So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research

Volk, Anthony A.; Veenstra, René; Espelage, Dorothy L.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003

Cited by 195 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 135 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

155

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Like the bullying of humans, robots bullying rests upon dehumanisation. But the power imbalance, which is so central in human-human abuse [60], appears to take on a di erent role in human-robot abuse. Further investigating the interaction between power, perceived threat, dehumanisation, and abuse of robots would lead to deeper understanding of how exactly the human brain processes robots and could be of tremendous value to the eld of human-robot interaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Keijsers

Bartneck

2018

Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans recognise and respond to robots as social agents, to such extent that they occasionally a empt to bully a robot. e current paper investigates whether aggressive behaviour directed towards robots is in uenced by the same social processes that guide human bullying behaviour. More speci cally, it measured the e ects of dehumanisation primes and anthropomorphic qualities of the robot on participants' verbal abuse of a virtual robotic agents. Contrary to previous ndings in human-human interaction, priming participants with power did not result in less mind a ribution. However, evidence for dehumanisation was still found, as the less mind participants a ributed to the robot, the more aggressive responses they gave. In the main study this e ect was moderated by the manipulations of power and robot anthropomorphism; the low anthropomorphic robot in the power prime condition endured signi cantly less abuse, and mind a ribution remained a signi cant predictor for verbal aggression in all conditions save the low anthropomorphic robot with no prime. It is concluded that dehumanisation occurs in human-robot interaction and that like in human-human interaction, it is linked to aggressive behaviour. Moreover, it is argued that this dehumanisation is di erent from anthropomorphism as well as human-human dehumanisation, since anthropomorphism itself did not predict aggressive behaviour and dehumanisation of robots was not in uenced by primes that have been established in human-human dehumanisation research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Keijsers

Bartneck

2018

Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peer victimization has been studied extensively in youth, as it is associated with negative outcomes for both perpetrators (e.g., externalizing problems and social maladjustment) and victims (e.g., internalizing problems; Branson & Cornell, 2009). A large proportion of research on bullying utilizes either self‐report measures or peer nominations to identify perpetrators and victims in the peer group (e.g., Volk, Veenstra, & Espelage, 2017). Yet there is generally low to moderate agreement between self‐ and peer‐reports (e.g., Branson & Cornell, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dyadic nominations of bullying: Comparing types of bullies and their victims

Malamut

Berg

Lansu

et al. 2020

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies indicate that when identifying individuals involved in bullying, the concordance between self‐ and peer‐ reports is low to moderate. There is support that self‐ and peer‐ identified victims constitute distinct types of victims and differ in adjustment. Likewise, differentiating between self‐ and peer‐ reports of bullying may also reveal distinct types of bullies. The goal of this study was to examine differences between types of bullies identified via dyadic nominations (self‐identified, victim‐identified, and self/victim identified). First, we examined the concordance between dyadic nominations of bullying and traditional measures of bullying (i.e., self‐ and peer‐reports). Second, we compared the behavioral profiles of the bully types to nonbullies, with a focus on aggressive behaviors and social status. Third, we examined whether the types of bullies targeted victims with different levels of popularity, as well as the role of their own popularity and prioritizing of popularity. Participants were 1,008 Dutch adolescents (50.1% male, Mage = 14.14 years, standard deviation [SD] = 1.30) who completed a classroom assessment of dyadic nominations, peer nominations, and self‐report items. Results indicated that victim identified and self/victim identified bullies were more aggressive, more popular, and less socially preferred than self‐identified bullies and nonbullies. Self/victim identified bullies targeted victims with the highest social status. The association between bully type and victims' popularity was further qualified by bullies' own popularity and the degree to which they prioritized popularity. Implications for the implementation of dyadic nominations are discussed.

show abstract

“…Bullying is widely recognized as a unique peer phenomenon (Volk, Veenstra, & Espelage, ). By definition, “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, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refining victims’ self‐reports on bullying: Assessing frequency, intensity, power imbalance, and goal‐directedness

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bullying can be differentiated from other types of peer aggression by four key characteristics: frequency, intensity, power imbalance, and goal‐directedness. Existing instruments, however, usually assess the presence of these characteristics implicitly. Can self‐report instruments be refined using additional questions that assess each characteristic? We examined (a) what proportion of children classified as victims by the commonly used Revised Olweus’ bully/victim questionnaire (BVQ) also experienced the characteristics of bullying, and (b) the extent to which the presence of the characteristics was associated with emotional (affect, school, and classroom well‐being), relational (friendship, defending), and social status (popularity, rejection) adjustment correlates among victims. Using data from 1,738 students (Mage = 10.6; grades 5–8), including 138 victims according to the BVQ, the results showed that 43.1% of the children who were classified as victims by BVQ experienced all the four characteristics of bullying. Frequency ratings of victimization did not capture experiences that involved a power imbalance. Victims who reported all four key characteristics had greater emotional, relational, and social status problems than victims who did not report all characteristics. Thus, researchers who focus on victimization for diagnostic and prevention purposes can enrich self‐report measurements of bullying victimization by adding questions that assess the characteristics explicitly.

show abstract

So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research

Abstract: 2017-08-25T16:31:02

Cited by 195 publications

References 135 publications

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Dyadic nominations of bullying: Comparing types of bullies and their victims

Refining victims’ self‐reports on bullying: Assessing frequency, intensity, power imbalance, and goal‐directedness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About