associations between school bullying ans psychosocial factors - jankauskiene et al (2008)

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SCHOOL BULLYING AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS

Rasa Jankauskiene, kestutis kaRdelis, saulius sukys, and laimute kaRdeliene

Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Kaunas, Lithuania

The aim of the study was to determine the relationship of bullying behavior at school with indicators of psychosocial health (self-esteem, happiness, relationships in family and with teachers, smoking and alcohol use) and with social-demographical factors (age, gender, socioeconomic status). Participants were 1,162 pupils from the 6th, 8th, and 11th grades of schools. A total of 56.5% of students were involved in bullying. 12.7% were ascribed as victims and 16.3% as bullies. Using logistic regression, it was established that involvement in bullying is most associated with grade (6th and 8th grades), masculine gender, tobacco smoking, lower self-esteem, and family teasing about appearance. Victimization was most associated with grade, masculine gender, lower self-esteem, unhappiness, and family teasing about appearance. For the bully, masculine gender, grades (6th and 8th), tobacco smoking and family teasing about appearance are typically associated factors. Results are interpreted against the background of other study findings, while emphasizing relevance of family teasing about appearance in bullying behavior.

Keywords: bullying, victimization, school violence, age, gender, self-esteem, family teasing.

As the problem of aggression at school is analyzed (Storch & Ledley, 2005) more attention has been paid to bullying, but there is still a need for studies analyzing factors which determine bullying and victimization. Despite the

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2008, 36 (2), 145-162© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)

145

Rasa Jankauskiene, Laboratory of Physical Education and Social Sciences, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Kaunas, Lithuania; Kestutis Kardelis, Saulius Sukys, and Laimute Kardeliene, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Kaunas, Lithuania.Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Romualdas Malinauskas, Department of Psychology, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Sporto 6, 44221 Kaunas, Lithuania, Email: [email protected]; Robert Young, PhD, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland, UK, Email: [email protected] address correspondence and reprint requests to: Rasa Jankauskiene, Laboratory of Physical Education and Social Sciences, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Sporto 6, Kaunas LT-44221, Lithuania. Phone: +370 650 92569; Fax: +370 37 204515; Email: [email protected]

SCHOOL BULLYING AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS146

increasing attention to problems of aggression at school, it has been found that the most severe problem in today’s school communities is not an open act of violence or aggression, but persistent disrespect and violence (Delfabbro et al., 2006).

Although the perception of bullying and teasing is influenced by semantic differences in different countries (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002), it is nevertheless agreed that when there are repeated acts of unprovoked aggression that are damaging psychologically or physically for the victim, and where the strength of the aggressor/s and the victim is unequal, then the term bullying is used (Olweus, 1999). Scientists define three types of bullying: verbal, relational, and physical (Olweus, 1991). Others note that, in addition to bullying, there is the more complex behavior called teasing. Teasing involves hostility, ambiguity, and humor. There have been fewer studies of teasing than of bullying (Landau, Milich, Harris, & Larson, 2001).

Bullying and victimization are related to declared physical and psychological symptoms (Delfabbro et al., 2006; Due et al., 2005; Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2006), lower academic achievement, skipping classes, higher prevalence of self-destructive behaviors such as smoking and alcohol use (Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003; Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005), and increased risk of psychopathology and depression, which leads to suicidal behavior, especially among girls (Klomek et al.). Victimization in childhood (at age 5 – 7 years) is related to poorer social adaptation, unhappiness, and behavior-related problems at school (Arseneault et al., 2006) as well as to anxiety and social phobias in adulthood (Gladstone, Parker, & Malhi, 2006).

Studies of bullying among students have been carried out in many countries (Dake et al., 2003; Dao et al., 2006; Delfabbro et al., 2006; Due at al., 2005; Kepenekci & Cinkir, 2006; Klomek et al., 2006; McGuckin & Lewis, 2006; Munni & Malhi, 2006; Scheithauer, Hayer, Petermann, & Jugert, 2006; Veenstra et al., 2005; Yang, Kim, Kim, Shin, & Yoon, 2006). According to research, prevalence of school bullying varies from 11.3% in Finland to 49.8% in Ireland (Bullock, 2002; Dake et al., 2003) in samples of elementary school children.

Analyzed factors mostly associated with different types of school bullying include low level of education of parents (Sourander et al., 2006), masculine gender (Munni & Malhi, 2006; Scheithauer et al., 2006), grades of the secondary school (6th – 8th; Scheithauer et al.), aggressiveness, social isolation (Veenstra et al., 2005), and deviation from social expectations, for example, being overweight or suffering from an illness (Griffiths, Wolke, Page, & Horwood, 2006; Janssen, Craig, Boyce, & Pickett, 2004; Singer, 2005).

