If one is careful and looks closely and waits long enough, bullying can be seen in most any group of children. Research suggests that 20% to 30% of students experience being bullied in any given school year and 75% report having experienced it sometime during their academic year from elementary through high school (Christie-Mizell, 2004). Despite these numbers, there is, in our society, unwillingness or inability to recognize bullying behavior as it occurs and often the situation gets ignored as a function of childhood socialization (Mishna, 2004; Ringrose, 2008; Seltzer, 2010). However, over the last several decades the professional members of many fields have begun to recognize the damage which is done to victims of bullying. As a result increased research has been dedicated to the dynamics between the victims, perpetrators, and standers-by (Christie-Mizell; Ringrose). Increasingly other members of society have begun to recognize the problems associated with bullying including the White House hosting a conference to address the issue (Peguero, 2012).
One of the earliest attempts to recognize bullying behavior and understand the behavior itself as well as its effects was in 1978 in a book by Olweus entitled Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. In his research, Dr. Olweus recognized the humiliation a victim experiences as a result of bullying, and the long-term ramifications for everyone involved. As a result, Dr. Olweus developed a prevention program introduced first in Norway and later in the United States which served to reduce victimization (A Brief History, 2016). However, despite mountains of evidence that childhood bullying can have severe and lasting effects (Rigby, 2003), and despite the success of Dr. Olweus’ pilot programs, the behavior continues and too frequently is ignored or written off as children being children (Ringrose, 2008; Smith, 2004). Worse yet, Frey et al. (2005) suggested that teachers, coaches or other authority figures believe they are intervening when in fact they intervene on average less than twenty percent of the time. Roberts (2000) suggests that it is less a problem of adult apathy but more likely an inability to recognize bullying and know they should respond. Regardless of the reason, the failure to respond leads to fears among victims that if the harassment is reported, no support will be given and the potential for increased attacks as a means of retaliating grows higher (Frey et al.; Mishna, 2004). For that reason, victims tend to not report. Additionally, it gives the perpetrator a sense of freedom and impunity as they do not have concern that anything will be done to stop it or they will experience consequences for their behavior (Frey et al.).
It is important to understand what bullying is and is not. Bullying is not synonymous with peer conflict or teasing, though both can escalate to bullying. Conflict and teasing occur and is a normal part of interaction in any social group. Neither one, in and of itself, is necessarily harmful, and must be allowed to play out as a part of social development (Roberts, 2000). The key to healthy, normal conflict among peers is that the parties involved must be of equal power (Peguero, 2012).
Bullying on the other hand is associated with conflict which repeatedly occurs and is targeted at a person of lesser power, and it is intended to be harmful in some way (Christie-Mizell, 2004; Peguero, 2012; Rigby, 2003). Frey et al. (2005) added additional specifications in the definition to include a group acting against an individual or when a child is intentionally alienated from their social group by verbal or non-verbal agreement among peers (Christie-Mizell). It can include physical aggression, but also name-calling, making threats towards the target, sexually harassing the target and rumors and gossip (Christie-Mizell; Espelage, 2002). Historically, non-aggressive forms of bullying have been considered less serious and often ignored. However, some studies have suggested that this is the most damaging type of victimization in the long run (Mishna).
Roberts also noted that the perception of the situation by the target is paramount in determining if bullying is occurring. This complicates the situation by virtue of victims’ fear of reporting (Frey et al., 2005) and emotional and social isolation (Rigby, 2003). As such, a victim who perceives the situation as aggressive or harmful may not report the problem. According to Roberts, this constitutes bullying, but no one may be aware of the victims’ perception of the situation.
Bullying has consequences far beyond a victim’s embarrassment in front of peers. The long-term effects can be seen in both the victim and perpetrator. Victims of bullying have been shown to have many serious consequences that may reach into adulthood years beyond the actual bullying events they experienced. Often victims have low self-esteem, are generally unhappy and often report overall sadness and anger (Christie-Mizell, 2004; Rigby, 2003). They often avoid social interaction and particularly avoid the location where the bullying occurs which frequently translates to poor school attendance and academic performance (Christie-Mizell). They will often isolate and report feelings of acute loneliness (Rigby). In extreme situations this can even include clinical anxiety or depression, suicidal ideation, and thoughts of vengeance (Weir, 2001). Christie-Mizell even reported that more than 80% of school shootings which occurred over a fifteen year span through 2001 was associated with “bullying in the form of teasing and social rejection” (p. 25) and the shooting attack was a form of retaliation. The results of bullying may also manifest physically (Rigby). Extended periods of stress are associated with poor immune system function which makes an individual more likely to experience health issues. Victims and their pediatricians often report sleep disturbance, stomach ache and upset, frequent head aches and bed wetting (Weir).
