This article was downloaded by: [Johns Hopkins University]On: 21 October 2014, At: 17:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of School ViolencePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

Bullying Victimization andExtracurricular ActivityAnthony A. Peguero aa Department of Sociology and Gerontology , MiamiUniversity , Oxford, Ohio, USAPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Anthony A. Peguero (2008) Bullying Victimizationand Extracurricular Activity, Journal of School Violence, 7:3, 71-85, DOI:10.1080/15388220801955570

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220801955570

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of School Violence, Vol. 7(3) 2008Available online at http://jsv.haworthpress.com

© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1080/15388220801955570 71

WJSV1538-82201538-8239Journal of School Violence, Vol. 7, No. 3, April 2008: pp. 1–15Journal of School Violence

Bullying Victimization and Extracurricular Activity

Anthony A. PegueroJournal of School Violence Anthony A. Peguero

ABSTRACT. This study investigated the relationships between bully-ing victimization and students’ extracurricular activity and misbehavior.This research examined whether students’ engagement in particularschool activities increased or decreased the likelihood of being bulliedwhile at school. Data for this research were drawn from the EducationalLongitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) and utilized the base year’snationally represented stratified sample (N = 7,990). Associations wereexamined between various activities of 10th grade public schoolstudents—including classroom-related activities, club, interscholasticsports, intramural sports, and misbehavior—and their likelihood of beingbullied while at school.

KEYWORDS. Bullying, school violence, extracurricular activity,children

What is the relationship between bullying victimization and students’extracurricular activity and misbehavior? Although few studies haveinvestigated the relationship between bullying victimization and students’

Anthony A. Peguero is affiliated with the Department of Sociology andGerontology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.

The author thanks Jennifer Bondy for her support and patience with theresearch and writing processes associated with this article and all my work. I amgrateful to Valerie Wellin for her editorial efforts.

Address correspondence to: Anthony A. Peguero, 367-D Upham Hall, MiamiUniversity, Oxford, OH 45056 (E-mail: pegueraa@muohio.edu).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

72 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

extracurricular activity, there has been evidence suggesting that students’extracurricular activity may be linked to both positive and detrimentaloutcomes. For instance, sports participation was found to increase studentacademic achievement (Broh, 2002), self-esteem (Marsh & Kleitman,2003), and positive attitudes toward school and occupational goals (Rees &Howell, 1990). On the other hand, students’ participation in high schoolsports increased their likelihood of substance use (Zill, Nord, & Loomis,1995), dropping out (Davalos, Chavez, & Guardiola, 1999), sexual activ-ity (Miller et al., 1999), and other risky behavior (Rees & Howell, 1990).Furthermore, student involvement with deviant activities was also associ-ated with their increased exposure to violence. Schreck and colleagues(2003) reported that student involvement with gangs, drugs, and deviancewas linked with increased vulnerability to victimization by other studentswhile in school.

In recent years, there has been an effort to scrutinize traditionallydefined minor forms of victimization, such as bullying and harassmentwithin schools, and to legitimately define them as forms of school vio-lence. Although conventional wisdom portrayed bullying victimizationas normative within the adolescent experience, findings indicated thatvictims of bullying sustained long-lasting detrimental effects (Olweus,1991, 1993; American Association of University Women EducationalFoundation, 2001; Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994). In turn, thedefinition of bullying victimization used in school violence researchbecame broader and included may forms of victimization. Lowering thethreshold to measure bullying victimization was necessary becausechildren were found to be more susceptible to physical and emotionalinjury than adults (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994). Detrimentalsocial, psychological, and educational outcomes were linked toeven “minor” forms of adolescent victimization (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Nansel et al., 2001; Crick &Bigbee, 1998).