Some studies show that psychopathological behavior, which includes social problems and aggression, is an outcome of experienced violence (Kim, Leventhal, Koh, Hubbard, & Boyce, 2006), while others reveal the inverse

SCHOOL BULLYING AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS 147

relation (Fekkes, Pijpers, Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006). Although causality remains unclear, it is known that vulnerable behavior (e.g., frightened reaction), compliance to a bully, encouragement and provoking of a bully by such behaviors as crying, timidity and withdrawing from social contact are more typical of victims (Fox & Boulton, 2005).

Encouragement of out-of-school activities is known as one educational means to deal with the problem of aggression among students. Sports involvement is one such activity. Studies show that playing sports is related to greater athletic identity (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993; Lau, Fox, & Cheung, 2004) and with a masculine role (Lantz & Schroeder, 1999). The image typical of such a role is related to a muscular body, self-confidence, competitiveness, and, depending on the kind of sport, with aggression, which occurs even beyond sports activities (Miller, Melnick, Farrell, Sabo, & Barnes, 2006). The relationship between playing sports and involvement in bullying behavior is unclear.

It is still not known how family constitution, socioeconomic status (SES), or different aspects of relationships in a family are related to school bullying. In Lithuania, there have been only two studies of bullying (Povilaitis & Valickaite, 2005; Valeckiene, 2005).

The aim of this study was to survey the occurrence of bullying among students and to determine its associations with psychosocial factors.

METHODParticiPants

To carry out the study, we used an independent random sample representing the population of pupils of the sixth, eighth, and eleventh grades of Kaunas (the second largest city of Lithuania) secondary mixed-sex denominational schools. The sample contained 1,214 students chosen from 17 secondary schools. Fifty-two questionnaires were not filled in fully or were damaged and were therefore rejected. Consequently, questionnaires from 1,162 pupils were analyzed. Distribution of students by grades and gender is presented in Table 1. No relevant differences in distribution of students by gender were found (χ2 = 3.87; df = 2; p < 0.14).

TABLE 1size of the samPle by Grade and Gender

Grade Sex Total (n) Male (n) Female (n)

6 152 150 3028 158 184 34211 224 294 518

Total (n) 534 628 1162


measure

A questionnaire containing 69 questions with 332 options was filled in by students in the study. This paper presents only one portion of the whole study, that is, only data related to interpersonal relationships of students. The questionnaire was based on questions used in the research of the health behavior of school-aged children in Lithuania (Due et al., 2005). The following blocks of questions or statements were included in the questionnaire:Demographic variables Students were asked to specify their gender, age, and grade. Socioeconomic status (SES) of a participant’s family was determined with the help of the question “Do you think that your family is rich materially?” The question was answered on a 5-point scale ranging from very rich to absolutely poor. Respondents were divided into three groups (poor, middle-income, and rich families). The make-up of the family was determined with the help of the question “Who do you live with?” Respondents were divided into two groups (living with mother and father and living with one parent). Self-esteem was established based on Rosenberg’s (1965) questionnaire about self-esteem containing 10 statements answered on a 4-point scale ranging from I absolutely agree to I absolutely disagree. A score of 10 points indicates low self-esteem and 40 indicates high self-esteem. The internal consistency of the scale was good in the sample (α = 0.75). Mean (SD) was 26.2 (4.1). Students were divided into two groups based on this mean (those with lower self-esteem and those with higher self-esteem).Happiness was established with the help of the question “How do you feel about yourself when you are thinking about your life at the moment?” The question was answered on a 4-point scale ranging from I feel that I am very happy to I am absolutely unhappy. Students were divided into two groups.Body mass index (BMI) was calculated by height and weight (without shoes), according to the formula (body weight [kg]2/height [m]2). Data of students were interpreted according to national indicators of BMI distribution (National Report of the Health Council, 2005). Children whose BMI exceeded the 97th percentile were considered as obese.Relationships with parents were established with the help of the question “Is it easy for you to talk with your parents about things that you are concerned (worried) about?” Options were presented in ascending order from very difficult to very easy. The respondents were divided into two groups (those who communicated easily and those who communicated with difficulty). Teasing about appearance was established by presenting four statements: 1) within the last 6 months, my siblings or my relatives teased me about the appearance of my body; 2) within the last 6 months, my parents teased me for appearance of my body; 3) within the last 6 months, my physical education teachers teased me about the appearance of my body; 4) within the last 6


