Bullying roles in changing contexts: The stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school

Abstract

The present study was conducted to predict bullying roles over a six years time period and across contexts differing in the degree of peer hierarchies. Out of two representative data sets from primary (N = 1525) and secondary school (N = 2958), 282 children (156 boys; 126 girls) were followed up longitudinally. Self reports on bullying experiences and peer reports about social status were assessed by a structured individual interview (in primary school) and by questionnaire given classwise (in secondary school). Risk analyses showed, that only a bully role in primary school yields a risk to be sustained in secondary school. However, victims in primary school classes with a more pronounced degree of hierarchical structuring proved stable in their role while the victim role was unstable from primary school classes with low hierarchical structuring. This interaction did not apply to bully role stability. Differential characteristics of the victim and the bully role in primary school and secondary school settings are discussed.Keywords: Bullying, stability, social status, primary and secondary school ZusammenfassungDie vorliegende Untersuchung wurde durchgeführt, um Bullyingrollen über einen Zeitraum von sechs Jahren und Kontexte, die sich im Ausmaß der sozialen Strukturierung unterschieden, vorherzusagen. Auf der Grundlage von zwei repräsentativen Datensätzen aus der Grundschule (n= 1525) und der weiterführenden Schule (N= 2958) wurden dazu die Daten von 282 Kinder (156 Jungen, 126 Mädchen) längsschnittlich analysiert. Die Selbstberichte über Bullyingerfahrungen und Mitschülerberichte über den sozialen Status der Kinder wurden in der Grundschule durch ein strukturiertes Interview und in der weiterführenden Schule durch klassenweise Fragebogenerhebung erfasst. Riskikoanalysen zeigen, dass nur die Täterrolle in der Grundschule einen Risikofaktor für eine Täterrolle in der weiterführenden Schule darstellt. Eine Opferrolle war hingegen nur dann stabil, wenn die Opfer in Grundschulklassen mit schon ausgeprägten Dominanzstrukturen viktimisiert wurden, während aus Grundschulklassen mit geringer hierarchischer Strukturierung keine stabile Opferrolle vorhersagbar war. Dieses Interaktionmuster gilt nicht für die Stabilität der Täterrollen. Differentielle Charakteristika der Opferrolle und der Täterrolle in der Grundschule und der weiterführenden Schule werden diskutiert.

Learning to Manage Shame in School Bullying: Lessons for Restorative Justice Interventions

“…Nevertheless, there was some movement between groups. Patterns of stability and change have been reported in previous research (Chappell et al 2006;Schäfer et al 2005;Sourander et al 2000;Wolke et al 2009). Gaining insights into how individuals move and why has been regarded as important for successful interventions (Hanish and Guerra 2004).…”

Male and Female Victims of Male Bullies: Social Status Differences by Gender and Informant Source

“…This need is particularly relevant when considering the lack of consistency in the literature regarding how children are identified as victims Graham and Juvonen 1998;Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2002;. This inconsistency may be due to different methodological approaches to identifying victims: research addressing victimization usually has adopted self reports or peer reports, but these methods have not been taken into account together, therefore overlooking differential factors unique to each informant's perspective (Schäfer et al 2005;Veenstra et al 2005). Non-reporting contributes to the inconsistency between self-and peer-reports (Unnever and Cornell 2004).…”

Peer Victimization in Childhood and Internalizing Problems in Adolescence: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

“…Winsper et al 2012;Wolke et al 2001a;Woods and Wolke 2004) and to be sensitive to detect peer related effects of medical interventions such as eye patching (Williams et al 2006). The interview has predictive validity during elementary school (Wolke et al 2009b;Sapouna et al 2011) and even from elementary to secondary school (Schäfer et al 2005). Five items referred to direct victimization: 1) personal belongings taken; 2) threatened or blackmailed; 3) hit or beaten up; 4) tricked in nasty way; 5) called bad/nasty names and four items referred to indirect victimization: 1) exclusion to upset the child; 2) coercive pressure to do things s/he didn't want to do; 3) lies or nasty things said about others; 4) spoilt activities for other pupils (for example, sports games or class activities) on purpose to make them upset.…”