Understanding Factors Associated with Bullying and Peer Victimization in Chinese Schools Within Ecological Contexts

Bullying and Victimisation Dynamics in High School: An Exploratory Case Study

“…Some of the characteristics of bullies and victims mentioned by the participants such as physically stronger and physically weaker respectively were findings common in prior literature e.g., observations by Huang et al (2013) that individual characteristics and personality traits influence bullying and victimisation behaviours. Intervention protocols mentioned by the teachers included the HIB law, social worker mediation, the debate club, and the advisory.…”

“…The teachersí perceptions of bullying as a very serious problem were consistent with background knowledge (Bullying and Statistics, 2012;Hoglund, Hosan, & Leadbeater, 2012;Huang, Hong, & Espelage, 2013;Jansen et al, 2012;Kramer, 2015;Margeviciute, 2016;Leeuwis et al, 2015). Their viewpoint that every aggressive action (irrespective of its repetitive status) is bullying without exception was inconsistent with prior views (Bennett, 2014;Jones & Augustine, 2015;Malecki et al, 2015;Van Fleet & Van Fleet, 2012;Wilder, 2014).…”

“…Some indirect factors influencing bullying interactions include cultural factors, parents, extended family, teachers, school officials, peers, community factors, physical characteristics of school environment, school anti-bullying policies, and school atmosphere, for instance, student perceptions of selfsafety (Bronfenbrenner, 1974(Bronfenbrenner, /1977(Bronfenbrenner, /1986(Bronfenbrenner, /1979(Bronfenbrenner, /1988(Bronfenbrenner, /1993Paat, 2013). Support for the practicality of Bronfenbrennerís ecological systems theory in moderating juvenile personality abound (e.g., Hong & Garbarino, 2012;Huang, Foster, & Brooks-Gunn, 2013;Hong & Espelage, 2013;Patton, Hong, Williams, & Allen-Meares, 2013;and Espelage, 2014). As the ecological systems play significant modelling roles in driving bullying-victimisation interactions, anti-bullying interventions not assuming equally holistic integrated approaches by partnering with social ecological stakeholders playing critical functions in shaping how children will act over their teenage life courses, appear unrealistic.…”

Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?

“…These ten studies have in common that they aim to go beyond individual risk factors for understanding various mental health outcomes, since previous studies have mainly focused on personal characteristics without considering the larger surrounding environments. Thus, these studies use concepts of Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory for identifying factors at different ecological levels that can explain the development of mental health outcomes in general (Pilgrim and Blum 2012;Aston 2014), but also more specific mental health related outcomes such as parenting capacity (Grant and Guerin 2014), bullying and peer victimization in schools (Hong and Espelage 2012;Huang et al 2013;Upton Patton et al 2013), school shootings (Hong et al 2010), and sexual assaults (Campbell et al 2009). The concepts used in these studies are naturally different ecological systems (micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono) as well as various individual factors.…”

“…When discussing the policy implications from their review of factors associated with school bullying and peer victimization in the People's Republic of China, Huang et al (2013) end up in general recommendations such as the need for (1) considering individual factors (age and gender) by targeting younger children and boys in particular (since these groups are more prone to engage in bullying); (2) setting up parent education for abusive parents (micro level); and (3) restricting children's exposure to media violence (exo level). Similarly, Hong et al (2010), when discussing the policy implications of how to prevent school shootings, end up with unspecific recommendations such as the need for skill-building programmes for parents and youths on communication and conflict resolution (micro level); setting up of arenas where parents and teachers can meet (meso level); provision of educational material about the detrimental effects of exposure to media violence (exo level); implementing school programmes that address gun violence in school (macro level); and educating governments about the relation between social conditions and negative outcomes among immigrants (chrono level).…”