months, my teachers of other subjects teased me about the appearance of my body. Responses were based on a 5-point scale ranging from I really agree to I absolutely disagree. In each case, the respondents were divided into two groups (those who were teased by their family and those who were not; those who were teased by teachers and those who were not). The internal consistency of the scale was good (α = 0.76). Prevalence of self-destructive behaviors (tobacco and alcohol use) was established by asking how often within the last 12 months participants had smoked or drunk alcohol (options were presented on a 6-point scale ranging from never to each day). Pupils who admitted that they had smoked tobacco and drunk alcohol once, twice, or more times per month were ascribed to groups of drinking and smoking students.Playing sports was established with the help of the question “Do you play sports now (have attended a sports school or a club for a period longer than half a year?)” Playing sports was considered as formal belonging to some sports club, school, circle, or group, but did not include independent physical activities in leisure time. Bullying/victimization Involvement in different bullying was established by using a block of 12 questions (6 concerning victimization and 6 concerning bullying) to ascertain different forms of victimization. For example: 1) How many times within the last two months were you in a situation where your personal items were hidden or you were ignored in order to isolate you from a group of friends? 2) How many times within the last two months have lies about you been told in order to make others not associate with you? 3) How many times within the last two months were you hurt physically, pushed, or touched by other students in order to humiliate you?

To establish bullying, the inverse forms of the statements above were used (e.g., “How many times within the last two months have you called others names in order to humiliate them?”).

In both cases, options were presented in ascending order: never, once per month, once per week, several times per week. All students were placed in the group of those involved in bullying, and were then allocated either to the group of victims or to the group of bullies. Students involved in bullying were those who had been a victim or bully “once per week” or “several times per week” (everyone who answered being bullied or bullying others at least on four items with “once per month” and at least on one of the six items with “once per week” or “several times per week” was regarded as a victim or bully). Students were categorized as victims in each case if they answered that they were bullies less than “once per week” or “several times per week” on one item or “one time per month” in four items. For bullies the opposite classification was used.


The internal consistency of the scale used to establish bullying was good (α = 0.80).

Procedure

The study was done in the spring of 2005 (March through to May) upon written consent by the Education Department of Kaunas City Municipality. Seventeen secondary schools and gymnasiums of Kaunas City were chosen randomly, and oral consent by their principals was obtained. The survey was done during class upon prior agreement with teachers. It was carried out by the researchers themselves. Participation of students was based on principles of anonymity and goodwill. Pupils were given as much time as they needed. It took about 30 minutes on the average to fill in the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were collected at once.

data analysis

Data were analyzed by using the statistical package software system SPSS13.0. Bivariate associations were calculated with chi-square (χ2) criterion (α = .05). Odds ratios (OR) were calculated as an effect measure for data with binary outcomes. Correlation between variables was analyzed to determine the opportunity ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) of 95%. OR was considered as statistically reliable if 1 did not fall in the CI. Binary logistic regression (Enter and Backward Stepwise Methods) analyses were conducted to take into account the influence of several independent variables on one categorical dependent variable.

RESULTS

Six hundred and fifty-seven (56.5%) students in total were involved in bullying. One hundred and forty-eight (12.7%) of them reported being victims, while 189 (16.3%) of them reported being bullies.

number of bullies and Victims by Gender

More boys than girls were involved in bullying and more boys than girls were bullies (Table 2). When comparing distribution by gender among victims, no such significant differences were found.

number of bullies and Victims by Grade

Students of the sixth and the eighth grade tended to be involved in teasing more than twice as much as the eleventh graders (Table 3), they became victims more often and they bullied more often. Involvement in bullying as well as numbers of victims and bullies tended to decrease significantly in the eleventh grade. The peak of involvement in bullying manifested in the eighth grade.


table 2distribution of inVolVement in bullyinG and numbers of Victims and bullies by Gender

Boys1 Girls1 Total2

Involved in bullying 350 (67) 307 (49.7) 657 (56.5) OR = 2.06; CI 95% [1.62; 2.62]

Victims 53 (21.3) 95 (22) 148 (12.7) OR = 0.96; CI 95% [0.66; 1.40]

Bullies 113 (36.6) 76 (18.4) 189 (16.3) OR = 2.56; CI 95% [1.82; 3.59]

1 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students by gender.2 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students in the sample.

TABLE 3distribution of inVolVement in bullyinG and numbers of Victims and bullies by Grade

6th grade1 8th grade1 11th grade1 Total2

Involved in bullying 189 (64.5) 232 (69.5) 236 (46) 657 (56.5) OR = 2.1; CI 95% [1.58; 2.86]* OR = 2.7; CI 95% [1.99; 3.57]**

Victims 53 (31.5) 50 (29.6) 45 (13.1) 148 (12.7) OR = 3.0; CI 95% [1.94; 4.81]* OR = 2.8; CI 95% [1.77; 4.40]**

Bullies 48 (29.4) 55 (31.6) 86 (22.3) 189 (16.3) OR = 1.5; CI 95% [0.96; 2.19]* OR = 1.6; CI 95% [1.07; 2.39]**

