the fact that others don’t know what it’s like to be me.
78
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
7. Thinking about my own feelings.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
8. Explaining my unique feelings and viewpoints to others so they can get
some idea about what I am like.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
9. Being real good at knowing what others are thinking of me.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
10. Trying and being able to figure out if two people are talking about me
when they are looking at me.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
11. Accepting that no one will ever really understand me.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
12. Finding out about myself.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
13. Getting other people to better understand why I do things the way I do.
No Importance Little Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Much Importance
79
How Sure Are You?
These questions will ask about the kinds of things that are easy and difficult for
students. Please rate how certain you are that you can do each of the things
described below by writing the appropriate number on the line. Remember that
no one will see your answers and you will not be identified by name.
Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using the
scale given below:
0
10
20
Cannot do
it at all
30
40
50
60
Moderately
sure can do it
70
80
90
100
Highly certain
I can do it
1. Get teachers to help me when I get stuck on schoolwork.
______
2. Get another student to help me when I get stuck on schoolwork.
______
3. Get adults to help me when I have social problems.
______
4. Get a friend to help me when I have social problems.
______
5. Learn new things in school.
______
6. Learn to use new technology.
______
7. Make and keep friends of the same gender.
______
8. Make and keep friends of opposite gender.
______
9. Carry on conversations with other.
______
10. Work well in a group.
______
11. Express my opinions when other classmates disagree with me.
______
12. Stand up for myself when I feel I am being treated unfairly.
______
13. Get others to stop annoying me or hurting my feelings.
______
14. Stand firm against someone who is asking me to do something
80
I don’t want to do.
______
15. Control my temper
______
What If…
Four scenarios are presented, please read each scenario and respond to the
questions below.
1.
Someone starts a mean rumor about you that is not true.
What types of rumors to people usually start at your school?
Why would someone do this?
How would that make you feel?
What would you do about it?
81
2.
You start picking on a shy kid at lunch. You and your friend laugh at them
every day and intentionally embarrass them.
Why would you do something like this?
How would that make the other person feel?
What do you think they would do about it?
3. You send someone a text-message that says “Every1 H8 U” and you tell
them not to come to school again.
Why would you do something like this?
How would that make the other person feel?
What do you think they would do about it?
82
4.
One day you come to school and your friends won’t talk to you and don’t
let you sit with them at lunch.
Why would someone do this?
How would that make you feel?
What would you do about it?
83
What do you think?
These final questions are aimed at understanding how people solve different
types of problem. They are not specifically about peer relationships but they
present a problem and you have to give an answer and explain your reasoning.
Remember there are no right or wrong answers we are just interested in how you
think.
1.
The following sentences about mice are all true. What pieces of
information determines whether or not the mice will fight with each
other?
 THE MICE ARE NOT BROWN; THE MICE ARE NOT OLD; THE MICE
HAVE FOOD; THE MICE DO NOT FIGHT.
 THE MICE FIGHT; THE MICE DO NOT HAVE FOOD; THE MICE ARE
OLD; THE MICE ARE BROWN.
 THE MICE ARE NOT OLD; THE MICE DO NOT FIGHT; THE MICE ARE
BROWN; THE MICE DONOT HAVE FOOD.
 THE MICE HAVE FOOD; THE MICE ARE NOT BROWN; THE MICE
FIGHT; THE MICE ARE OLD.
a. Your Answer:
b. Explain Your Answer:
84
2. All of the following sentences about outdoor activities are true. Which
piece of information determines whether or not there is good weather?
 CHARLIE IS NOT SWIMMING; DAVE IS BOATING; THERE IS
NOT GOOD WEATHER.
 CHARLIE IS NOT SWIMMING; THERE IS GOOD WEATHER;
DAVE IS BOATING.
 CHARLIE IS SWIMMING; THERE IS NOT GOOD WEATHER;
DAVIS IS NOT BOATING.
