a pro le of bullying, peer aggression, and victimization ... · filipino school children are being...

Journal of Society & Technology 6:22-36 (2016)

A Profile of Bullying, Peer Aggression, andVictimization in Philippine Junior High School

Magnolia A. LausUniversity of the Philippines, Cebu, Philippines

Abstract

Bullying affects 50 percent of the Filipino school children. However, there is still thelack of literature that discusses this problem in a Philippine setting. This paper employeddescriptive research technique to determine the profile of school bullying, peer aggression,and victimization among junior high school students of the UP High School in Cebu. Resultsof the survey revealed that bullying exists in the school with classmates as the perpetrators;direct verbal and relational are the most common forms of bullying; gender is not a factorin bullying and victimization, both sexes are involved in bullying and peer victimization, and,there is a significant relationship between bullying and victimization. Results underscore theneed to implement a bullying prevention program focusing on awareness of the problem andtheir long-term impact to students is highly recommended. There is a need for the school toorganize a peer counseling group to address the high rate of bullying cases reported only totheir peers instead of school officials.

Keywords: Bully; Victims; Bully-Victims; Cyber-bullying

Introduction

Bullying has long been a problem of schoolsworldwide. However, it was only in the recentyears that this issue has become an increasingconcern of schools due of the escalatingnumber of reported cases which affects theschool children (Hymel, 2005). Around 30percent of the youth are said to haveexperienced being bullied and haveparticipated in bullying (Bradshaw, 2007). Inthe Philippines, 50 percent or one in twoFilipino school children are being bullied orabused in school (Ancho, 2013). Thesealarming statistics prompted the Departmentof Education (DepEd) to issue DepartmentOrder No. 40, s. 2012 entitled DepEd ChildProtection Policy, thereby, all elementary andsecondary high school in the country are toset up a system that will address bullying,discrimination, exploitation, violence andother forms of abuse committed in the schoolpremises. The Philippine Congress alsoenacted the Republic Act 10627(Anti-Bullying Law of 2013) to provide legalreinforcement to the department’s initiatives

in curbing the problem of bullying and otherrelated abuse in Philippine schools.

The 2015 DepEd Report, however, stillshowed an increasing trend in bullying despitethe measures implemented by the Departmentand the Congress. In 2014, the recordedbullying incidences totalled to 6,363 or around31 cases per school day, 21 percent higherthan the previous year (Diaz, 2015). Thesefigures still caused concern among parentsand school authorities though many of thecases were already attended to, knowing thatthe biggest threat to the school children is notstreet criminals but rather their fellowstudents. Also, the data may also give one anidea that the society as a whole is stillstruggling to understand the problem and infinding resolutions to the escalating socialconcern.

Bullying is the hostile behavior repeatedlycommitted and over time towards a person orpersons who has the difficulty in defendingherself or himself (Olweus, 1993). Thedefinition highlighted three criticalcomponents of the act, namely: 1) bullying isa hostile behavior that entails unwelcome,

*Correspondence: [email protected]

Journal of Society & Technology Laus

adverse actions; 2) an intentional andrepeated actions; and, 3) it involves power orstrength differences between the bully and thevictim. Bullying can also take on many formssuch as making derogatory comments and badnames; social exclusion or isolation; being hit,kick, shove, and spit upon; stealing or beingasked to steal money or damage things ofothers students; spreading lies and falserumors, threatening or forcing others to dothings; making racial and sexual remarks; andcyber-bullying (Halzeden Publishing, n.d.).

Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007)also mentioned the same list of aggressivebehaviors but categorized them into threegroups. These are direct verbal, directphysical and indirect or relational bullying.Direct verbal includes name-calling, threats,teasing and sexual comments or gestures.Direct physical covers actions like pushing orshoving, hitting, slapping or kicking, andstealing belongings. Indirect or relationalinvolves sending hurtful messages throughemail, blogging, spreading rumors or lie, and,leaving out from social connections.

Peer Aggression

Not all negative actions committed againstindividuals or groups who are presumed to beof weaker strength can be called bullying.Aggressive behaviors are considered bullyingwhen performed over and over and to a lessinfluential person or group of individuals.Aggression that intends to cause injury,physical and emotional pain, including adegree of fear or intimidation, is called peeraggression. The nature and purpose ofbullying and peer aggression are the same- tocause harm, pain or injury, but the former iscommitted in the context of repetition andimbalance of power between the victim andperpetrator (Cascardia, 2014).