1 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students by the grade.2 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students in the sample. * 6th grade as compared to the 11th grade.** 8th grade as compared to the 11th grade.

number of bullies and Victims by sesNo significant differences were found while analyzing involvement in bullying

by SES. However, it was established that such behavior was more frequent among children from rich families in comparison to children from middle-income or poor families: 65.2% vs. 58% and 54.1% respectively (χ2 = 1.48; df = 2; p = 0.47). Children from low SES families were more often victimized in comparison to children from middle and high SES families: 29.2% vs. 19.8% and 11.1% respectively (χ2 = 5.69; df = 2; p < .05). The highest number of bullies was found in children from middle and high SES families in comparison to children from low SES families: 27.8% and 27.3% vs. 16.7% (χ2 = 5.57; df = 2; p = 0.06).

number of bullies and Victims by constitution of family

Constitution of the family was not related to involvement in bullying. Children living with one parent were not involved in bullying more frequently: 59%


vs. 57.3% (χ2 = 0.24; df = 1; p = 0.62). Children living with one parent were victimized more: 24.7% vs. 20.9% respectively (χ2 = 0.99; df = 1; p = 0.32). However, no statistically reliable differences between family constitution and being a bully were found: 24.7% vs. 26.6% (χ2 = 0.24; df = 1; p = 0.62).

number of bullies and Victims by obesity

Obese students were involved in bullying twice as much as their normal-weight peers: 70.2% vs. 56.7% respectively, OR = 1.8; CI 95% [1.05; 3.20]. There was a trend for obese students to be victims: 28.6% vs. 21.4% respectively OR = 1.5; CI 95% [0.63; 3.40] and bullies: 33.3% and 25.8% respectively OR = 1.44; CI 95% [0.66; 3.14].

number of bullies and Victims by smokinG and drinkinG of alcohol

Smoking students tended to be involved in bullying more: 61.2% vs. 56.2% respectively (OR = 1.23, CI 95% [0.95; 1.59]). Students who smoked were victimized less: 14.5% vs. 24.2% respectively (OR = 0.53, CI 95% [0.33; 0.85]). However, smoking students were among bullies more frequently than nonsmokers: 34.5% vs. 22.2% respectively (OR = 1.85; CI 95% [1.30; 2.62]). Involvement in bullying did not relate to drinking of alcohol: 56.1% and 59.4% respectively. Alcohol users were victimized less: 13.7% vs. 28.1% respectively (OR = 0.4, CI 95% [0.27; 0.61]) and they tended to be among bullies more than those who did not drink alcohol: 29.4% vs. 23.1% respectively (OR = 1.4; CI 95% [0.98; 1.94]).

number of bullies and Victims by haPPiness and self-esteem

Among students involved in bullying, there were more who were unhappy and more with lower self-esteem (Table 4). Unhappiness and lower self-esteem related more to victimization rather than to bullying.

number of bullies and Victims by relationshiPs with Parents

Forty-one percent of students admitted that they found it difficult talking to parents about things important to them. In this group, there were more girls than boys: 45% vs. 36.8% respectively (χ2 = 7.81; df = 1; p < .005). In senior classes, openness with parents tended to decrease: 65.1%, 38.3%, and 46.7% for 6th, 8th and 11th grades respectively (χ2 = 12.2; df = 2; p < .005). Students who were less open with parents tended to be involved in bullying more: 60.5% vs. 55.7% respectively (χ2 = 2.58; df = 1; p = 0.1). There were more of these students who were less open with parents among victims: 26.8% vs. 18.4% respectively (χ2 = 6.86; df = 1; p < .01) but not among bullies: 26% vs. 26.2% respectively (χ2 = .04; df = 1; p = 0.95).


table 4distribution of inVolVement in bullyinG and numbers of Victims and bullies by

self-esteem and haPPiness

Happy1 Unhappy1 Total2

Involved in bullying 511 (55.2) 141 (67.8) 652 (56.5) OR = 1.7; CI 95% [1.24; 2.34]

Victims 94 (16.9) 54 (43.5) 148 (12.7) OR = 3.78; CI 95% [2.49; 5.75]

Bullies 161 (25.9) 28 (28.6) 189 (16.3) OR = 1.15; CI 95% [0.72; 1.84]

Lower self-esteem1 Higher self-esteem1 Total2

Involved in bullying 81 (35.3) 458 (25.1) 539 (46.4) OR = 2.04; CI 95% [1.34; 3.09]

Victims 34 (44.7) 92 (17.3) 126 (10.8) OR = 3.87; CI 95% [2.34; 6.42]