Student outcomes, such as achievement (Broh, 2002; Crosnoe, 2001;Eccles & Barber, 1999), self-esteem (Marsh & Kleitman, 2003; McHale,Crouler, & Tucker, 2001; Erkut & Tracy, 2002), perception of lifechances (Perry-Burney & Takyi, 2002; Rees & Howell, 1990; Jordan &Nettles, 2000), and educational aspirations (Marsh & Kleitman, 2003;Hanson & Kraus, 1998; Jordan & Nettles, 2000), were related to students’participation in scholastic-related extracurricular activities, such as honorsociety, plays, sports, school bands, and clubs. Furthermore, participationin the aforementioned extracurricular activities reduced the likelihood of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 73

detrimental outcomes for students, such as dropping out (Mahoney &Cairns, 1997), substance use (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Colley et al., 1995),sexual activity (Miller et al., 1999), misconduct (Schmidt 2003), and riskybehavior (Eccles et al., 2003; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). However, theseresults varied between the different categories of extracurricularactivities. For instance, an increase in student alcohol use was linked withinterscholastic sports participation (Zill et al., 1995), while students’participation in classroomrelated routines, such as student government,decreased the likelihood of alcohol consumption (Colley et al., 1995).With the variances within different types of extracurricular activities, theargument to disaggregate extracurricular activities was supported. In turn,there were four distinct categories of extracurricular activities: classroom-related activities, school clubs, intramural sports, and interscholasticsports. Each of the extracurricular activity categories was distinctly linkedto both positive and negative student outcomes.

Feldman and Matjasko (2005) argued that the categories of extracurric-ular and student activity were related to positive and negative studentoutcomes differently because of the distinctive nature of each extracurric-ular activity. The perceptions of these various extracurricular activities byother students, teachers, and parents were fundamentally different andneeded to be disaggregated (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005). On the otherhand, student misbehavior or involvement with deviant activities wasfound to increase the likelihood of detrimental student outcomes.

Children’s involvement with deviance, delinquency, and misbehavioroften resulted in an increased likelihood of victimization (Mustaine &Tewksbury, 1998; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002; Decker & VanWinkle, 1996). Once youths participated in deviant or delinquent acts,that behavior was associated with an increased involvement with poten-tially dangerous situations that risk their safety (Mustaine & Tewksbury,1998; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990; Schreck et al., 2002). Deviant childrenwere often victimized because their relationships, as well as their activi-ties, involved interacting with other deviant children and criminal adults(Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Schrecket al., 2002). This relationship between criminality and victimization wasindicative of a subculture of violence for youths (Osgood, et al., 1996;Singer, 1981; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). As a result, participation indeviant activities changed childrens’ perceptions of potentially dangeroussituations as well. Children who were involved in deviant activities grewaccustomed to potentially dangerous situations and accepted theirexposure to violence as normal (Kennedy & Baron, 1993; Felson, 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

74 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Deviant children routinely found themselves in relatively more dangeroussituations and in turn were more susceptible to being victimized in com-parison with children who were not involved in deviant activities.Furthermore, as juveniles become more engrossed in deviant activities,the boundary between offender and victim became blurred and difficult todistinguish. Osgood and colleagues (1996) suggested that a “sharpdistinction between offender and victim was not applicable to a largeshare of illegal or deviant behavior, such as the use of illicit drugs,reckless behavior, illegal services, and mutual violence erupting fromdisputes” (p. 636).

Although few studies investigated the relationship between students’extracurricular activities and the likelihood of their victimization, somefindings indicate that participation in extracurricular activities may pro-tect students from harm or make students more vulnerable to victimiza-tion. This study attempted to address the following questions: Is studentinvolvement with different categories of extracurricular activities (i.e.,classroom-related, club, interscholastic sports, intramural sports) andmisbehavior a protective factor against, or a risk factor for, being bulliedwhile at school? If either, how is each category of extracurricular activityand misbehavior related to the likelihood of bullying victimization? Thisresearch investigated the relationships between bullying victimization andfactors such as the student’s socioeconomic status, gender, race andethnicity, educational achievement, extracurricular activities (such asclassroom-related activities, school clubs, intramural sports, and inter-scholastic sports), and misbehavior.

METHOD

Participants

The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) providedthe data for this study. The ELS:2002 data was a longitudinal surveyadministered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the NationalCenter for Education Statistics (NCES) of the United StatesDepartment of Education. ELS:2002 was “designed to monitor thetransition of a national sample of young people as they progress fromtenth grade through high school and on to postsecondary educationand/or the world of work” (NCES, 2004, p. 7). These data includedinformation about the experiences and backgrounds of students,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 75

parents, and teachers, and descriptions of the schools those studentsattended.

