Transcript bullying
BULLYING: Psychopathology Human Nature or Part of Growing Up? The Prevention of Bullying: Building an Alberta Research Agenda March 23-23, 2006 Calgary, AB Shelley Hymel University of British Columbia KASSERIAN INGERA How are our children? 1 in 5 youth display significant mental health problems that warrant social services 11.4% of Canadian youth drop out of school early 7% of BC students in grades 7-12 reported attempting suicide at least oncein the past 12 months; about 10% of girls and 17% of boys considered suicide. (McCreary AHS, 1998) 8-10% of students report that they are bullied and harassed by peers on a regular (daily/weekly) basis Disliked and socially rejected children are at particular risk for later mental health problems, criminality and early school withdrawal 6-12% of students report that they do not feel safe at school • Norway • Japan • North America early 1980’s early 1990’s late 1990’s Jason Lang, aged 17 shot and killed at W.R. Myers High School Taber, Alberta April 20, 1999 Recent Surveys of Secondary Students Only 62 – 75% of students across different high schools agree that bullying behaviors are actually criminal offenses. Emmett Fralick Age 14 Grade 9 St. Agnes School Halifax Nova Scotia Took his own life 8April 2002 Travis Sleeva Age 16 Grade 11 Canora, Saskatchewan Shot himself in 2004 in response to peer bullying “A person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons.” Olweus, 1991 Three critical components: Intentionality Repetition Power Differential Bullying is about power….. (Vaillancourt, Hymel & McDougall, 2003) • Power comes in many forms… • Physical (larger, older) • Numbers (mobbing, scapegoating) • Social (more popular, more competent) • Over time, the power imbalance between the bully and victim becomes more established • Children who are victimized are powerless to stop the bullying on their own Involvement in Bully-Victim Incidents 8-10% 8-12% 1-5% Victims Bullies Bully-Victims 70-80% Witnesses Incidence Rates Sample of nearly 500 students, grades 8-10 • How often have you been bullied in school [this year]? o 31% report that they have NOT been bullied o 56% report being bullied a “few times” or “once in a while” o 12% report being bullied once a week or many times a week • How often have you taken part in bullying others? o 33% report that they have NOT bullied others o 54% report bullying others a “few times” or “once in a while” o 13% report bullying others once a week or many times a week • How often have you watched others being bullied at school? o only 5% report that they have not seen others bullied o 52% report that they see others bullied a “few times” or “once in a while” o 42% report that they see other bullied once a week or many times a week Lithuania Germany Greenland Switzerland Latvia Czech republic Denmark Estonia Austria Israel Portugal Russia Canada France Belgium Finland USA Hungary Greece Norway Poland Northern Ireland Rep. of Ireland Wales Scotland Sweden England Slovak republic CANADA USA How often have you been bullied in school this term? 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent distribution Sometimes >= Once a week 80% 100% Austria Germany Lithuania Denmark Switzerland Greenland Latvia France Belgium - Flemish CANADA Canada Estonia Czech republic Finland Russia USA USA Norway Israel Hungary Portugal Rep. of Ireland How often have you taken part in bullying other students? Greece Slovak republic Northern Ireland Sweden Poland Scotland Wales England 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent distribution Sometimes >= Once a week 80% 100% Bullying takes many forms… Physical Bullying Verbal Bullying Social Bullying Cyber Bullying pushing, spitting, shoving, hitting, kicking, threatening with a weapon, defacing property, stealing mocking, teasing, name-calling, dirty looks, intimidating phone calls, racist,sexist, homophobic taunts, verbal threats, coercion, extortion gossiping, setting up for embarrassment, spreading rumors, exclusion from group, inciting hatred, racist, sexist, homophobic alienation setting other up to take the blame, public humiliation using internet, email or text messages to threaten, hurt, single out, embarrass, spread rumors or reveal secrets about others Frequent Victims (once a month or more) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 physically bullied verbally bullied socially bullied electronically bullied Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr 7 Gr 8 Gr 9 Gr 10 Gr 11 Gr 12 Long Term Consequences Victimization • academic difficulties • school truancy/avoidance • increased absenteeism • somatic complaints (e.g., headaches, stomachaches) • stress-related