Bullies 9 (17.6) 142 (24.4) 151 (12.9) OR = 0.66; CI 95% [0.32; 1.39]

1 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students by happiness and self-esteem.2 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students in the sample.

number of bullies and Victims by teasinG about aPPearance

There were 4.8% of students who admitted that members of their families teased them about their appearance. There were more girls than there were boys in this group: 7.5% vs. 1.7% respectively (χ2 = 20.8; df = 1; p < .001). The older a pupil, the more he/she was teased within the family: 2.3%, 3.5%, and 7.1% respectively (χ2 = 11.3; df = 1; p < .005). A total of 1.8% of students reported that they were teased by teachers about their appearance. Irrespective of grade, teachers teased more boys than girls about their appearance: 3.2% vs. 0.6% respectively (χ2 = 10.6; df = 1; p < .001).

Students who were teased about their appearance by members of their families and by teachers tended to be involved in bullying more than other groups (Table 5). In the group teased by family members, the statistically significant greater number is found in the victim category; however, those who were teased by teachers tended to be more in the bullies category.

number of bullies and Victims by inVolVement in sPorts

Involvement in sports activities did not relate to involvement in bullying: 57% vs. 57.8% respectively (χ2 = 0.55; df = 1; p = 0.82). Reported victimization was higher among students who did not take part in sports (27.2% vs. 20.2% respectively (χ2 = 3.35; df = 1; p < .01). There were more students who did not


take part in sports among bullies: 27.1% vs. 22.5% respectively (χ2 = 1.21; df = 1; p = 0.27).

TABLE 5distribution of inVolVement in bullyinG and numbers of Victims and bullies

who were teased about aPPearance in families or by teachers

Teased in family1 Not teased in family1 Total2

Involved in bullying 44 (80) 610 (56.4) 482 (41.5) OR = 3.09; CI 95% [1.58; 6.05]

Victims 14 (51.9) 133 (20.4) 147 (12.7) OR = 4.20; CI 95% [1.93; 9.15]

Bullies 9 (40.9) 179 (25.6) 188 (16.2) OR = 2.0; CI 95% [0.84; 4.78]

Teased by teachers1 Not teased by teachers1 Total2

Involved in bullying 19 (90.5) 635 (57) 654 (56.3) OR = 7.18; CI 95% [1.66; 30.97]

Victims 2 (50) 145 (21.5) 147 (12.7) OR = 3.66; CI 95% [0.51; 26.18]

Bullies 3 (60) 186 (26) 189 (16.3) OR = 4.27; CI 95% [0.70; 25.78]

1 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students in groups.2 In parenthesis, percentage distribution of students in the sample.

The logistic regression analysis was carried out in order to establish which of the above factors most related to bullying behavior, being a victim, and being a bully. To obtain such information, the backward stepwise logistic regression, which eliminates certain independent variables that do not determine statistically significant certain behavior, was applied to the above independent variables.

It was established that involvement in bullying was most associated with the following independent variables: gender, secondary school grade (6th and 8th), smoking, lower self-esteem, and teasing about appearance by family (Table 6).

Of the factors that determined victimization only four were not eliminated: that is, secondary school grade (6th and 8th), lower self-esteem, unhappiness and teasing about appearance in the family (Table 7). Four factors determined bullying: gender, secondary school grade (6th and 8th), smoking, and teasing about appearance in the family (Table 8).


TABLE 6final loGistic reGression model PredictinG rePorts of inVolVement in bullyinG*

(backward stePwise method)

Variable Wald df Sig. exp (B) 95% CI for Exp (B) (OR) Lower Upper

Gender 32.06 1 .001 2.34 1.74 3.14Grade (6) 29.34 1 .001 3.05 2.04 4.57Grade (8) 48.20 1 .001 3.69 2.55 5.34Smoking 12.74 1 .001 1.89 1.33 2.69Self-esteem 15.82 1 .001 2.61 1.63 4.19Teasing about appearance in the family 17.97 1 .001 5.23 2.43 11.25Constant 53.35 1 .001

Model χ2 = 119.26; df = 6; p < .001, N = 1,162* Involved in bullying “once a week” or “several times a week”

TABLE 7final loGistic reGression model PredictinG rePorts of beinG bullied

(Victimization)* (backward stePwise method)


Grade (6) 24.30 1 .001 4.39 2.44 7.90Grade (8) 25.10 1 .001 4.28 2.42 7.56Self-esteem 13.98 1 .001 3.14 1.72 5.73Unhappiness 19.55 1 .001 3.60 2.04 6.37Teasing about appearance in the family 7.78 1 .001 4.11 1.52 11.10Constant 53.34 1 .001 Model χ2 = 89.66; df = 5; p < .001, N =1,162* Being bullied “once a week” or “several times a week”