The Anti-bullying Act of the Philippines(2013) also takes into account harassmentrepeatedly expressed through ”the use oftechnology or any electronic means” asbullying (Republic Act 10627, 2013). Termed

cyber-bullying, the harassment can range fromsimple sending messages containing threats,sexual and racist comments, to ganging up inpublic forums like group chats and socialmedia, and publishing blogs or posting falsestatements aimed to embarrass the victims inweb pages (Foxborough Regional CharterSchool).

Bullying and peer aggression exposechildren, particularly the victim, to severalconsequences such as depression, anxiety,loneliness, psychosomatic sickness, lowself-esteem, and absenteeism. The prevalenceof bullying is quite high among kindergartenchildren and adolescents that are aging eightto 12 years old (O’Malley, 2014). Researchersdefined peer victimization as the “physical,verbal or psychological abuse of victims byperpetrators who intend to cause them harm”(Olweus, 1993; Graham, 2006; O’Malley,2014). In short, it refers to the experience ofthe victim or victims of being the target ofpersistent harassment by individuals who arenot siblings and usually not from the sameage groups. Victimization differs from simplepeer conflict because of the presence of animbalance power relation and the objective ofharming the other party.

O’Malley (2014) also noted that the victimor the bullied person might displayprovocative or passive roles or both. Victimsof recurring aggression have the tendency toexhibit emotional distress and loneliness andare “submissive and unassertive” which madethem more vulnerable to the potentialoffenders. Passive victims, however, are rarelypassive, are sensitive, restless, fight back whenattacked, and, are observed as the one thatstarts the trouble.

Psychologists view bullying as aggressivebehavior that works within relationships ofpower and abuse. According to Rodkin,Espelage and Hanish (2015), bullying can becultivated by both the presence and absenceof the network of friends. Youth who bullyother children may either be sociallymarginalized young people who are exposed toviolence and those who find temporary

23


gratification in bullying other youth. Theauthors further suggested the application ofrelation approach in understanding this typeof aggression.

Group Relational Theory distinguishesvictimization by individual and victimizationby a group. Victimization conducted by asingle person can lead to personal harassment.While, in group victimization, the harassmentmay occur amongst individuals in a group orbetween one or more groups against others,may result in more complex outcomes sincethose who see the bullying activities(spectators) may then become involved inbully activities as well (Darmawan, 2010).

Methodology

Locale of the study

This study focused on determining the profileof bullying, peer aggression, and victimizationamong the students of the University of thePhilippines High School in Cebu (UPHSC), apublic high school located in Cebu City,Philippines. The school which operated undera state university caters specifically to the”economically disadvantaged but intellectuallydeserving students in the region”(UPCHSHandbook, 2013). An entrance test isadministered every year to determine thestudents who will be admitted in Grade 7 and11.The school offers Grades 7 to 10 for JuniorHigh School and Grades 11 and 12 for SeniorHigh School. Each grade level has a total of40 students.

Research design and respondents

This study employed the descriptive researchdesign. The information on the profile ofbullying, peer aggression, and victimization,characteristics of the bully, victim, and bully-victim, and their reaction towards bullyingwere gathered from the respondents using asurvey questionnaire. The respondents of thestudy were the 151 out 157 junior highstudents of UPHSC in the school year

2014-2015. This number comprised 96percent of the student population. Sixstudents were absent during the conduct ofthe survey. Table 1 shows the sex and gradelevel distribution of the respondents.

Data gathering procedure

A structured survey questionnaire was used tocollect for this study. The questionnairecomprised of 30 questions related to theobjectives of the study. The OBQ StandardSchool Report was made as a reference inframing the survey questions for this study(Olweus Bullying Questionnaire StandardSchool Report, 2007). The instrument waspilot-tested and revised before theadministration of the survey.

The researcher utilized the simple statisticaltreatment in presenting and analyzing thedata gathered such as frequency counts,totals, and percentages, ranking and weightedmeans, for the descriptive measures of thestudy. Also, chi-square test of independencewas used to determine the significantrelationship of the bullying, victimization andsex, and of bullying and victimization.

Results and Discussion

a. Profile of bullyingand victimization

Prevalence and frequent of involvementin bullying.