 DAVE IS NOT BOATING; THERE IS GOOD WEATHER;
CHARLIE IS SWIMMING.
a. Your Answer:
b. Explain Your Answer:
85
APPENDIX C
86
APPENDIX C
Student Assent Form
Taken from Dr. Raskauskas Research (2011-2012)
Sacramento State University
Child Development
Covert Aggression in Middle Schools
STUDENT INFORMATION SHEET FOR
PARTICIPATION IN A RESEARCH STUDY
This study is looking at bullying in schools and the ways that people think and act that
are related to bullying. We are specifically interested in the less obvious forms of
bullying like gossip spreading, leaving people out on purpose, and cyber bullying. It
doesn’t matter whether or not you’ve been bullied. We need all kinds of kids in this
study, kids who have been bullied, those who have bullied others, and those who have
not been bullied too. All of the students in your class are being invited to be part of this
study.
If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete two short surveys,
one week apart. One survey is about bullying and relationships, the other is about the
ways that people think, feel, and behave. If you don’t want to be part of the study your
teacher will give you something else to do. We will also be getting your GPA from the
school district.
We will keep your answers confidential - no one but the researchers will see what you
write on your survey. Do not put your name anywhere on the survey; we will give you
an ID number to write instead.
Some students may be uncomfortable answering questions about bullying. Although
you will be asked about bullying incidents, you will never be asked to give names and
you don’t have to answer any question you do not want to answer. If the questions
make you feel uncomfortable you may go speak to the counselor during or after the
survey. You can also call the Teen Line Hotline at (800) 852-8336 later if you want to
talk to someone about bullying or how you feel.
87
Your parent/guardian has already given their permission for you to be part of this study.
However, you don’t have to participate and you don’t have to say why. Remember, if
you do the survey you have the right to skip any questions you do not want to answer or
to stop at any time.
You will not receive any compensation for helping us with this survey, but it is our hope
that your information will help us to design bullying interventions that will help keep all
kids safe at school.
Please print your name: _______________________________ Date: ______________

YES: I want to be part of this study: ___________________________________
Signature

NO: I do not want to be part of this study.
88
References
Aceves, M. J., Hinshaw, S. P., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Page-Gould, E. (2010). Seek help
from teachers or fight back? Student perceptions of teachers’ actions during
conflicts and responses to peer victimization. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence,
39(6), 658-669. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9441-9
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescence (pp. 307-337). Greenwhich,
CT:Information Age Publishing.
Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2010). Beyond hurt feelings: Investigating why some
victims of bullying are at greater risk for suicidal ideation. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly: Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 420-440.
Berger K. S. (2006). The Developing Person Through Childhood and Adolescence (7th
ed.). New York; NY: Worth Publishers.
Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. (2011). Developmental Science. An Advanced Textbook
(6th ed.).New York; NY: Psychology Press.
Bowes, L., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2010). Families
promote emotional and behavioral resilience to bullying: evidence of an
environmental effect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 809-817.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The Bioecological Model of Human
Development. NJ, NY: Hoboken.
Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Card, N. A. (2011). Toward a relationship perspective on aggression among
schoolchildren: Integrating social cognitive and interdependence theories.
Psychology Of Violence, 1(3), 188-201. doi:10.1037/a0023711
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine,
38, 300-314. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Conners-Burrow, N. A., Johnson, D. L., Whiteside-Mansell, L., McKelvey, L., & Gargus,
R. A. (2009). Adults matter: Protecting children from the negative impacts of
bullying. Psychology In The Schools, 46(7), 593-604. doi:10.1002/pits.20400
89
Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Blais, J. (2007). Responding to bullying: What works. School
Psychology International, 28, 465-477. doi:10.1177/0143034307084136
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722. doi:10.2307/1131945
Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2008). Tackling a Problematic Behavior Management
Issue: Teachers' Intervention in Childhood Bullying Problems. Intervention In
School And Clinic, 43, 132-139.
Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. (2007). Social support as a moderator between
victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School
Psychology Review, 36, 383-405.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' Experiences
and Parental Perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217-223.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0008
Dılmaç, B. (2009). Psychological Needs as a Predictor of Cyber bullying: a Preliminary
Report on College Students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9(3),
1307-1325.
Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S., Scheidt, P., & Currie, C.
(2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: international
comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public
Health, 15, 128-132. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki105
Enright, R.D., Lapsley, D.K., & Shukla, D.G. (1979). Adolescent egocentrism in early
and late adolescence. Adolescence, 14, 687-695.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization:
What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 32, 365-383.
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009).
Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of
bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 636-649.
doi:10.1002/pits.20404
Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community
violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning.
Journal Of Clinical Child And Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439-449.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_2
90
Hay, C., Meldrum, R., & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional Bullying, Cyber Bullying, and
Deviance: A General Strain Theory Approach. Journal Of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 26(2), 130-147. doi:10.1177/1043986209359557
Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying Victimization and Adolescent Self-Harm:
Testing Hypotheses from General Strain Theory. Journal Of Youth And
Adolescence, 39(5), 446-459.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129-156.
doi:10.1080/01639620701457816
Hammack, P. L., Richards, M. H., Luo, Z., Edlynn, E. S., & Roy, K. (2004). Social
support factors as moderators of community violence exposure among inner-city
African American young adolescents. Journal Of Clinical Child And Adolescent
Psychology, 33, 450-462. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_3
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims,
and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984-994.
doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3
Hodges, E.V.E. & Perry, D.G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and
consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 677-685. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.677
Hunter, S. C., Boyle, J. E., & Warden, D. (2004). Help seeking amongst child and
adolescent victims of peer-aggression and bullying: The influence of schoolstage, gender, victimization, appraisal, and emotion. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 375-390. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Ivarsson, T., Broberg, A. G., Arvidsson, T., & Gillberg, C. (2005). Bullying in
adolescence: Psychiatric problems in victims and bullies as measured by the
Youth Self Report (YSR) and the Depression Self-Rating Scale (DSRS). Nordic
Journal Of Psychiatry, 59(5), 365-373.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences
in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496-505. doi:10.1111/j.17461561.2008.00335.x
Kilpatrick Demaray, M., & Kerres Malecki, C. (2003). Perceptions of the Frequency and
Importance of Social Support by Students Classified as Victims, Bullies, and
Bully/Victims in an Urban Middle School. School Psychology Review, 32(3),
471-489.
91
Kliewer, W., Murrelle, L., Mejia, R., de G., Y., & Angold, A. (2001). Exposure to
violence against a family member and internalizing symptoms in Colombian
adolescents: The protective effects of family support. Journal Of Consulting And
Clinical Psychology, 69, 971-982. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.6.971
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of
school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317. doi:10.2307/1131701
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children's coping strategies: Moderators
of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38, 267-278.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.267
Kraft, E. M., & Jinchang, W. (2009). Effectiveness of cyber bullying prevention
strategies: A study on students' perspectives. International Journal of Cyber
Criminology, 3, 513-535.
Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by Danish children
classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response to
different (hypothetical) types of bullying. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology,
44(5), 479-488. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9450.2003.00369.x
Ladd, G., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Eggum, N., Kochel, K., & McConnell, E. (2011).
Characterizing and comparing the friendships of anxious-solitary and unsociable
preadolescents. Child Development, 82, 1434-1453. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2011.01632.x
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Links between community violence and the family
system: Evidence from children's feelings of relatedness and perceptions of parent
behavior. Family Process, 41, 519-532. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41314.x
Matsunaga, M. (2009). Parents don’t (always) know their children have been bullied:
Child-parent discrepancy on bullying and family-level profile of communication
standards. Human Communication Research, 35, 221-247. doi:10.1111/j.14682958.2009.01345.x
McElearney, A., Roosmale-Cocq, S., Scott, J., & Stephenson, P. (2008). Exploring the
anti-bullying role of a befriending peer support programme: A case study within
the primary school setting in northern Ireland. Child Care in Practice, 14, 109130. doi:10.1080/13575270701868694
Menesini, E., Modena, M., & Tani, F. (2009). Bullying and victimization in adolescence:
concurrent and stable roles and psychological health symptoms. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 170, 115-134.