TABLE 8final loGistic reGression model PredictinG rePorts of bullyinG others*

(backward stePwise method)


Gender 19.88 1 .001 2.58 1.70 3.91Grade (6) 6.32 1 .01 2.13 1.14 3.83Grade (8) 10.55 1 .001 2.33 1.40 3.88Smoking 14.46 1 .001 2.45 1.55 3.90Teasing about appearance in the family 8.50 1 .005 4.37 1.62 11.78Constant 105.38 1 .001

Model χ2 = 47.9; df = 5; p < .001, N = 1,162* Bullying others “once a week” or “several times a week”


DISCUSSION

In this study, we surveyed the occurrence of bullying, as well as factors related to bullying behavior among 1,162 students from the sixth, eighth, and eleventh grades of Kaunas secondary schools. Due to differences in methodology, the results are difficult to compare to the findings of other studies. Nevertheless, we found a higher incidence of bullying than has been found in other studies: 56.5% of students were involved in bullying once a week or more often; victims constituted 12.7% of the participants and bullies constituted 16.3%, while according to one German study, victims constituted 11.1% and bullies constituted 12.1% (Scheithauer et al., 2006), and according to a Canadian study of children from 11 to 16 years old, victims constituted 11.6% and bullies constituted 8.8% (Janssen et al., 2004). According to a South African study, 36.3% of students were involved in bullying, 8.2% as bullies, 19.3% as victims (Liang, Flisher, & Lombard, 2007).

In the last two decades, change of values has been observed in post-Soviet states. There has been a more liberal attitude to responsibility, rights, freedoms, and duties of a pupil. Heavy workload of teachers, insufficient funding of pedagogical jobs, lack of educative work at schools, and negative factors in the social environment have allowed interpersonal disrespect and bullying at school. Such a situation points to the necessity for educative programmes designed to reduce bullying in Lithuanian schools.

Despite the fact that this study established a more frequent occurrence of bullying than in other studies, general tendencies remain the same: masculine gender and secondary school grades have the greatest association with involvement in bullying. Secondary school grades (the sixth and especially the eighth) determine greater victimization. There is no gender difference for victimization but significantly more boys reported bullying others. The same trends are found in other research (Scheithauer et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2006).

Children from richer families tended to report being bullies more while children from the poor families tended to be more victimized. The data obtained correspond to the results of other studies (Dake et al., 2003). Perhaps that reflects the current social situation of Lithuania where “money rules”. However, care should be taken in making such an interpretation because lower self-esteem and unhappiness lead to victimization meaning that children who are unhappy and who have low self-esteem might be more inclined to characterize their families as not very rich or absolutely poor. Nevertheless, analogous tendencies were established when the relationship between family constitution and bullying was being explored: Students living with one parent were victimized more. On the other hand, although lower SES and living with one parent relates to greater victimization, these factors were eliminated from the final logistic regression model as lacking statistical significance in comparison to other factors.


According to the present study, greater involvement in bullying as well as reported numbers of bullies and victims (although the latter factors were not statistically significant) were also related to obesity. The data obtained correspond to the results of other studies: being overweight or obese determine being a victim and a bully (Griffiths et al., 2006; Janssen et al., 2004). The study revealed that victimization was associated not so much with obesity as with teasing about appearance by family. This shows that: 1) obesity can be strongly related to psychosocial health of students (peers tease obese students more); 2) overemphasis on appearance in a family and perhaps the general culture of family relationships are important factors associated with victimization at school, even more important than not conforming to social expectations about appearance. Therefore, it is worthwhile analyzing how appearance and the image of the body as well as valuation thereof are related to forms of bullying (especially verbal bullying and teasing) among students.

The study established that more students who smoked frequently were involved in bullying compared with the group that did not smoke or seldom smoked. Students who smoke tend to bully almost twice as much as their peers do. The results correspond with other findings (Liang et al., 2007; Morris, Zhang, & Bondy, 2006). Self-destructive behavior can be related to one’s popularity in a group because tobacco smoking, drinking alcohol, sexual relationships, and bullying are often valued and praised among peers and thus these behaviors promote one’s self-esteem (West & Sweeting, 1997).

The study also established that students who were unhappy and who had lower self-esteem were more often involved in bullying. As the model of the study did not enable us to establish causation, it remains unclear whether unhappiness and lower self-esteem are a cause or a consequence of victimization. Following the final model, unhappiness and lower self-esteem were among the strongest determinants of victimization: Unhappy children occurred 3.8 times more among victims and children with lower self-esteem became victims even 3 times more. The results correspond partially with those of other researchers who have found that victims in interpersonal relationships are vulnerable, less happy, and have lower self-esteem (Arseneault et al., 2006; Delfabbro et al., 2006; Fox & Boulton, 2005; Glew et al., 2005; Klomek et al., 2006; Seals & Young, 2003).