The results of the survey show a highprevalence of bullying and victimizationamong UPHSC students. A total of 88 (58%)out of 151 respondents reported that theywere bullied in the past couple of monthsbefore the conduct of the survey and, only 63(42%) said otherwise (Table 2). These datashow a higher incidence of bullying in theschool where the study was conductedcompared to that of the global and nationalfigures mentioned by Bradshaw (2007) andAncho (2013). Table 2 shows that Grade 7had the highest number of students (72%)

24


Table 1: Frequency distribution of the respondents according to sex and grade level

Sex/ Grade Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 TOTAL

Female 25 21 29 20 95Male 14 18 10 14 56

TOTAL 39 39 39 34 151

Table 2: Distribution of the respondents per grade level according to their experience of beingbullied

Occurrence ofBullying

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 TOTAL

Never been bullied 11 (28%) 24 (62%) 14 (36%) 14 (41%) 63 (42%)Bullied/Victim 28 (72%) 15 (32%) 25 (64%) 20 (59%) 88 (58%)

TOTAL 39 (100%) 39 (100%) 39 (100%) 34 (100%) 151 (100%)

Table 3: Summary of the respondents’ ratings on their frequent involvement in bullying pergrade level

Prevalence of BullyingNumber of Bullied

RespondentsWeighted Mean

RatingGrade 7 28 (32%) 2.14Grade 8 15 (17%) 1.73Grade 9 25 (28%) 1.88Grade 10 20 (23%) 1.9Overall 88 (100) 1.99

who were victimized by bullying, followed byGrade 9 (64%) and Grade 10 (59%). Thisresult confirmed previous studies that peervictimization and bullying are more prevalentamong younger children than the older ones(Huang, 2013) because older children aremore physically and psychologically developedcompared to the younger ones which madethem more capable of protecting themselvesfrom peer victimization or bullying(Zhang,2002).

An act to be considered bullying must berepetitive in nature. The respondents werealso asked about the number of times didthey experienced being bullied in the pastcouple of months. Figure 1 reveals the overallreported frequency of the students’ frequentinvolvement in bullying. In Figure 1, it canbe presumed that a good number ofrespondents have experienced “frequent”bullying in the past couple of months.Fifty-two percent (46) of the subjects

reported of being bullied, but ”Seldom” did ithappen (only once or twice) in the pastmonths. On the other hand, 48 percent of therespondents admitted being bullied more thandouble in the past couple of month with 16percent of the respondents answered”Always,” 15 percent for “Often”, and 17percent for ”Sometimes.” Solberg and Olweusdescribed frequent bullying as aggression thathappened at least twice or more in the pastsemester (Solberg, 2003), and chronicbullying happened at least once a week toseveral times a week (Olweus, 1993).

Table 3 summarizes the weighted mean ofthe respondents’ rating of their frequentinvolvement in bullying and victimization pergrade level. Data in the said Table vividlyshows that UPHSC students are frequentlyinvolved in bullying. The overall weightedmean is 1.99 (Sometimes). Grade 7 has thehighest weighted mean among the four classeswith 2.14 (Sometimes); followed by Grade 10

25


Figure 1: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their frequency of involvementin bullying

Figure 2: Common forms of bullying experienced by the respondents who were bullied inschool

and Grade 9 with 1.90 (Sometimes) and 1.88,respectively. Grade 8 has the lowest incidenceof bullying with 15 cases of bullying and aweighted mean of 1.73 (Seldom). This datanegates the findings of previous studies thatmentioned that bullying and victimization areless prevalent as the children aged (Zhang,2002; Huang, 2013)

Forms of Bullying

Figure 2 reveals that the top 3 common formsof bullying are direct verbal (41%), indirect orrelation bullying (35 %) and physical bullying(15%). Only seven percent (28) of therespondents claimed that they werecyber-bullied, or they received rude messagesand comments through text and the Internet(email and social media). This result hasaffirmed Lai’s (2008) finding that the mostcommon forms of bullying among Filipino

26


children are verbal and indirect or relational.Bradshaw (2007) also mentioned that verbalbullying was the most common form of peervictimization in US schools, and though thereis an increasing awareness aboutcyber-bullying, relatively few students havereported being victimized by this method.

Involvement in the different forms ofbullying and victimization

Table 4 presents the summary of therespondents’ ratings of their constantparticipation in the various forms of bullyingand victimization. It shows that the top 3most prevalent form of bullying in the schoolis name calling, teasing or taunting with aweighted mean of 2.19 (Sometimes);spreading rumors or lies with 1.68 (Seldom),and, social exclusion with 1.56 (Seldom)weighted mean. This result confirmed earlierfindings that the most common form ofbullying and victimization was direct verbalbullying. Other types of bullying mentionedare comments about gender (i.e., Bayot orgay), body size (i.e., fat), blackmail, andother indirect hurtful comments. It alsoimplies that this type of verbal bullying is themost frequent among the forms of bullying orhas occurred at least twice in the past monthsbefore the survey. This result affirmed thefindings of Huang (2013) that most of theChinese students (49.8%) were targeted ofteasing and taunting. See also Table 4 detailson other forms of bullying.

