Schoolchildren's social representations on bullying causes

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to investigate schoolchildren's social representations on the causes of bullying. Individual qualitative interviews were conducted with 56 schoolchildren recruited from five elementary schools in Sweden. Mixed methods (grounded theory as well as descriptive statistic methods) were used to analyze data. According to the findings, the most prevalent social representation on bullying causes among the children is to view bullying as a reaction to deviance. The second most frequently used explanation type is to view bullying as social positioning. Other social representations on bullying causes are to explain bullying as the work of a disturbed bully, a revengeful action, an amusing game, social contamination, and a thoughtless happening. Social representations of bullying causes appear to be linked to the more general process of social categorization and seem in many bullying cases to promote moral disengagement among the children<p>This is the author’s version of the following article: Robert Thornberg, Schoolchildren's social representations on bullying causes, 2010, Psychology in the schools, (47), 4, 311-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20472 Copyright: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Brand/id-35.html</p

Victimising of school bullying: a grounded theory

“…Our findings also correspond with studies investigating students' perspectives showing that a widespread idea among children and adolescents is that bullying occurs because the victim is different, deviant, odd or does not fit in (e.g. Frisén, Holmqvist, and Oscarsson 2008;Frisén, Jonsson, and Persson 2007;Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008;Hazler and Hoover 1993;Mooij 2011;Thornberg 2010;Thornberg and Knutsen 2011;Varjas et al 2008), and with DeRosier and Mercer's (2009) findings showing a correlation between perceived atypical behaviour and peer victimisation. In reference to the labelling theory (Becker 1963), the stigma theory (Goffman 1963;Jones et al 1984) and the social misfit hypothesis (Wright, Giammarino, and Parad 1986), the informants became embroiled in a social process that constructed them as a 'deviant' or 'different' peer, which in turn stigmatised them, escalating into social excluding and more harassment.…”

“…Frisén, Holmqvist, and Oscarsson 2008;Frisén, Jonsson, and Persson 2007;Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008;Hazler and Hoover 1993;Mooij 2011;Thornberg 2010;Thornberg and Knutsen 2011;Varjas et al 2008). The victim is regarded as a person who does not fit in.…”

Teenagers’ Explanations of Bullying

“…Some of the subcategories in the present findings resemble student accounts from other studies. For example, the account of the deviant victim is found in many studies investigating student perspectives (e.g., Bosacki et al 2006;Frisén et al 2007Frisén et al , 2008Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008;Hoover et al 1992;Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003;Thornberg 2010b;Varjas et al 2008) and can be associated with the social misfit hypothesis (Wright et al 1986), stigma theory (Goffman 1963) and labeling theory (Becker 1963;Phelan and Link 1999). Ethnographic research on bullying clearly indicates that such theories (i.e., a peer group defines or constructs the victim as deviant-a label that results in stigma and rejection) might be adopted to understand the social process of peer harassment and social rejection (for a review, see Thornberg in press).…”

“…Previous research indicates that students tend to attribute the causes of bullying to the victim by interpreting him or her as deviant or different (Bosacki et al 2006;Buchanan and Winzer 2001;Erling and Hwang 2004;Frisén et al 2007Frisén et al , 2008Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008;Hazler and Hoover 1993;Hoover et al 1992;Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003;Thornberg 2010b;Varjas et al 2008). Furthermore, boys seem to blame the victim more than girls in hypothetical bullying situations (Gini 2008), and in self-reports regarding bullying experiences (Hara 2002).…”

“…In Thornberg's (2010b) study, 56 Swedish schoolchildren were interviewed individually. According to the findings, the children operated with one or more types of explanation in order to make sense of bullying incidents they had seen, heard of or been involved in.…”