Popular or isolated? A netwerk analytical study of the social characteristics of bullies in Flemish secondary schools.

Author(s):

Jannick Raf Demanet

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

05 SES 09, Children and Youth at Risk (Part 3)

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-12

10:30-12:00

Room:

B1 135

Chair:

Ruth Leitch

Contribution

Bullying in school is a recurrent social problem, in Belgium as well as abroad (e.g. Ando et al., 2005; Olweus, 1994; Slee, 1995, Stevens & Van Oost, 1994). Scientific studies estimate the proportion of bullies at approximately 14 % (Nansel et al., 2001; Pelligrini et al., 1999), and have shown that bullying and being victimized is not without its consequences (O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001; Slee, 1995; Twemlow et al., 1996). Bullies can get depressed, they dislike school more, and, like their victims, they appear to have a more negative self esteem. What is needed, is a description of the bullies that is as thorough as possible. That way, they can be identified much faster, so that bully prevention programs can work more effectively. Recent Flemish estimations of the proportion and nature of bullying are however very scarce. Explanations for the occurrence of bullying have been plenty (e.g. see Espelage & Swearer, 2003 for a short review; Mouttapa et al., 2004; Simons-Morton et al., 1999; Wai-ming Tam & Taki, 2007). One of those explanations, which is frequently used in scientific literature, is the social dominance theory (Hawley, 1999; Mouttapa et al., 2004; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). This evolutionary inspired theory states that there are two kinds of people: those who are social dominant, and those who are not. The theory holds that there is a differential ability to control resources: social dominant people have a better access to them (Hawley, 1999). People possess all kinds of strategies to acquire social dominance, both social and anti-social (Charlesworth, 1996). Bullying is such a anti-social strategy: by bullying others, pupils have a better access to estimated, scarce resources, such as friendships, popularity and lovers (Arora & Thompson, 1987; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). It is obvious that social dominance theory advocates an ability model: bullies are believed to be more socially successful than others (Hansell & Wiatrowski, 1981). Bullying can also be seen as a form of deviant behaviour (Custers & Engels, 2003; Van der Wal et al., 2003), and therefore it can also be explained by social control theory (Simons-Morton et al., 1999). This approach holds that deviant persons have broken their bond with a group, or society itself. Therefore, they have the feeling they are no longer a member of that group or society, so that they think the norms and values no longer apply to them (Hirschi, 1969). Hirschi states that deviant youngsters, and therefore also bullies, do not experience social control from their parents and their school. Most important for this study is however, that they also do not experience social control from their peers, because, first, they have fewer friendships, and, second, because the cohesion in their friendships is much lower than for adolescents who are not deviant (Hirschi, 1969). Social control theory therefore states an inability model, also known as a social skills deficit model (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hansell & Wiatrowski, 1981): bullies are believed to be less socially successful than other students. It is obvious that these two theories contradict each other on the point of the popularity of bullies: they depart from two different models, that have been shown to be incompatible (Gilmore et al., 1992). Recently, this point has come under the attention of researchers, although the results were inconclusive (Baerveldt et al., 2003; Baerveldt et al., 2004). The purpose of this study is to test the two theories in the Flemish case, to try to find a conclusive answer to the question whether bullies are popular individuals, or not.

Method

The study uses the data of the Flemish Educational Assessment (FlEA), gathered in 2004-2005 in 85 Flemish secondary schools. The data consist of 11872 Flemish students, and is representative for the Flemish case (Van Houtte et al., 2005). For this study, network analysis was performed to create the dichotomous dependent variable 'bully', which indicates if the respondent is a bully, or not, and the social variables sociometric popularity (number of friends), perceived popularity (social status), intragroup cohesion in the friendship network, and number of intimate friendships. The social characteristic number of lovers is also added to the model. Next to these social variables, also the influence of family and school characteristics, which are relevant for social control theory, is tested. These variables are parental involvement, parental support, school involvement and study involvement. Also the demographic control variables sex, ethnicity, SES of the family, grade and educational type (academical, technical or vocational) are added. The influence of these characteristics on the dichotome variable bully (bully or not) is assessed using stepwise logistic regression analysis, in which first the social variables are added, followed by the demographic control variables in the second step, and the family and school variables in the third step.