Location

Figure 3 reveals that the top 3 sites or placeswhere bullying happens in school areplaygrounds, athletic fields, open court orstage (36%), locker (24%) and corridors,stairways, lobby (22%). These findingsaffirmed previous studies which indicated thatthe frequently reported location of bullying isplaygrounds and cafeteria (Bradshaw, 2007;Olweus, 1993) and school building (Petrosino,2010). Previous researchers have indicated

that in these places, there is an observed lackof adult supervision. Hence, bullying andvictimization are more likely to occur.

Duration of bullying

Table 5 shows that on the overall, bullyingand victimization in UPHSC usually lasted forabout a month, with a weighted mean of2.01. Grade 7 had the highest weighted meanwith 2.29 (about a month) and followed byGrade 10 and Grade 9 with 2.26 and 1.79(about a month) weighted mean, respectively.The shortest duration of bullying andvictimization is among Grade 8 students witha weighted mean of 1.33 or it lasted aboutone to two weeks only. Schaefer’s study onbullying among college students linkedduration and age of bullying and victimizationto long-term psychological effects. Thosestudents who reported being bullied duringtheir elementary and high school yearsexhibited greater physiological distresscompared to those who were victimized onlyin college (Schafer, 2010).

Reporting bullying incidence in school

The data of the study (Figure 4) show thatmost of the respondents (40%) preferred totell their friends about the bullying incidentsin school. Only 28 percent of the respondentssaid that they report bullying incidents toadults in school such as teachers other thanthe class adviser, principal, guidance counseloror school staff. The homeroom teacher orclass adviser (20%) only ranked third in thelist of persons whom victims are most likely toturn to when bullied. These data may implythat the victims of bullying are afraid ofreporting the incidence because the bully maycome after them.

The UPHSC Disciplinary Committee Reportindicated a total of 11 student violations forS.Y. 2014-15 (Table 6). A total of fivebullying incidents have been reported to theCommittee for the entire year. This number isonly six percent of the total number of

27


Table 4: Summary of the respondents’ ratings on the common forms of bullying experiencedby the respondents who were bullied in school

Forms of BullyingFrequency (%

of Total)Weighted

Mean RatingDescription

A. Direct Verbal 173 (41%)· Name calling, teasing, taunting 88 (21%) 2.19 Sometime· Racist remarks 46 (11%) 1.55 Seldom· Sexual comments 39 (9%) 1.44 SeldomC. Relational 149 (35%)· Social exclusion or isolation 67 (16%) 1.56 Seldom· Spreading rumors or lies 52 (12%) 1.68 Seldom· Extorting money or other things 30 (71%) 1.24 SeldomB. Direct Physical 65 (15%)· Kicked, shoved, hit, slap, lockedindoors

33 (8%) 1.32 Seldom

· Threatened of forced to do bad things 32 (8%) 1.24 SeldomD. Cyber-bullying 28 (7%) 1.12 SeldomE. Others 7 (2%) 1.58 Seldom

Legend: 3.26-4:00, Always; 2.51-3.25, Often; 1.76-2.50, Sometimes; 1.00-1.76, Seldom

Figure 3: Frequency of the respondents’ responses to the location/ place where bullyingusually happens

respondents (88) who reported havingexperienced bullying in school. The data alsoimplied that majority of the bullying incidentsin school remain unreported to schoolauthorities.

b. Characteristics of victim, bully,and bully-victim

Figure 5 shows that out of 151 respondents,69 (46%) were bully-victims; 43 (28%) wereneither victim nor involved in bullying others;21 (14%) were ”pure bullies”; and, 18 (12%)were ”pure victims.” These findings negatedthe results of previous studies which cited

28


Table 5: Summary of the respondents’ ratings of the duration of bullying and victimizationper grade level

Grade Frequency Weighted Mean Rating Description

7 21 2.29 About a month8 9 1.33 One to two weeks9 19 1.79 One to two weeks10 19 2.26 About a month

Overall 68 2.01 About a month

Legend: 4.21- 5.00, Several years; 3.41-4.20, About a year; 2.61-3.40, About six months; 1.81-2.60,About a month; One to two weeks

Figure 4: Person/s whom bullying in school is usually reported by the respondents

substantial numbers of bully-victims, but stilllower in percentage compared to pure bulliesand pure victims (Olweus, 1991; Solberg &Olweus, 2003; Hymel, 2005; Petrosino, 2010).However, researchers also noted that thebully-victims phenomenon is increasing in therecent years (Benitez, 2006).

