m The link below provides a snapshot of the

information you will be learning as part of this

course.
m Please take notes, be prepared to ask, and
answer questions afterward the video.
m @hat is a bully?
m A person is bullied when he or she is exposed,
repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the
part of one or more other persons, and he or she has
difficulty defending himself or herself."
’ This definition includes three important components:
i Àullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative
actions.
i Àullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time.
i Àullying involves an imbalance of power or strength
m
erbal bullying including derogatory comments, unwarranted or
invalid criticism, or bad names
m Àullying through social exclusion, being treated differently than
the rest of the group or isolated
m Physical bullying such as hitting, kicking, shoving, and spitting
m Àullying through lies, false rumors, or the target of practical jokes
m Having money or other things taken or damaged by students
who bully
m Àeing threatened or being forced to do things by students who
bully
m Racial bullying
m Sexual bullying
m Cyber bullying (via cell phone or Internet
m @orkplace bullying often involves an abuse or
misuse of power.
m Àullying includes behavior that intimidates,
degrades, offends, or humiliates a worker, often in
front of others.
m Àullying behavior creates feelings of
defenselessness in the target and undermines an
individual¶s right to dignity at work.
m Individuals who bully have strong needs for power
and (negative) dominance.
m Individuals who bully find satisfaction in causing
injury and suffering to other students.
m Individuals who bully are often rewarded in some
way for their behavior with material or
psychological rewards.
m epression
m Low Self-esteem
m Health Problems
m Poor Grades
m Suicidal thoughts
’ @e will touch more on this later in the semester.
m As mentioned in the video, research on classifying
students based on their involvement in bullying
has multiplied over the past 25 years.
m uring this time, there has been a great amount of
variability in the methods used to assess
involvement in bullying and the criteria used to
classify students based on their levels of
involvement which affects the reported rates of
prevalence.
m In terms of methodology, most researchers rely on
self-report or peer nominations.
’ Some researchers have utilized teacher and parent reports.
m A literature review, from 1978 through 2009, indicates
there has not been a clear progression towards
consensus in terms of using one method of
measurement over others.
’ However, one measure that has gained popularity among
school personnel, if not researchers, has been the Olweus
Àully/
ictim questionnaire, which is a self-report.
m Researchers have also used several different types of criteria to
classify students into groups based on their involvement with
bullying, regardless of which form of measurement was used to
assess bullying.
’ The following ways of classifying students are utilized in the research«
i ÿrequency of Àehavior
i This category is further divided to include @eekly verses Monthly occurrence of
behaviors.
i Standard eviation Scores
i A Specified Cut-off Score
i This is usually 2.5 points above the mean.
i A set number of individual behaviors that occur.
i Such as 7 individual behaviors occuring regardless of the frequency.
m So without a ³gold star´ classification system utilized to classify
involvement types, prevalence rate vary sometimes dramatically.
m One common approach is to classify students based on the
relative severity of their scores on a bullying measure
compared to other students in the sample.
’ ÿor example, Cunningham (2007) classified students scoring one
standard deviation above the mean on self-report scales of
bullying and victimization as being bullies and victims
respectively.
’ Other studies have used establish cut-off scores of 2.5 points
above the mean to indicate classification (Andreou,
2000,2001,2004; Austin & Joseph, 1996; Houbre, Tarquino,
Thillier, & Hergott, 2006abc) or percentile scores
m These strategies have been criticized because
prevalence rates can vary substantially, limiting the
generalizability of classification criteria across different
samples (Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
m Other common approaches include measuring the
frequency (monthly, weekly, daily) that bully
behaviors occur.
’ Some studies also specify that to be identified with an
involvement type at least two behaviors must occur within
a set time frame (e.g. weekly) (Hunt, Meyers, Jarrett, &
Neel, 2005).
m As mentioned before the classification utilized greatly impacts the prevalence
reported for each study.
m Overall after I reviewed 21 studies dated from 1994 to 2009 these are the
overall prevalence rates from taking the averages across studies using different
classification criteria.
’ Àully = 10 % (sd=3%)
i Reported as high as 20% and a low as 1%
’
ictim = 18% (sd = 5%)
i Reported as high as 65% and a low as 11%
’ Àully-
ictim = 9% (sd = 4%)
i Reported as high as 18% and a low as 1%
’ *ninvolved = 65% (sd = 11%)
i Reported as high as 86% and a low as 18%
m One of the most recent studies (2008) from Nation,
ieno, Perkins, & Santinello,
found the following prevalence rates using a monthly classification system.
’ Àully = 9%
’
ictim = 7%
’ Àully-
ictim = 4%
’ *ninvolved = 81%
 À