Missing, not administered (students who only participated in the abbre-viated survey, which did not include victimization questions), and multi-ple responses were coded as missing and excluded from the analyses. Thesubsample included 7,990 public school White, Black, and Latino stu-dents in 578 public schools (see Table 1).

Measures

Dependent variable. To measure bullying victimization, studentswere asked about their bullying experiences in various ways duringthe first semester or term of the school year. Bullying victimizationwas measured by six items including: (1) someone threatened to hurtme at school, (2) someone hit me, (3) someone used strong-arm orforceful methods to get money or things from me, (4) someone bulliedme or picked on me, (5) I had something stolen from me at school, and(6) someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings. Themeasurement of bullying victimization was dichotomized to indicatewhether or not the student was a victim of bullying. In this study,3,517 (44.0%) students reported experiencing at least one form ofvictimization.

Classroom-related activities. Similar to previous studies (Markstromet al., 2005; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002), classroom-related extracurricularactivities were often led by a teacher or an adult sponsor. The fiveclassroom-related extracurricular activity measurements that constructedthe variable were: (1) band, orchestra, chorus, or choir; (2) school play ormusical; (3) student government; (4) academic (or achievement)–relatedhonor society; and (5) school yearbook, newspaper, or literary magazine.

TABLE 1. Summary statistics for entire sample

Metric Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.

Dependent VariablesBullying Victimization 0 = No; 1 = Yes 0 1 0.44 0.49

Independent VariablesFamily SES Σ z-scores −1.97 1.98 −0.027 0.71Achievement Σ z-scores 21.56 78.30 50.166 9.99

Note: Sample N = 7.990 public school students, 576 public schools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

76 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

In this study, 4,984 (62.4%) students indicated no participation inclassroom-related extracurricular activities, 2,696 (33.7%) in one or twoclassroom-related extracurricular activities, and 310 (3.9%) in three ormore classroom related extracurricular activities.

School club. As defined in previous studies (Marsh & Kleitman, 2002;Huebner & Mancini, 2003), school club extracurricular activitiesinvolved the goal of establishing social networks of peer support withcommon interests. There were four school club extracurricular activitymeasurements that constructed the variable: (1) service, (2) school aca-demic, (3) hobby, and (4) vocational education or student organization. Inthis study, 5,772 (72.2%) students indicated no participation in schoolclub extracurricular activities, 2,028 (25.4%) in one or two school clubextracurricular activities, and 190 (2.4%) in three or more school clubextracurricular activities.

Intramural sports. There were eight intramural sport extracurricularactivity measurements that constructed the dichotomous variable:(1) baseball, (2) softball, (3) basketball, (4) football, (5) soccer, (6) otherintramural team sport, (7) individual intramural sport, and (8) cheerlead-ing/drill team. In this study, 5,227 (65.4%) students indicated participa-tion in no intramural sport, 2,125 (26.6%) in one or two intramural sport,and 638 (8.0%) in three or more intramural sports.

Interscholastic sports. Interscholastic sports were a distinct extracur-ricular activity in comparison to intramural sports because they offergreater structure as well as a broader and deeper set of social networksand were generally perceived differently by peer students. There wereseven interscholastic sports extracurricular activity measurements thatconstructed the variable: (1) baseball, (2) softball, (3) basketball, (4) foot-ball, (5) soccer, (6) other interscholastic team participation, and (7) inter-scholastic individual sport. In this study, 3,952 (49.5%) students indicatedparticipation in no interscholastic sports, 3,198 (40.0%) in one or twointerscholastic sports, and 840 (10.5%) in three or more interscholasticsports.