Victim

The results show (Table 7) that most of therespondents who were victims of bullying wereGrade 7 (32%), and the majority are female(62%). Victimization was also high amongGrade 9 (28%) and Grade 10 (23%)respondents, while only 17% of the Grade 8respondents were victims of school bullying.These results confirmed the studies of Huang

(2013); and that of Espelage and Horne(2008) and Kokkinos (2012), that the boys,the more aggressive gender and are morelikely to be involved more in bullyingcompared to girls. However, the resultscontradicted Astor’s findings that in somecultures (i.e., Malaysia and Ethiopia) whereage and rank are vital, the older students areless likely to experience being bulliedcompared to the younger ones(Asto, 2005).

Bully

Table 8 reveals that 75 (97%) respondentswho were subjected to bullying identified theirclassmates as the perpetrators. Bullies areusually composed of a group of two to threestudents (35 or 46 %%) and with both boys

29


Table 6: Summary of reported student violations, S.Y. 2014-15

Nature of violation Frequency

Bullying 5Cheating/ dishonesty/ tampering of documents 2Cutting classes 1Non-participation in school activities 1stealing 1Loitering/ making unnecessary noise in the classroom 1TOTAL 11

Source: UPHSC Disciplinary Committee Report

Figure 5: Respondents’ involvement in bullying

and girls (38 or 50%). This finding affirmedprevious studies in bullying that mentionedbullying occurs among friends (Griffin, 2004),both boys and girls are equally capable ofbullying others (Baldry 1999), and, that apartfrom personal factors, peer influence or peerconformity is one of the reasons whyindividuals engaged in bullying (Cho, 2011;Baldry, 1999). It is also shown in Table 8 thatthe most frequent participation in bullyingothers is once or twice in the past few ofmonths. The combined data on involvementin bullying suggests that 48 percent of thereported bullies have habitual tendencies invictimizing other students. The saidrespondents have been involved in bullyingothers two or more times in a month.

Bully-victim

Haynie et. al. (2001) and Veenstra et al.(2005) identified the bully-victim or thosewho are both perpetrators and victims byothers. In this study, 69 out of 181respondents were bully-victims. Forty-two(61%) respondents who reported beingbully-victims were female while 27 (39%) weremales (Table 9). This result is alarming sinceprevious studies have indicated that thebully-victim are more likely to suffer morepsychological effects of aggression such asdepression, anxiety, loneliness and aggressivebehavior compared to pure bullies and victims(Dewar, 2008; O’Brennan, 2009; Stein, 2007).

30


Table 7: Profile of victims of bullying according to sex and grade level

Grade Level Girls Boy Total

7 19 (68%) 9 (32%) 28 (32%)8 5 (33%) 10 (77%) 15 (17%)9 21 (84%) 4 (16%) 25 (28%)10 10 (50%) 10 (50%) 20 (23%)

TOTAL 55 (62%) 33 (38%) 88 (100%)

Relationship between bullying,victimization, and sex

Based on the chi-square test of independence,bullying, victimization, and sex has nosignificant relationship, χ2 = 2.394, p =.495,where p is greater than ∝ = 0.05 (Table 10).It means that sex is not a factor in bullyingand victimization, or both sexes are capable ofbullying others and of being a victim ofbullying. This result is in contrary to thefinding of previous studies that one of thefactors in the variation of bullying andvictimization is sex or gender (Swearer, 2001;Dake, 2003; Shafer, 2010; Xa, 2010;Espelage, 2008; Kokkinos, 2012).

Relationship of victimization andbullying others

A good number of respondents arebully-victims or those who are both victimsand also involved in bullying others. Based onthe chi-square test of independence, thecomputed χ2 = 33.111, p = .000, where p isgreater than ∝ = 0.05; hence, Significant(Table 10). These findings may imply thatvictimization is a factor in bullying or studentswho are victims of bullying are more likely tocounter by also bullying others. Expertsexplained that once the maximum limits forenduring bullying have been reached, victimsare more apt to ”strike back” in many ways(Hallard, 1999).