  À




 
   07.5% 11.5% 06% 75%
  
  13% 25% 12% 50%
  
 
 À ! 12% 16% 13% 59%
 
" #
(including 2+ 10% 19% 08% 66%
behaviors occurring at
least weekly) $
  


%   07% 18% 04% 75%

&&'
   
  !

(! #)
*! 

 ! 
!  &&
m This assignment will be related to your
participation points.
m The purpose of the assignment is to talk with your
group to see what classification method yields the
highest prevalence rates.
m Àased on the graph provided in the previous slide
it is important to note that not one of classification
criteria shows any consistency among prevalence
rates compared to others.
m As a result, depending on how researchers
classify the behaviors prevalence varies greatly.
m Thus, until only one method of classification is
utilized as a ³gold star´ it is likely that prevalence
rates will continue to vary.
m Ahmed, E., & Àraithwaite,
. (2004). Àullying and victimization: Cause for concern for both families and
schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 35-54.
m Andreou, E. (2000). Àully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in 8- to 12-
year-old Greek schoolchildren. Rggressive Behavior, 26, 49-56.
m Andreou, E. (2001). Àully/victim problems and their association with coping behavior in conflictual peer
interactions among school-age children. Educational Psychology, 21, 59-66.
m Austin S, Joseph S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66(4), 447±456.
m Carlyle, K. E., & Steinman, K., J. (2007). emographic differences in the prevalence, co-occurrence,
and correlates of adolescent bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 77(9), 623-629.
m Cunningham, N. J. (2007). Level of bonding to school and perception of the school environment by
bullies, victims, and bully victims. Journal of Early Rdolescence, 27, 457-478.
m emaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support
by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims, in an urban middle school. School Psychology
Review, 32(3), 471-489.
m Haynie, . L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. ., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, À., (2001). Àullies,

ictims, and Àully/
ictims: istinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Rdolescence, 29(21), 29-49.
m Houbre, À., Tarquinio, C., & Thuillier, I. (2006abc). Àullying among students and it¶s consequences on
health. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 183-208.
m Hunt, M. H., Meyers, J., Jarrett, O., & Neel, J. (2005). Student survey of bullying behavior: Preliminary
development and results from six elementary schools. Retrieved ÿebruary 5, 2008, from Georgia State
*niversity Center for School Safety site: http://education.gsu.edu/schoolsafety/SSÀÀ.pdf
m Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by anish children
classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response to different
(hypothetical) types of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 479-488.
m Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, @. J., Simons-Morton, À., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Àullying behaviors among *S youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Rmerican Medical Rssociation, 285(16), 2094-2100.
m Nation, M.,
ieno, A., Perkins, . ., & Santinello, M. (2008). Àullying in school and
adolescent sense of empowerment: An analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and
teachers. Journal of Community & Rpplies Scoial Psychology, 18, 211-232.
m Peskin, M. ÿ., Tortolero, S. R., & Markham, C. M. (2006). Àullying and victimization among
Àlack and Hispanic adolescents. Rdolescence, 163(41), 467-484.
m Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent
schoolchildren involved in bully/victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187.
m Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., Petermann, ÿ., & Jugert, G. (2006). Physical, verbal, and
relational forms of bullying among German students: Age trends, gender differences, and
correlates. Rggressive Behavior, 32 261-275.
m Solberg, M. E., Olweus, ., & Endresen, I. M. (2007). Àullies and victims at school: Are
they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 441-464.