The study revealed that students whose families tease them about appearance are involved in bullying more and are victimized four times more. Perhaps this explains why these children have lower self-esteem. A total of 4.8% of students reported that they were teased in their families about their appearance and teasing about appearance increased with age. That can be related to objective changes of bodily weight and look in adolescence. Families that lack firm values may emphasize and overstress the appearance of a child. What is also interesting is the fact that family teasing also remains among the strongest determinants of


involvement in bullying, victimization and being a bully in the final models. This means that family teasing is closely related to other determining factors such as lower self-esteem. Of course, we also cannot deny that children who are more sensitive and who have lower self-esteem are more susceptible to their environment and may overstress teasing about appearance in their families.

Conversely, teasing about appearance by teachers did not determine victimization. Since bullies report they are teased by teachers about their appearance, it can be assumed that such behavior by the teachers might be their reaction to unacceptable behavior by students. A similar trend was established in another study in which it was found that children who reported teasing by teachers were more inclined to be involved in risky behavior such as smoking and drinking alcohol and, in addition, their academic achievements were lower and they were less interested in graduation (Delfabbro et al., 2006). It seems likely that one of the ways teachers try to discipline disobedient students is with disparaging comments somehow related to their appearance. The inverse relation is also possible: Children who have poor relationships with teachers are less obedient to the rules and they tend to bully others. In any case, formation of emotional intellect and verbal competence of teachers are very important in the educative interaction.

The study confirms the assumption that students who play sports are found more frequently among bullies and less frequently among victims. These findings correspond to data of other researchers maintaining that it is the athletic identity and not the actual sport involvement that determines cruelty (Miller et al., 2006). Future studies should focus on the interrelation between the athletic identity and bullying because it has been established that low athletic self-esteem is related to the risk of victimization (Wild, Flisher, Bhana, & Lombard, 2004). In addition, future studies should analyze how other out-of-school activities (not only playing sports) are related to bullying.

The major weakness of our study was that it used a self-report questionnaire. The results have to be verified against those of other studies. The cross-sectional model of the study also did not allow the establishing of causation. The other weakness was determination of the SES of a family by following the opinion of students about how rich their families were. Because of economic factors in Lithuania today neither background, nor occupation of parents nor the parents’ un/employment can be related to the actual income of a family (e.g., a university lecturer earns less than a construction worker does). For these reasons the subjective opinion of students about the level of wealth of their families have to be considered. Therefore, the results we obtained should be verified in other studies as well. The third important weakness was calculation of BMI of students according to their specified weight and height. It is assumed that the calculated, but not measured, BMI may differ statistically significantly from the true BMI


(Tsigilis, 2006). However, there are studies which show opposite tendencies (Strauss, 1999). Nevertheless, further studies should be based on objective information on weight and height, especially when respondents are younger students.

This study breaks new ground in attempting to analyze the whole range of factors related to bullying in order to determine the comparative importance of each. The study reveals that family relationships (teasing about appearance) are most often associated with involvement in bullying. The findings of the study should be verified and developed by further studies using the design of the current study. They should reveal relationships between the body image, relationships in a family and victimization as well as measuring such constructs as popularity among peers.

In conclusion, although a higher incidence of bullying was found in this study than in others, the trends identified in our study correspond to studies conducted in other countries. Involvement in bullying is more typical of secondary classes, it tends to decrease with grade, and it is significantly more characteristic of boys. Victimization is most associated with the secondary classes, lower self-esteem, unhappiness, and teasing about appearance in the family. Bullying is most associated with the masculine gender, secondary classes, smoking, and teasing about appearance in the family.

REFERENCES

Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118, 130-138.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’ muscles or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237-254.

Bullock, J. R. (2002). Bullying among children. Childhood Education, 78, 130-133. Dake, J. A., Price J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school.

Journal of School Health, 73, 173-180.Dao, T. K., Kerbs, J. J., Rollin, S. A., Potts, I., Gutierrez, R., Choi, K., et al. (2006). The association

between bullying dynamics and psychological distress. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 277-282.

Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J., et al. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary schools students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 71-90.

Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt, P., et al. The Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Bullying Working Group. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: International comparative cross-sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 128-132.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., Fredriks, A. M., Vogels, T., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117, 1568-1574.


Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 313-328.

Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., & Malhi, G. S. (2006). Do bullied children become anxious and depressed adults?: A cross-sectional investigation of the correlates of bullying and anxious depression. The Journal of Nervous And Mental Disease, 194, 201-208.

Glew, G. M., Fan, Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026-1031.