Expected Outcomes

The results indicate that we can lend more credence to the ability model, and therefore to social dominance theory. Bullies appear to be more popular than other students, especially in their sociometric popularity, their perceived popularity and number of lovers. In opposition to the family variables, the school variables relevant for social control theory also show an effect on the chance that an individual is a bully. That means both theories are needed to explain bullying behaviour, although this study suggests that it is only social control exercised by the school that is relevant for stopping bullying behaviour.

References

Ando, M., Asakura, T. & Simons-Morton, B. (2005). Psychosocial influences on physical, verbal and indirect bullying among Japanese early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(3), 268-297. Arora, C.M.J. & Thompson, D.A. (1987). Defining bullying for a secondary school. Educational and Child Psychology, 4(3-4), 110-120. Baerveldt, C., Van Rossem, R. & Vermande, M. (2003). Pupils’ delinquency and their social networks. A test of some network assumptions of the ability and inability models of delinquency. The Netherlands Journal of Sociology, 39(2), 107-142. Baerveldt, C., Van Rossem, R., Vermande, M. & Weerman, F. (2004). Student’s delinquency and correlates with strong and weaker ties: a study of student’s networks in Dutch high schools. Connections, 26(1), 11-28. Charlesworth, W.R. (1996). Co-operation and competition: contributions to an evolutionary and developmental model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19(1), 25-39. Custers, K.E & Engels, R.C. (2003). Delinquentie van adolescenten: de rol van delinquente vrienden en emotionele problemen. Pedagogiek, 23(2), 137-155. Espelage, D.L. & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: what have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383. Gilmore, M.R., Hawkins, J.D., Day, L.E. & Catalano, R.F. (1992). Friendship and deviance: New evidence on an old controversy. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(1), 80-95. Hansell, S. & Wiatrowski, M.D. (1981). Competing conceptions of delinquent peer relations, pp. 93-108 in Jensen, G.F. (Ed.), Sociology of Delinquency: current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hawley, P.H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19(1), 97-132. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. California: University of California press. Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L.A., Unger, J.B. (2004). Social Network Predictors of Bullying and Victimization. Adolescence, 39(154), 315-335. Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100. O’Moore, M. & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27(4), 269-283. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171-1190. Pellegrini, A.D., Bartini, M. & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216-224. Pellegrini, A.D. & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: affiliative and aggressive dimensions and positive functions. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 142-163. Pellegrini, A.D. & Long, J.D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259-280. Simons-Morton, B.G., Crump, A.D., Haynie, D.L. & Saylor, K.E. (1999). Student–school bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education Research, 14(1), 99-107. Slee, P.T. (1995). Peer victimization and its relationship to depression among Australian primary school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(1), 57-62. Stevens, V. & Van Oost, P. (1994). Pesten op school: een actieprogramma. Gent, Universiteit Gent, Onderzoeksgroep Gedrag en gezondheid. Twemlow, S.W., Sacco, F.C. & Williams, P. (1996). A clinical and interactionist perspective on the bully-victim-bystander relationship. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 60(3), 296-313. Van der Wal, M.F., de Wit, C.A.M. & Hirasing, R.A. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111(6), 1312-1317. Van Houtte, M., Stevens, P., Sels, A., Soens, K. & Van Rossem, R. (2005). De invloed van structurele en compositorische schoolkenmerken op prestaties en welbevinden van leerlingen in het secundair onderwijs: een verklaring via cultuur. Eerste verslag verloop en stand onderzoek (niet gepubliceerd). Vakgroep sociologie, onderzoeksgroep jeugd, educatie en geslacht, Universiteit Gent. Wai-ming Tam, F. & Taki, M. (2007). Bullying among girls in Japan and Hong Kong: An examination of the frustration-aggression model. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(4), 373 – 399.

Author Information

Jannick Raf Demanet

Ghent University

Department of Sociology

Gent

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.