Misbehavior. There were two misbehavior measurements thatconstructed the dichotomous variable: (1) I cut or skipped classes, and/or(2) I got in trouble for not following school rules. Students whoresponded that they did not misbehave were coded as such (the referencecategory). In this study, 3,883 (48.0%) students indicated that they misbe-haved while in school.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 77

Control variables. This research controlled for student socioeconomicstatus, race/ethnicity, gender, achievement, and race/ethnicity becausethese individual factors were found to be associated with bullyingvicitmization (Nansel et al., 2001; Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004; AAUW,2001; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Eisenberg et al., 2003; Juvonen, Nishina, &Graham, 2000; Schreck et al., 2003).

The preconstructed measurement of students’ family socioeconomic sta-tus was a standardized (z-score) variable based on five equally weighted,standardized components: father’s/guardian’s education, mother’s/guard-ian’s education, family income, father’s/guardian’s occupational prestige,and mother’s/guardian’s occupational prestige (NCES, 2004). The parents’occupational prestige scores were derived by coding the reporting parent’sdescription of their and the other parent/guardian’s occupations using the1989 GSS occupational prestige scores (NCES, 2004). The mean SES forthis sample was −0.027.

Gender was coded male or female based on the student’s self report oftheir biological sex. In this study, 3,891 (48.7%) students were male; and,4,099 (51.3%) students were female.

Student achievement was measured using the standardized measurepreconstructed by RTI and NCES. ELS researchers included a readingand math composite score based on standardized tests developed by theEducational Testing Service (ETS) in math and reading. The compositescore was the average of the math and reading standardized scores,re-standardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10.Some students had scores for only the math test or reading test, but notboth. For the students who did not have both scores, the composite wasbased on the single score that was available (NCES, 2004). The meanstandardized achievement for this sample was 50.16.

Race and ethnicity was measured using a nominal variable indicatingstudent self-reported racial or ethnic identity. Three racial/ethnic groupswere considered: non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Latino.In this study, 5,197 (65.0%) students were White (non-Hispanic), 1,336(16.8%) were Black (non-Hispanic), and 1,457 (18.2%) were Latino.

Data Analysis Procedures

Because bullying victimization was dichotomous, implementing alogistic regression modeling technique was warranted. In turn, STATA 9survey logistic regression survey command was utilized for the analyses.A model building technique guided the analytical framework. In model 1,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

78 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

the dependent bullying victimization outcome variable was regressed onSES, gender, achievement, and race and ethnicity. In model 2, individualextracurricular activities (i.e., classroom-related, school club, intramuralsports, and interscholastic sports) and misbehavior were added to thelogistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The results of logistics regression analyses of the individual studentvariables on bullying victimization are reported in Table 2. In model 1,student victimization was regressed on socioeconomic status, gender,achievement, and race and ethnicity. As student’s socioeconomic statusincreased, their likelihood of being bullied at school increased. Femalestudents were less likely than male students to be bullied while in school.

TABLE 2. Logistic regression on the odds ratio of public school students reporting victimization

Model 1 Model 2

OR ORFamily SES 1.031*** 1.049***Female .582*** .637***Achievement .972*** .976***Race and Ethnicity

Latino .789*** .740***Black .753*** .783***

School Activities1 or 2 Classroom Related .9763 + Classroom Related 1.384**1 or 2 Clubs 1.0093 + Clubs .7461 or 2 Intramural Sports 1.121*3 + Intramural Sports 1.180#

1 or 2 Interscholastic Sports .905*3 + Interscholastic Sports .870#

Misbehavior 2.082***N 7,990 7,990−2 Log likelihood 3048048.69 2975462.17

***p < = .001, **p < = .01, *p < = .05, #p < = .10.The omitted categories are male for gender, White students for race and ethnicity, and no extracurricular activities and no misbehavior for school activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 79

As students’ standardized test scores increased, their odds of reportingbullying victimization while in school decreased. Latino and Blackstudents were less likely to report bullying victimization while in schoolthan the odds of White students.