92
Miller P. H. (2011). Theories of Developmental Psychology (5th ed). New York,
NY: Worth Publishers.
Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L., & Unger, J. (2004). Social
network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39, 315-335.
O'Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2009). Examining development
differences in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and
bully/victims. Psychology In The Schools, 46(2), 100-115. doi:10.1002/pits.20357
Oh, I., & Hazler, R. J. (2009). Contributions of personal and situational factors to
bystanders' reactions to school bullying. School Psychology International, 30(3),
291-310. doi:10.1177/0143034309106499
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling’. Oxford Review
of Education, 33, 71-86. doi:10.1080/03054980601094594
Olweus, D. (1993).Bullying at School. What We Know and What We Can Do (1st ed).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary
look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169.
doi:10.1177/1541204006286288
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and Self-Esteem. Journal Of School
Health, 80(12), 614-621.
Pellegrini, A.D. & Long, J.D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and
victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. doi:
10.1348/026151002166442
Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims,
bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal Of Child Psychology And
Psychiatry, 47(1), 45-57. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x
Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and Delinquency in Adolescence: Victims'
and Perpetrators' Family and Peer Relations. Swiss Journal Of
Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De
Psychologie, 64(1), 51-64. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.64.1.51
Proctor, L. J. (2006). Children growing up in a violent community: The role of the
family. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 11, 558-576.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.12.004
93
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Ragatz, L. L., Anderson, R. J., Fremouw, W., & Schwartz, R. (2011). Criminal thinking
patterns, aggression styles, and the psychopathic traits of late high school bullies
and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 145-160. doi:10.1002/ab.20377
Raskauskas, J. (2005). Role of attribution style and coping strategy selection in the
relationship between peer victimization and outcomes among economically
disadvantaged students. Unpublished Dissertation. Davis, CA: University of
California, Davis.
Raskauskas, J. (2010). Text-bullying: Associations with traditional bullying and
depression among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 9, 7497. doi:10.1080/15388220903185605
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2004). Identifying and intervening in relational
aggression. Journal of School Nursing, 20, 209-215.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575. doi:10.1037/00121649.43.3.564
Rothon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect
bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of
bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at
secondary schools in east London. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 579-588.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Salkind, N.J.(2008). Statistics for People Who Think They Hate Statistics (3rd
ed).London, England: Sage.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the
Olweus Bully/Victims Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
Smith, J., Twemlow, S. W., & Hoover, D. W. (1999). Bullies, victims and bystanders: A
method of in-school intervention and possible parental contributions. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 30, 29-37.
Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from
a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7,
193. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
94
Stauffer, S., Heath, M., Coyne, S., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers' perceptions
of cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Psychology In The
Schools, 49, 352-367. doi:10.1002/pits.21603Stein, J. A., Dukes, R. L., & Warren,
J. I. (2007). Adolescent male bullies, victims, and bully-victims: A comparison of
psychosocial and behavioral characteristics. Journal Of Pediatric Psychology,
32(3), 273-282. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsl023
Tenenbaum, L. S., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Parris, L. (2011). Coping strategies and
perceived effectiveness in fourth through eighth grade victims of bullying. School
Psychology International, 32(3), 263-287. doi:10.1177/0143034311402309
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers In Human
Behavior, 26, 277-287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social Aggression among Girls. New York: NY: The Guilford
Press.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in
the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45, 368-375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2011). Peer victimization and academic
adjustment among early adolescents: Moderation by gender and mediation by
perceived classmate support. Journal of School Health, 81, 386-392.
Woods, S., Done, J., & Kalsi, H. (2009). Peer victimisation and internalising difficulties:
The moderating role of friendship quality. Journal Of Adolescence, 32(2), 293308. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.005
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: associations
with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics.
Journal Of Adolescence, 27(3), 319-336.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets:
a comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal Of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308-1316. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x
Yeung, R., & Leadbeater, B. (2010). Adults make a difference: The protective effects of
parent and teacher emotional support on emotional and behavioral problems of
peer-victimized adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 80-98.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.