Respondents’ responses andperception on bullying

A total of 72 respondents (48%) reportedthat they tried to help the victim when they

witnessed bullying while 62 (41%) said theydid nothing but considered helping thestudents victimized by bullying. There wereonly four students who reported that they justobserved or watched while bullying wascommitted; two of which said that bullying isokay (Table 11). Literature indicated thatspectators or those who watch bullyinghappen or hear about it are seldom neutraleven if they thought so (EDC, 2008).In fact,Atlas, R., & Pepler, D.(1998) study onbullying revealed that 18 percent of thesubjects said that they are more likely to jointheir friends in bullying other kids. There arefour types of bystanders or spectators. One isthe outsiders or those who did not experiencebullying among their friends. Second is thedefenders or those who were likely to help thevictims of bullying. Third is the guiltybystanders or those who witnessed bullyingbut felt guilty for not being of help to thevictim. And lastly, the indifferent spectatorsor those who saw but felt that the act is okay.According to Obermann (2011), the apatheticbystanders have higher moral separationcompared to the guilty ones.

The data on reporting school violencerevealed that most of the respondents (40%)preferred to report bullying to their peersrather to their teachers or adult in school(Figure 3). However, such does not implythat the respondents are unsatisfied of theschool’s capacity to deal with the problemsince the respondents’ rated ”Satisfactory” onthe question regarding the teacher’s action toaddress school bullying (Table 11). Therespondents seem to think that they can dealwith bullying among themselves since itinvolved mostly their classmates. Also, it can

31


Table 8: Reported characteristics of the bully

Characteristics Frequency Rank

A. Class or Grade Level- The same grade level (classmate/s) 75 (97%) 1st- Higher grade level 1 (1.5%) 2nd- Different grade levels 1 (1.5%) 3rdTotal 77 (100%)B. Sex composition of bullies- By both boys and girls 38 (50%) 1st- Several boys 13 (17%) 2nd- One girl 11 (14%) 3rd- One boy 8 (10%) 4th- Several girls 7 (9%) 5thTotal 77 (100%)C. Number of students who do the bullying- A group of 2-3 students 35 (46%) 1st- A group of 4-9 students 21 (27%) 2nd- Mainly by 1 student 13 (17%) 3rd- Several groups of students 7 (9%) 4th- A group of more than 9 students 1 (1%) 5thTotal 77 (100%)D. Frequency of participation in bullying- Once or twice in the past months 52 (68) 1st- 2 to 3 times a month 11 (14%) 2nd- Once a week 13 (17%) 3rd- Several times a week 1 (1%) 4thTotal 77 100%)

Table 9: Respondents’ participation in bullying & victimization according to sex

Sex Victim Bully Victim & BullyNot Victim &

Not BullyTOTAL

Female 10 12 42 31 95Male 8 9 27 12 56TOTAL 18 21 69 43 151

be gleaned in Table 11 that the respondentsare “Seldom” afraid of bullying. Theinformation found in Table 12 confirmed therespondent’s perception towards the problem.The said Table listed bullying as the least(Rank 6 of 6) of the identified causes studentsfailure in UPHSC. Furthermore, though asubstantial number of respondents wouldprefer to report bullying to their friends ratherthan their teachers or any adult in school,many still tried to help the victims. Thisresult may imply that many of the studentsstill considers bullying and peer victimization

as morally wrong despite the high incidence ofunreported (to school authorities) bullyingand peer victimization in the school.

Conclusion andRecommendations

Bullying and peer victimization exist amongstudents of UP High School Cebu. The profileof bullying and victimization may imply thatthe problem is not as severe compared to theschools in the West. However, there is a highincidence of bullying unreported to school

32


Table 10: Relationship between variables

Variables Computed χ2 p-value

Bullying, victimization & sex 2.394a 0.495Bullying & victimization 33.111b 0

aNot Significant; b Significant

Table 11: Respondents’ reactions and perception toward school bullying

Reaction Frequency Rank

A. Response towards bullying- Try to help victim 72 (48%) 1st- Do nothing but think of helping the student beingbullied

62 (41%) 2nd

- No knowledge about bullying in school 9 (6%) 3rd- Participated in bullying 4 (3%) 4th- Bystander (just watch) 2 (1%) 5th- Bullying is Okay 2 (1%) 6thTotal 151 (100%)B. Weighted Mean Rating on their reactiontowards bullying