In model 2 of Table 2, student extracurricular activities (i.e., classroom-related, school club, intramural sports, and interscholastic sports) andstudent misbehavior were added to the logistic regression analysis. As stu-dents’ socioeconomic status increased, their likelihood of being bullied atschool increased. Female students were less likely than male students to bebullied while in school. As students’ standardized test scores increased,their odds of reporting bullying victimization while in school decreased.Latino and Black students were less likely to be bullied while in schoolthan were White students. Students who participated in three or moreclassroom-related extracurricular activities were more likely to reportbullying victimization than students who were not involved in classroom-related extracurricular activities. Students who participated in one or twoand three or more intramural sports activities had greater odds of beingbullied than students who were not involved in intramural sports. Studentswho participated in one or two and three or more interscholastic sportsactivities had lesser odds of being a victim of bullying than students whowere not involved in intramural sports. The odds that students who misbe-haved would report bullying victimization while in school were two timesgreater than the odds for students who did not misbehave.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed four important findings in terms of the relation-ships between extracurricular activities and bullying victimization. First,students who were involved in three or more classroom-related extracur-ricular activities or intramural sports were likely to be a victim ofbullying. Second, interscholastic athletes were less likely to be bullied.Third, each distinct category of extracurricular activity revealed differentrelationships with the likelihood of bullying victimization, whichsuggested that school-based extracurricular activities were pertinentfactors linked to bullying victimization. Fourth, this study supportedprevious findings which suggested that children who misbehave weremore likely to be victims of violence.

The findings indicated students involved with three or more classroom-related extracurricular activities or intramural sports were more likely to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

80 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

be bullied than students who did not participate in any extracurricularactivities. This appeared to be contrary to previous research which foundthat involvement in extracurricular activities was a protective factor fromviolence because of the increased levels of adult supervision associatedwith these school activities (Schmidt, 2003; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005;McNeal, 1999). Students who participated in classroom-related and intra-mural sports extracurricular activities were more vulnerable to bullyingvictimization for two possible reasons. First, student involved with theseactivities might be perceived as weak and more vulnerable targets bypotential offenders. Previous studies have suggested that “smart” childrenwere perceived as weak and in turn were usually “picked on” more often(Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Perry, 2003;Juvonen et al., 2000). Second, potential offenders had more opportunitiesto bully students who spend more time at school.

This study also revealed that interscholastic student athlets were lesslikely to be bullied, which could be explained by two distinct reasons.First, as suggested by previous studies (Spady, 1970; Broh, 2002), inter-scholastic sports athletes were perceived by other students and schooladministrators to have relatively higher social status as well as to be phys-ical stronger. As a result, potential offenders may not view interscholasticathletes as vulnerable targets to bully. Second, there could have beenincreased security measures implemented at interscholastic sportingevents, as well as practices (Schimmel, 2006; Dohrmann, 2001). As such,interscholastic student athletes may be better guarded and protected whileat school.

Each distinct category of extracurricular activity had a different type ofrelationship in terms of the likelihood of bullying victimization forstudents in this nationally representative sample. This finding indicatedthat each distinct category of school-based extracurricular activities was arelevant factor in the study of bullying victimization. Feldman andMatjasko (2005) argued that each category of extracurricular and studentactivity was related to positive or negative student outcomes differentlybecause the phenomena and nature of school and extracurricular activitieswere distinct. The perceptions of these various extracurricular activitiesby other students, teachers, and parents were fundamentally different andneeded to be disaggregated (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005, 2007). As aresult, not only should future bullying victimization studies, as well asother forms of school violence research, account for extracurricularactivities in their investigations but the studies should also considerdisaggregating extracurricular activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 81

This study also confirmed previous studies by finding that studentswho misbehaved were more likely to be victimized. Misbehavingstudents generally found themselves in more dangerous and vulnerablesituations than students who do not misbehave (Mustaine & Tewksbury,1998; Schreck et al., 2002; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). More specifi-cally, students who misbehaved were twice as likely to be bullied incomparison to well-behaved students.

Limitations

There were three prominent limitations associated with this study.First, school level data were not included in the analysis. The school’scultural values or the defined importance, or unimportance, of students’participation in classroom-related, club, intramural sports, and interscho-lastic sports school activities within particular school context may besignificant factors in relation to bullying victimization. Second, teachers,staff, administrators, and students’ perceptions of involvement in eachcategory of extracurricular activities were not examined. Third, the natureof this study was cross-sectional. The findings only suggest associationsand do not infer causality or influences upon those associations. Forexample, this study found that students who misbehaved at school weremore likely to be bullied at school. Because these data were cross-sectional, this finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, studentswho misbehaved found themselves in more dangerous situations; orsecond, students who were bullied then misbehaved. Both interpretationscould be supported by previous research.