illness, physical health problems • low self-esteem • depression • social withdrawal/isolation • social anxiety, loneliness • suicide • aggressive behaviour Bullying • externalizing problems • antisocial problem behaviour • mental health problems • dating aggression • sexual harassment • arrests for child/spousal abuse • depression • anxiety • suicide • delinquency and criminality • moral disengagement WHY? Three possibilities • Psychopathology • Part of growing up • Human nature Why? Psychopathology? CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIES AND VICTIMS Bullies • externalizing problems & hyperactivity (e.g., Khatri et al., 2000; Kumpulainen et al. 1999) • antisocial & physically aggressive behavior (e.g., Craig, 1998) • empathy (e.g., Espelage & Mebane in press; Funke 2003; Roberts & Morotti, 2000; Olweus 1993, 1997) • anxiety (e.g., Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1993) Victims • depression & anxiety (e.g., Boivin et al., 2001; Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1993,1997; Sourander et al., 2000) Personality and neuropsychological correlates of bullying behavior (Coolidge, DenBoer & Segal, 2004) Bullies > Controls % of bully group with “clinically elevated scores” Axis 1 Syndromes: 46% • Conduct Disorder 49% • Oppositional Defiant Disorder 51% • ADHD 49% • Depressive Disorder Axis II Personality Disorders • Passive-Aggressive Disorder Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Children and Youth (Waddell & Shepherd, 2002) Children (age 4-17) diagnosed with specific mental health disorders Anxiety Conduct Disorders ADHD Depression Substance Abuse PDD OCD Tourettes Eating Disorders Schizophrenia Bipolar 6.4% 4.2% 4.8% 3.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% <0.1% Estimated # in AB (given est. 590,000 K-12 students) 37,776 24,789 28,320 20,650 4,720 1,770 1,180 590 590 590 <590 Total diagnosed (any disorder) 14.3% or 811,5000 children across Canada Why? Part of Growing Up? The Priority of Human Relationships • Belonging is a basic human need • We have a fundamental, biologically-based human drive to form emotional bonds and attachments with others (attachment theory) Two Social Worlds of Childhood (Hartup, Piaget) ADULT (PARENT) CHILD CHILD CHILD Cultural Trends Promoting Attachment to Peers rather than Adults (Neufeld & Maté, 2004) • loss of extended families • dual parent work/careers • increased work week (less family time) • increased divorce rates (reconstituted families, competing attachments) • secularization of society • early child proximity to peers (daycare) • daycares poorly funded (not enough adults) • increasing age-segregation • larger schools, larger classes (primary peer affiliation) • electronic transmission of culture Domains of Social Development • • • • • Social Participation Perspective-taking Friendship conceptions Empathy Prosocial Reasoning • Brain Development • Identity Development • Moral Development Causes and Contributing Factors Child Characteristics Family Characteristics School Policies & Practices Media (TV & Video Games) Peer Group Contributions Societal and Cultural Norms SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Why? Human Nature? Group Socialization Theory (Harris, 1995, 1998) BETWEEN GROUPS •group contrast effects •group differences widen •ingroup favoritism/ outgroup discrimination WITHIN GROUPS ASSIMILATION DIFFERENTIATION •selfcategorization •social comparisons •adopt group norms •increased similarity •status hierarchies •dominance, power Olweus’ Bullying Circle A G Child Bullying Defenders B Followers Victimized Supporters C Passive supporters D Child F Possible defenders Disengaged onlookers E Bullying in school is a group phenomenon in which most children have a definable participant role (Salmivalli et al., 1996, 1997) Distribution of Finnish children across the various participant roles with respect to bullying episodes in 6th grade (adapted from Salmivalli et al., 1996) % Boys 25 Girls 23.7% 19.5% 17.3% 20 15 11.7% 8.2% 10 6.8% 5 0 Bully Assistant Re inforce r De fe nde r Victim Outside r Craig & Pepler: The role of peers in bullying Peers… • • • • • are present as observers in 85% of bullying episodes intervened on behalf of victim only 11% of the time spent 53% of the time passively watching spent 22% of the time helping the bully shift the affect of the bullying child when they support bullying and/or join in, creating • more excitement • more happiness • more aggression Peer solutions Although peers were witnesses in 85% of bullying incidents: • they only spent 25% of their time helping the victim. • they only intervened in 19% of bullying episodes. • most peer interventions (57%) were effective in stopping bullying within 10 seconds. • peers intervened prosocially (53%) or aggressively (47%) • Aggressive to bullying child • Prosocial to victimized child • intervention was more likely from same-sex peers. Student Attitudes and Beliefs Bullies are losers. Range Across Secondary Schools 78% yes Bullies have power. You get what you want from kids if you are a bully. 