Weighted MeanRating

Description*

- Afraid of bullying 2.48 Seldom- on teacher’s action to address school bullying 3.25 Satisfactory

*Legend: 4.21- 5.00,Very often/ excellent; 3.41-4.20, Often/very satisfactory; 2.61-3.40, Sometimes/satisfactory; 1.81-2.60, Seldom/ Moderately Satisfactory; 1.00-1.80, Never/ Needs Improvement

authorities which involve students of the samegrade levels, and, the significant number ofrespondents who are bully-victims exposed thestudents to possible and long-term mental andpsychological problems such as depression,anxiety, lack of self-confidence and aggressivebehavior. If not addressed immediately,bullying may lead to more serious problemssuch as absenteeism, violence, involvement incrime and moral separation among thestudents. These findings also confirmed theGroup Relational Theory, which states thatthe bullies are usually not alone but by agroup or groups of friends.

Based on the results mentioned above, it isrecommended that the UPHSC implements abullying prevention program which promotes”no tolerance” to any forms of bullying inschool. The student should be informed ofthe various impact of bullying, peer aggressionand victimization to victims, bully,bully-victims, bystanders and to the entirecommunity by conducting awareness

campaign and integrating the topic inclassroom discussions. Second, a peercounselor program must also be set-up underthe supervision of School Guidance Specialistto ensure that the problem is addressed andappropriately reported to school authorities.Third, training on how to deal with bullyingshould be conducted so that the students willknow how to avoid being bullied, where andto whom they should report bullying cases inschool. And lastly, further studies of bullyingand victimization, its causes and impactshould be made to better understand thissocial concern.

33


Table 12: Causes of student failure in UPHSC, S.Y. 2014-15

Causes Frequency Rank

Lazy to study, poor study habit, poor memory, low scores inquizzes and other school requirements

54 1st

Home condition, family problems, heavy responsibilities at home 24 2ndDifficulty in understanding the subject, teacher does not explainwell the lessons

20 3rd

Others (lack of sleep, unhappy/can not get along with classmates) 14 4thIllnesses, physical impairment 8 5thBullied in school 1 6th

Source: Survey on causes of student failure for S.Y. 2014-2015 conducted by the UPHSC GuidanceOffice

References

Ancho, I. a. (2013). School Violence in thePhilippines: A Study on Programs andPolicies. Advance Science and TechnologyLetters (Education), Vol. 36 , 27-31.

Asto, R. B. (2005). Making the Case for anInternational Perspective on SchoolViolence: Implication for Theory,Research, Policy and Assessment.International Perspectives , 103-117.

Atlas, R. &. (1998). Observations of bullyingin the classroom. Journal of EducationalResearch, 92 , 1-86.

Baldry, A. F. (1999). Types of Bullyingamong Italian school children. JournalAdolescence, 423-426.

Benitez, J. &. (2006). Bullying: descriptionand analysis of the phenomenon. Journalof Research in Educational Psychology,No. 9, Vol 4(2), 151-170.

Bradshaw, C. P. (2007). Bullying and PeerVictimization at School: PerceptualDifferences Between Students and SchoolStaff. School Psychology Review, 361.Bradshaw, C. P. (2007). Bullying andPeer Victimization at School: PerceptualDifferences Between Students and SchoolStaff. School Psychology Review, 2007,361.

Cascardia, M. C. (2014). The Problem WithOverly Broad Definitions of Bullying:Implications for the Schoolhouse, theStatehouse, and the Ivory Tower. Journalof School Violence, Volume 13, Issue 3,253-276.

Cho, Y. &.-B. (2011). A MediatedModeration of Conformative PeerBullying. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 520-529.

Dake, J. P. (2003). The Nature and Extent ofBullying at School. Journal of SchoolHealth, Vol. 73, No. 5, 173-180.

Dewar, G. (2008). When bullies get bullied byothers: Understanding bully-victims.Parenting Science.

Diaz, J. (2015, September 28). 31 bullyingincidents take place daily in schools. ThePhilippine Star.

EDC. (2008). Eyes on Bullying. RetrievedMay 22, 2016, from eyesonbullying.org

Espelage, D. H. (2008). School violence andbullying prevention: From research-basedexplanation to empirical based solution.In S. &. Brown, Handbook of counsellingpsychology, 4th edition (pp. 588-606).NJ: Wiley.