CONCLUSION

This study’s results provide valuable information about the limitednumber of research studies that have examined the association betweenstudents’ extracurricular activities and their likelihood of bullying victim-ization. First, this study’s findings suggested that students who stayed atschool for extended periods of time may have an increased likelihood ofbeing bullied at school. Second, there were distinctions between each cat-egory of extracurricular activity and its relationship with the likelihood ofstudents being bullied while at school.

Examining the social and cultural context of each of the extracurricularactivities is warranted. Clearly, how interscholastic sport athletes and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

82 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

school band members are held in regard to other students’ perceptionsdiffers from school to school. In turn, measuring how all school partici-pants perceive and value students who are involved in each distinctextracurricular activity is vital towards understanding their relationshipswith bullying violence, as well as all forms of school violence.

It is important for researchers to measure the situational schoolcontext in order to examine the relationship between a student’sextracurricular activities and bullying victimization. For example, asdiscussed by previous researchers (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Zill etal., 1995), the experiences of interscholastic student athletes varydepending on how the culture of that particular school values schoolsports. This study did find a relationship to students’ involvement withinterscholastic school sports, namely, that interscholastic student ath-letes were less likely to be bullied while at school. Furthermore, futureresearchers should investigate students’ activities outside of the school.Students must navigate through their communities with routines that arenot directly related to school before and after each school day, whichthen affects their activities directly related to school. Finally, schools’security measures and safety climates should be examined—for exam-ple the effectiveness of school policies that have been implemented tomake schools safer by restricting access, increasing law enforcementand security officers on campus, and expanding the use of metal detec-tors (Bucher & Manning, 2003)—in relation to bullying victimization.Nevertheless, students’ extracurricular activities and bullying victimiza-tion need to be further examined in order for school administrators toprovide a safe learning environment for all their students, regardless oftheir activities, while in school.

Since the 1999 Columbine school shootings, the social, political, andlegal obligation to provide safe school environments for all students hasbecome a priority. School policies, practices, and legislative bills thataddress the problem of school violence are commonplace and increas-ingly expected by a public inundated by media representations of schoolshootings (Stanley, Juhnke, & Purkey, 2004). Additionally, understandinghow student involvement in particular school-based extracurricular activ-ities, within the school situational context, is either a protective or riskfactor for experiencing school violence is vital information for schooladministrators, teachers, and staff responsible for students’ safety. Inother words, some school-based extracurricular activities may place a stu-dent within a relatively more dangerous situational context, while otherschool routines may place students in a safer situation. In turn, providing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 83

adequate security and guardianship for vulnerable children during theirdistinct in-school activities is vital.

REFERENCES

American Association of University Women (AAUW) Education Foundation. (2001).Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school hallways. Library ofCongress Catalog Card Number: 2001089696. New York: AAUW Education Foundation.

Bucher, K. T., & Manning, M. L. (2003). Challenges and suggestions for safe schools. TheClearing House, 76, 160–166.

Broh, B. A. (2002). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Whobenefits and why? Sociology of Education, 75, 1, 69–96.

Cooley, V. E., ‘Henriksen, L. W., Van Nelson, C., & Thompson, J. C., Jr. (1995). A studyto determine the effect of extracurricular participation on student alcohol and drug usein secondary schools. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 40, 71–87.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: Amulti-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 (2),337–349.

Crosnoe, R. (2001). The social world of male and female atheltes in high school.” Socio-logical Studies of Children and Youth, 8, 87–108.

Davalos, D. B., Chavez, E. L., & Guardiola, R. J. (1999). The effects of extracurricularactivity, ethnic identification, and perception of school on student dropout rates.”Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 61–77.

Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the Gang. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Dohrmann, G. (2001): A new order: In the wake of the September 11 attacks, going to agame won’t be the same. Sports Illustrated, 95 (12), 21–22.

Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M. R., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities andadolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865–889.

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or march-ing band: What kinds of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of AdolescenceResearch, 14, 10–43.

Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. L. (2003). Peer harassment, school con-nectedness, and academic achievement. The Journal of School Health, 73 (8), 311–325.

Erkut, S., & Tracy, A. J. (2002). Predicting adolescent self-esteem from participation inschool sports among Latino subgroups. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(4), 409–428.

Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activi-ties in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Reviewof Educational Research, 75 (2), 159–211.

Felson, M. (1998). Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as victims of violence: A

national survey. Pediatrics, 4 (1), 413–425.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

84 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Hanson, S. L. & Kraus, R. S. (1998). Women, sports and science: Do female athletes havean advantage? Sociology of Education, 71, 93–110.

Jensen, G. F. & Brownfield, D. M. (1986). “Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyondroutine activity theory. Violence and Victims, 1, 85–99.

Jordan, W. J. & Nettles, S. M. (2000). How students invest their time outside of school:Effects on school-related outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 217–243.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjust-ment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 349–359.

Kennedy, L. W. & Baron, S. W. (1993). Routine activities and a subculture of violence: Astudy of violence on the street. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 88–111.

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contributions ofommunity, family, and school variables to student victimization. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 34, 187–204

Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and vic-timization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against earlyschool dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241–253.

Mahoney, J. L., & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior:The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 113–127.

Marsh, H. & Kleitman, S. (2003). School athletic participation: Mostly gain with littlepain. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 205–229.

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (2001). Free time activities in middle child-hood: Links with adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 1764–1778.

McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1999). Participation in high school extracurricular activities: Investi-gating school effects. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 291–309.

Miller, K. E., Sabo, D., Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Melnick, M. J. (1999). Sports,sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among female and male high schoolstudents: Testing cultural resource theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 366–387.

Mynard, H. & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association withEysenck’s personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year olds. The British Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 67, 51–54.

Mustaine, E. E. & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: Aroutine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36 (4), 829–858.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morion, B., & Scheldt, P.(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth. JAMA, 285, 2094–2100.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Educational longitudinal study: 2002base year data file user’s manual. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic effects of aschool based intervention program. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The developmentand treatment of childhood Aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H.Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in child-hood (pp. 315–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anthony A. Peguero 85

Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996).Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 635–656.

Perry-Burney, G. D., & Takyi, B. K. (2002). “Self esteem, academic achievement andmoraldevelopment among adolescent girls. Journal of Human Behavior in the SocialEnvironment, 5 (2), 15–28.

Rees, C. R., & Howell. F. M. (1990). Do high school sports build character? A quasiex-periment on a national sample. Social Science Journal, 27, 303–316.

Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and theofender-victim link in personal violence. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency, 27 (2), 110–133.

Schmidt, J. (2003). Correlates of reduced misconduct among adolescents facing adversity.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 439–452.

Schimmel, K. S. (2006). Deep play: Sports mega-events and urban social conditions in theUSA. Sociological Review, 54 (2), 160–174.

Schreck, C. J., Miller, J. M., & Gibson, C. L. (2003). Trouble in the school yard: Astudy of the risk factors of victimization at school.” Crime and Delinquency, 49 (3),460–484.

Schreck, C. J., Wright, R., & Miller, J.M. (2002). A study of individual and situationalantecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.

Singer, S. (1981). Homogeneous victim-offender populations: A review of some researchimplications. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 779–88.

Spady, W. G. (1970). Lament for the letterman: Effects of peer status and extracurricularactivities on goals and achievement. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 680–702.

Stanley, P. H., Juhnke, G., & Purkey, W. W. 2004. Using an Invitational Theory of Prac-tice to Create Safe and Successful Schools. Journal of Counseling and Development,82, 302–311.

Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence. London: SocialScience Paperbacks.

Zill, N., Nord, C. W., & Loomis, L. S. (1995). Adolescent time use, risky behavior, andoutcomes: An analysis of national data. Rockville, MD: Westat.

RECEIVED: 02/21/07REVISED: 06/07/07

ACCEPTED: 06/27/07Dow

nloa

ded

by [

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014