49-66% yes 29-49% yes Some of the coolest kids in school are bullies. Bullies are popular. 33-60% yes 35-61% yes Student Attitudes and Beliefs Beliefs about Victims Empathy for Victims It bothers me that other kids get picked on by bullies. 70-81% yes It bothers me when someone is left out because of bullies. 67-82% yes Perceptions of Victims Some kids get bullied because they deserve it. Most students who get bullied bring it on themselves. If certain kids didn’t whine or given in so easily, they wouldn’t get bullied so much. Victims should fight back. If you refuse to fight, other kids will think you’re a loser. 40-71% yes 37-58% yes 58-72% yes 66-70% yes 55-63% yes Student Attitudes and Beliefs Justifying Bullying Sometimes it’s okay to bully other people. 16-31% yes Bullying gets grudges out in the open. 65-72% yes Getting bullied helps make people tougher. 29-44% yes Some kids need to be picked on just to teach them a lesson. 36-51% yes Bullying gets kids to understand what is important to the group. 20-34% yes Bullying can be a good way to solve problems. 10-21% yes Moral Disengagement (Bandura,1999; 2001; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001) Four major categories: 1) Cognitive restructuring 2) Minimizing one’s agentive role 3) Disregarding or distorting negative impact 4) Blaming and dehumanizing the victim Attitudes that Predict Bullying • • • • • Sometimes it’s okay to bully other people. In my group of friends, bullying is okay. Kids get bullied because they are different. Some kids get bullied because they deserve it. Some kids get bullied because they hurt other kids. “Disengagement practices will not instantly transform considerate persons into cruel ones. Rather, the change is achieved by progressive disengagement of self-censure Initially, individuals perform mildly harmful acts they can tolerate with some discomfort. After their selfreproof has been diminished through repeated enactments, the level of ruthlessness increases, until eventually acts originally regarded as abhorrent can be performed with little anguish or self-censure. Inhumane practices become thoughtlessly routinized. The continuing interplay between moral thought, affect, action, and its social reception is personally transformative. People may not even recognize the changes they have undergone as a moral self.” Albert Bandura, 2001 BYSTANDER HELPLESSNESS It’s okay to report bullying to school authorities. 70-82% yes It is my responsibility to do something when I see bullying. 45-72% yes If you tell on a bully, people will think you are a “tattle tale” or loser. 58-86% yes Kids who tell on bullies are often the next victims. 76-87% yes Across schools…. 20-36% agree that it is “better not to get involved.” 26-38% believe that there is “nothing I can do to stop it”. 28-33% admit that they are “too frightened to intervene.” 51-67% agree that they are “just glad it’s not me”. Why do people bully? • Child psychopathology • The gradual social development of our children • The nature of human beings Implications • Bullying is a social problem that requires an understanding of human relationships in order to adequately address it. • We need to purposefully promote positive social development in our youth. • All children involved in bullying incidents -- perpetrators, victims and bystanders - must be included and considered in bullying interventions. • We need to intervene at multiple levels if we are to effect real changes in bullying in our society. Levels of Intervention Targeted or individualized intervention Universal or school-based intervention Every individual has the right to be spared from oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation. It is a fundamental democratic right to not be victimized in school. Dan Olweus, 1991 Societal level intervention School-Based Initiatives: Intervening in the Bullying Processes • Bullying as a teaching moment rather than a discipline problem (Rocke-Henderson, 2002) • Something is better than nothing • Nonintervention is typically interpreted as acceptance and tolerance • Three targets of intervention • BULLIES Children who bully require formative consequences: • VICTIMS Children who are victimized require safety and support to develop positive connections with peers. • WITNESSES