34


Foxborough Regional Charter School. (n.d.).Retrieved May 15, 2016, fromwww.foxboroughhrcs.org

Graham, S. A. (2006). Peer Victimization,Aggression, and Their Co-Occurrence.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,Vol. 34, No. 3, 363–378.

Griffin, R. &. (2004). Childhood bullying:Current empirical findings and futuredirection for research. Aggression andViolent Behavior, Vol. 9, 379-400.

Hallard, M. A. (1999, May). Bullying andSchool Violence: A Proposed PreventionProgram. NASSP Bulletin, pp. 38-47.

Halzeden Publishing. (n.d.). ViolencePrevention Works. Safer Schools, SaferCommunities. Retrieved May 4, 2016,from http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/ public/recognizing bullying.page

Haynie, D. L.-C. (2001). Bullies, victims, andbully/victims: Distinct groups of at-riskyouth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21,29–49.

Huang, H. J. (2013). Understanding FactorsAssociated with Bullying and PeerVictimization in Chinese Schools WithinEcological Context. J. Child and FamilyStudy, 880-892.

Hymel, S. N.-H. (2005). MoralDisengagement: A Framework forUnderstanding Bullying AmongAdolescents. Journal of Social Sciences,Special Issue No. 8 1-11, 1-11.

Kokkinos C.M. & Kipritsi, E. (2102). Therelationship between bullying,victimization, trait emotional intelligence,self-efficacy, and empathy amongpreadolescents. Social Psychology

Education, Vol.15. , 41-58.

Lai, S. (2008). Bullying in Middle Schools AnAsia-Pacific Regional Study. Asia PacificReview, Vol.9, 503-515.

Obermann, M. (2011). Moral DisengagementAmong Bystanders to School Bullying.Journal of School Violence, Vol. 10, Issue3, 239-257.

O’Brennan, L. B. (2009). Examiningdevelopment differences in thesocial-emotional problems among frequentbullies, victims, and bully/victims.Psychology in the Schools, Vo. 46, Issue2,100-115.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/Victim problemsamong school children: Basic facts andeffects of a school-based interventionprogram. In D. &. Pepler, Thedevelopment and treatment for childhoodaggression. New Jersey: Lea.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. Whatwe know and what we can do. Oxford,England: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (2007). Olweus BullyingQuestionnaire Standard School Report.Minneapolis, Minnesota: HalzedenPublishing.

O’Malley, M. D. (2014). PrevailingInterventions to Address PeerVictimization at school: A Study ofCalifornia School Psychologist. TheCalifornia School Psychologist, Volume 14Issue 1, 47-57.

Petrosino, A. G. (2010). What characteristicsof bullying, bullying victims, and schoolsare associated with increased reporting ofbullying to school officials? Washington,DC.: Institute of Education Science.

35


Republic Act 10627. (2013). Anti-bullyingLaw.

Rodkin, P.C, Espelage, D., & Hanish, L.,(2015). A Relational Framework forUnderstanding Bullying, DevelopmentalAntecedents and Outcomes. AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 70, No. 4, 311–321.

Schafer, M. e. (2010). Lonely in the crowd:Recollections of bullying. British Journalof Development Psychology, Vol. 22,Issue 3, 379-394.

Solberg, M. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalenceestimation of school bullying with theOlweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire.Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 30, 123-145.

Solberg, M. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalenceestimation of school bullying inOlweus/Victim Questionnaire. AggressiveBehavior, 239-268.

Stein, J. D. (2007). Adolescent Male Bullies,Victims, and Bully-Victims: AComparison of Psychosocial andBehavioral Characteristics. Journal ofPediatric Psychology, 273-282.

Swearer, S. E. (2001). The RelationshipBetween Depression, Anxiety, andBully/Victim Status. Journal ofEmotional Abuse, Vol. 2, Issue 2-3,95-121.

UPCHS Handbook. (2013).

Veenstra, R. L. (2005). Bullying andvictimization in elementary schools: Acomparison of bullies, bully/victims, anduninvolved preadolescents. DevelopmentalPsychology, 41, 672–682.

Xa, X. (2010). Bullying and Being Bullied:To What Extent Are Bullies Also Victims?American Educational Research Journal,351-370.

Zhang, W. (2002). Prevalence and MajorCharacteristics of bullying/victimizationamong primary and junior middle schoolstudents. Acta Psychologica Sinca,4,387-394.

36

a pro le of bullying, peer aggression, and victimization ... · filipino school children are being...

Documents