Griffiths, L. J., Wolke, D., Page, A. S., Horwood, J. P., & the ALSPAC Study Team (2006). Obesity and bullying: Different effects for boys and girls. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91, 121-125.

Janssen, I., Craig, W. M., Boyce, W. F., & Pickett, W. (2004). Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 113, 1187-1194.

Kepenekci, Y. K., & Cinkir, S. (2006). Bullying among Turkish high school students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 193-204.

Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y. J., Hubbard, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: Causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 1035-1041.

Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I., & Gould, M. (2006). Bullying, depression and suicidality in adolescents. Psychiatria Danubina, 18, 41.

Lau, P. W. C., Fox, K. R., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2004). Psychosocial and socio-environmental correlates of sport identity and sport participation in secondary school-age children. European Journal of Sport Science, 4, 1-21.

Landau, S., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Larson, S. E. (2001). “You really don‘t know how much it hurts”: Children’s perceptions and preservice teachers’ reactions to childhood teasing. School Psychology Review, 30, 329-343.

Lantz, C. D., & Schroeder, P. J. (1999). Endorsement of masculine and feminine gender roles: Differences between participation in and identification with the athletic role. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 545-551.

Liang, H., Flisher, A. J., & Lombard, C. J. (2007). Bullying, violence, and risk behavior in South African school students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 161-171.

McGuckin, C., & Lewis, C. A. (2006). Experiences of school bullying in Northern Ireland: Data from the life and times survey. Adolescence, 41, 313-320.

Miller, K. E., Melnick, M. J., Farrell, M. P., Sabo, D. F., & Barnes, G. M. (2006). Jocks, gender, binge drinking, and adolescent violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 105-120.

Morris, E. B., Zhang, B., & Bondy, S. J. (2006). Bullying and smoking: Examining the relationships in Ontario adolescents. The Journal of School Health, 76, 465-470.

Munni, R., & Malhi, P. (2006). Adolescent violence exposure, gender issues and impact. Indian Pediatrics, 43, 607-612.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 441-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7-27). New York: Routledge.

Povilaitis, R., & Valickaitė, D. (2005). Priekabiavimo paplitimas Panevėžio miesto ir rajono bendrojo lavinimo vidurinių mokyklų moksleivių populiacijoje (The prevalence of bullying among students of Panevezys city and district secondary schools). Visuomenes sveikata, 2, 47-52.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., Petermann, F., & Jugert, G. (2006). Physical, verbal and relational forms of bullying among German students: Age trends, gender differences, and correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 261-275.

Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.

Singer, E. (2005). The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their self-esteem when teased at school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 411-423.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-1133.

Sourander, A., Elonheimo, H., Niemela, S., Nuutila, A. M., Helenius, H., Sillanmaki, L., et al. (2006). Childhood predictors of male criminality: A prospective population-based follow-up study from age eight to late adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 578-586.

Storch, E. A., & Ledley, D. R. (2005). Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment in children: Current knowledge and future directions. Clinical Pediatrics, 44 (1), 29-38.

Storch, E. A., Masia-Warner, C., Crisp, H., & Klein, R. G. (2005). Peer victimization and social anxiety in adolescence: A prospective study. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 437-452.

Strauss, R. S. (1999). Comparison of measured and self-reported weight and height in a cross-sectional sample of young adolescents. International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders, 23, 904-908.

Tsigilis, N. (2006). Can secondary school students’ self-reported measures of height and weight be trusted? An effect size approach. European Journal of Public Health, 16, 532-535.

Tutkuviene, J. (2005). Vaikų augimas ir brendimas-svarbus bendros sveikatos būklės rodiklis. Nacionalines Sveikatos Tarybos metinis pranesimas (Growth and maturity - Essential indicators of overall health. National Report of the Health Council of Lithuania).

Valeckiene, D. (2005). Priekabiavimo kaip vienos dažniausiai naudojamos agresijos formos mokykloje raiškos analizė (The analysis of bullying as one of the most prevalent form of aggression at schools). Sveikatos ir socialinių mokslų taikomieji tyrimai: sandūra ir sąveika, 1, 49-65.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682.

West, P., & Sweeting, H. (1997). “Lost souls and rebels”: A challenge to the assumption that low self-esteem and unhealthy lifestyles are related. Health Education, 5, 161-167.

Wild, L. G., Flisher, A. J., Bhana, A., & Lombard, C. (2004). Associations among adolescent risk behaviours and self-esteem in six domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1454-1467.

Yang, S. J., Kim, J. M., Kim, S. W., Shin, I. S., & Yoon, J. S. (2006). Bullying and victimization behaviors in boys and girls at South Korean primary schools. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 69-77.

associations between school bullying ans psychosocial factors - jankauskiene et al (2008)

Documents