Perpetrators of bullying behavior are more likely than non-bullying counterparts to escalate their behavior to legal definitions of delinquency (Christie-Mizell, 2004) especially in those children who participated in physical aggression as a function of their bullying behavior (Rigby, 2003). This can follow into adulthood as well (Christie-Mizell), and Rigby noted a correlation between fathers who were bullies as children and the likelihood of having aggressive children suggesting a cyclical perpetuation of the problem and ongoing aggressive behavior in adulthood. Bullying is listed as one of several of the criteria for conduct disorder (Weir, 2001) suggesting a tendency for children who bully to perpetrate other behaviors as well which can escalate to a psychological diagnosis (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004). In short, both the victim and the perpetrator can be negatively affected in such a way that the ramifications can be felt over the course of their respective lives.
The participants in bullying situations are varied and certainly not limited to a single aggressive child and a target (Espelage, 2004; Ringrose, 2008). Bullying is often stereotyped as a male behavior, but this has been shown to be in error. When the behavior involves physical aggression, male children are more likely to be the source. However, verbal bullying and indirect bullying such as digital/online bullying is perpetrated just as often and in some cases more so by female children (Janssen et al., 2004; Ringrose, 2008; Smith, 2004). The victims of bullies are often the same sex, but certainly not always. Targets may be identified because of race, physical attributes and social aptitude (Espelage, 2002; Peguero, 2012).
These are not the only participants, however. Smith (2004) discussed several other roles: instigators, followers, reinforcers, outsiders and defenders all entangled in complex relationships (Peguero, 2012). Reinforcers in a bullying episode may not believe themselves to be supporting the behavior when in fact their very presence as a bystander, watching and/or laughing without intervening, provides the perpetrator a compliant and even encouraging audience which does, in fact, reinforce aggression towards the target (Espelage, 2002; Frey et al., 2005; Smith, 2004). Adults can be reinforcers of bullying behavior by doing nothing (Weir, 2001). When bullying behavior occurs and an adult or authority figure fails to intervene, it amounts to tacitly condoning the behavior, further victimizing the target and reinforcing the aggressor (Peguero).
Many efforts have been made to identify the source of bullying behavior. Roberts (2000) discussed the home environment as being where the first seeds of bullying behavior are planted. He noted that it is in the home where the earliest modeling of behavior occurs. Often, Roberts reported, an aggressive child’s first understanding of social interaction is based on verbal and physical aggression in the home, the use of force to obtain desired goals, and reinforcement of their own aggressive displays (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004). Bullying children have frequently experienced punitive, inconsistent corporal punishment as a means of discipline (Christie-Mizell, 2004). People who are viewed as weaker than the bully may be a reminder of the bullies own feelings of weakness in the face of aggressive caretakers (Roberts). As such, Roberts goes on to explain, their aggression towards others is a way of striking back at the victimization they felt, or may continue to feel, in their homes. Other characteristics of bullying children include high self-esteem and social popularity including the ability to easily make friends (Weir, 2001). They may be aggressive to teachers and parents, as well as peers, have a limited ability to control impulsive behavior (Ahmed & Braithwaite), and are often insensitive or lack the ability or willingness to empathize with others in pursuit of heightened prestige among their peers (Christie-Mizell; Weir). Furthermore, aggressive and bullying children are more likely to come from families with extremely low or high incomes although the relationship between these two requires further research although it is noted that children in the lower income brackets are at higher risk of demonstrating bullying behavior than their counterparts of a higher socio-economic status (Christie-Mizell). None of this information is important, however, unless it can be used to educate adults in recognizing and intervening in bullying behavior (Ringrose, 2008).