All children involved in bullying incidents -- perpetrators, victimized youth, and bystanders -- must be included in bullying interventions. Evidence-Based Practice A Recent Review of Bullying Prevention •The majority of programs were successful at reducing bullying and victimization at school. •Of the 46 studies: • 26 (56%) reported only positive reductions in bullying/victimization; • 7 (15%) reported only negative results; • 6 (13%) reported mixed results (some positive,some negative effects); • 3 (7%) reported no change; • 4 (9%) programs are ongoing and there are no results to date. The Norway Project (Olweus) School Level better recess supervision Classroom Level regular class meetings Individual Level contact telephone meeting of school staff & parents teacher groups to develop “school climate” parent circles/discussion groups cooperative learning meetings among teachers, parents & students common positive activities role playing and literature about bullying explicit class rules against bullying serious talks with both bullies and victims help from “neutral” students advice to parents (brochure) change of class or school if necessary “discussion” groups with parents of bullies & victims Percent reduction following the intervention Percentage change due to Program Location Finland (Kempele) Norway (Bergen) Finland (Helsinki) Norway (Oslo) Norway (Bergen 2) Ireland (Donnegal) Norway (S Norway) England (Sheffield) Switzerland(Geneva) Australia (W.A) Germany (Holstein) Belgium (Flanders) Canada (Toronto) USA (S Carolina) Norway (Rogaland) Date -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 1992 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1985 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2000 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1999 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1997 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2000 xxxxxxxxxxxxx 1994 xxxxxxxxxx 1994 xxxxxxxxxxx 1994 xxxxxxxxx 2001 xxxxxx 1996 xxx 2001 x 1994 x 1997 x 1986 xxxxxx 60 Reported variations in outcomes between schools for the Schleswig Holstein Program Different interventions can yield similar results (Rigby, 2005) • Oslo study Olweus program emphasizing discipline, rules, consequences, and sanctions • Turku study Salmivalli et al. program emphasizing problem-solving methods (e.g., Pikas Method of Shared Concern) Both report 42% reduction in victimization Essential Elements of a Successful Social Program • theory driven • developmentally based • consider protective as well as risk factors (resilience based) • systemic • individual as well as universal • ongoing evaluation (including process as well as outcome) People support best that which they help to create Blanchard and Bowles “Gung Ho” Evidence-Based Practice Selecting Interventions that have been proven effective But … proven effectiveness elsewhere is no guarantee of success (e.g., Smith, Schneider, Smith & Anadiadou, 2004) And… don’t discourage efforts to develop new approaches Accountability: Evaluating whether or not your intervention works CANDADIAN INITIATIVES Saskatchewan: Diane Gossen’s Restitution Self Discipline Ontario: Mary Gordon’s Roots of Empathy Quebec: Mrs. Twinkle Rudberg’s Leave Out ViolencE (L.O.V.E.) British Columbia: Anita Robert’s Safeteen Ishu Ishiyama’s Anti-Discrimination Response Training (A.R.T.) Bonnie Leadbeater’s W.I.T.S. program COLLABORATIVE FOR ACADEMIC SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING casel.org Levels of Intervention Targeted or individualized intervention Universal or school-based intervention Every individual has the right to be spared from oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation. It is a fundamental democratic right to not be victimized in school. Dan Olweus, 1991 Societal level intervention Canadian Initiative for the Prevention of Bullying The CIPB’s mission is to develop a national strategy to reduce bullying and victimization among Canadian youth by –Providing education and information on bullying and victimization; –Creating assessment and evaluation tools; –Disseminating information on effective intervention strategies –Promote policy development to ensure sustained attention to problems of bullying All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing. -Edmund Burke In conclusion, there is no conclusion to what children who are bullied live with. They take it home with them at night. It lives inside them and eats away at them. It never ends. So neither should our struggle to end it. Sarah, age 17 Shelley Hymel Faculty of Education University of British Columbia 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 [email protected]