Addressing bullying behaviors among children is a multi-layered process. A successful program must address all of the parties involved, children and adults alike (Espelage, 2002). Roberts (2000) suggested that first and foremost, adults must learn to recognize it. He provided a check list to help adults recognize bullying behavior as it is happening. For example, interactions among children should be age appropriate and not target a specific individual or group. The adult should be able to discern if the interaction is based in mutually recognized humor, or if it is based in anger or carries malicious intent. Adults should also note if the behavior occurs repeatedly and at specific times or in particular situations or if it is an isolated event. Finally, adults should consider the child’s response to the interaction. If the target is hurt, offended, or responds in a defensive or protective way, that is an indication that the behavior is harmful and indicates bullying (Roberts).
Intervening by directly addressing the bully cannot be successful using only punitive responses; this is what they have become accustomed to. Instead it must involve calm and rational confrontation about their behavior, listening to both their verbal and non-verbal messages, and providing attention and support. Intervening with the perpetrator is not a one-time process, however, and must be undertaken with the resources in place to provide ongoing, long-term engagement with the bullying child (Roberts, 2000).
It is important to remember that behavior is motivated. If the behavior is rewarded, then it may be repeated until it becomes a habit. In stopping bullying behavior, it is imperative to know both the motivation and reward for the behavior in order to understand the bully’s logic that is driving the acts and appreciate the complex relationships between bullies, victims and onlookers (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Ringrose, 2008). It is also imperative to understand that at the point of intervention, a bully may have spent the most formative developmental years learning this type of behavior from the family of origin. Other styles of socialization and interaction may never have been experienced until the child entered school. This means the opportunity to see and practice prosocial behavior is woefully behind the development of antisocial behavior in terms of the amount of time and opportunities the child has had to experience and practice appropriate interaction (Roberts, 2000).
One of the ongoing problems with intervention programs is the inability to commit to addressing the problem. While most experts agree on a definition, the same cannot be said of teachers, parents and children (Mishna, 2004; Ringrose, 2008). In order to implement an effective bullying intervention program, everyone involved will have to come to an agreement on what constitutes bullying and how and when to respond to it (Ringrose). When those empowered to stop it cannot agree on what it is or appreciate the negative ramifications of it, they are less likely to commit to making any meaningful changes. Teachers and parents continue to blame the victim (Ringrose) failing to understand that regardless of the reason for being a target, every child has a right to be safe in school and free from being terrorized by peers. And in order to ensure this happens consistently, parents, teachers and any adult directly or indirectly associated with the individuals involved must be in communication and agreement about the issue and how to address it (Ahmed & Briathwaite, 2004; Ringrose) in such a way that both victims and perpetrators are able to clearly and consistently hear a message of intolerance of abusive behavior.
References
“A brief history of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.” (2016). Violence Prevention Works: Safer Schools, Safer Communities. Retrieved from http://www. violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_history.page
Ahmed, E. & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for concern for both families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7, pp. 35-54.
Christie-Mizell, C.A. (2004). The immediate and long-term effects of family income on child and adolescent bullying. Sociological Focus, 37 (1), pp. 25-41.
Espelage, D. L. (2002). Bullying in early adolescence: The role of the peer group. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, pp. 197-220.
Frey, K.S., Hirschstein, M.K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. vS., MacKenzie, E.P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 41 (3).
Janssen, I., Craig, W.M., Boyce, W.F., & Pickett, W. (2004). Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behavior in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 113, pp. 1187-1194.
Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children and Schools, 26 (4).
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Peguero, A. (2012). Schools, bullying, and inequality: Intersecting factors and complexities with the stratification of youth victimization at school. Sociology Compass, 6 (5), pp. 402-412.
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48 (9).
Ringrose, J. (2008). Just be friends: Exposing the limits of educational bully discourses for understanding teen girls’ heterosexualized friendships and conflicts. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 (5).
Roberts, Jr., W. B. (2000). The bully as victim: Understanding bully behaviors to increase the effectiveness of interventions in the bully-victim dyad. Professional School Counseling, 4 (2).
Seltzer, L. F. (2010, February 10). Bullies bully – And kids kid, right? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201002/bullies-bully-and-kids-kid-right
Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullying: Recent developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9 (3).
Weir, E. (2001). The health impact of bullying. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165 (9).
