The Routledge Handbook of Communication and Bullying

Richard West, Christina S. Beck

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351374460
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Estudios de comunicación

The Routledge Handbook of Communication and Bullying provides an essential and unique analysis of bullying and anti-bullying efforts from a communication-based perspective. Drawing on communication theory and compelling empirical research, this volume offers valuable international perspectives of this pervasive concern, examined within varied contexts. In addition to providing exemplary data-based scholarship, the Handbook is comprised of first-hand accounts of those who have been bullied, adding an integral pragmatic and complementary dimension to the topic. This anthology serves as a useful resource for educators, administrators, managers, and other stakeholders who are challenged with this difficult social issue. Responding to the various charges emanating from the National Communication Association's (NCA) Anti-Bullying Project, this collection constitutes a valuable foundation from which to draw as conversations about bullying continue around the globe.

Part I

Foundations of Bullying and Communication Research

1
Coming to Terms with Bullying

A Communication Perspective

Richard West and Lynn H. Turner

We live in a culture that tends to thrive on the humiliation of others (Martocci, 2015). As a result, bullying is prevalent in all aspects of life and at all ages (Monks & Coyne, 2011). We hear about bullies and bullying behaviors in myriad contexts and through multiple venues. Comedians like Chris Rock and Stephen Colbert humorously muse about the value of bullying for toughening kids up and getting important social changes through Congress. It’s virtually impossible to attend to any popular media for more than an hour without reading or hearing the word “bully.” Further, scholars from a variety of disciplines, including education, sociology, psychology, and communication, have trained research attention on the concept.

Despite this ubiquity, the definition of bullying is often unclear or contested. And, although most scholars aim to incorporate a foundational understanding of the term in their research, both consistencies and inconsistencies in the literature exist. To begin, typically, Western scholars have defined bullying as resting on three specific criteria: A bully seeks to inflict intentional harm through repeated unwanted actions (verbal or physical) directed toward an individual who is of lesser power (e.g., physical, emotional, financial, etc.) than the bully (e.g., Olweus, 1997; Monks & Coyne, 2011; Stopbullying.gov, n.d.). Still, research, interviews, and experience affirm that bullying can involve repeated behavior and, occasionally, a one-time offense (Monks & Coyne, 2011). Bullying may not need repetition if fear of repeated attacks is apparent (Stopbullying.gov, n.d.). In addition, bullying behavior is not always directed toward one individual. Rather, it can be deployed upon a group, including women and members of co-cultures (Orbe, 1998; Priest, King, Bécares, & Kavanagh, 2016; Rivers & Duncan, 2013). This targeted action is sometimes referred to as bias bullying (Smith, 2011), or what some scholars identify as the “thorny issues around what causes and constitutes bullying, [including] how to think differently about overlapping phenomena such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or sexual harassment” (Mishna, 2012, p. 53). Finally, some have argued that bullying may not need an uneven power dynamic (Smith, 2011), a conclusion that undercuts earlier and contemporary conceptions of the behavior. Bullying can occur between peers of the same age or social class, co-workers of the same standing, or individuals of the same sex. Therefore, a traditional definition, though widely used, has a variety of challenges associated with it.

And the inconsistencies seem to continue. For instance, the term bullying was originally used solely to describe children’s hurtful play among peers (Monks & Coyne, 2011), and the majority of the literature using the term still discusses children from kindergarten through high school (e.g., Waasdorp, Pas, Zablotsky, & Bradshaw, 2017; Coulter, Herrick, Friedman, & Stall, 2016; Jara, Casas, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2017; Mishna, 2012; Monks & Coyne, 2011; Ofe, Plumb, Plexico, & Haaka, 2016; Olweus, 1997; Smith, 2014). However, bullying occurs not only during K–12 but also prior and subsequent to the school years (Garlough, 2016; Quinn, 2015; Reigle, 2016). Children may begin bullying in the first few years of their life, although these actions may not actually constitute bullying, because researchers question whether children so young can have malicious intent or if they are just mimicking behaviors they see others exhibiting (Monks & Coyne, 2011; Tattum & Herbert, 1997).

Research on bullying has expanded beyond schools to include cyberbullying, cultural mores, workplace bullying, legal issues, and bullying within senior (elderly) communities (Bonifas, 2016; Quinn, 2015). Further, after individuals exit high school, the terminology for bullying changes to a focus on harassment and abuse. Perhaps this is due to legal reasons, since many U.S. states have created laws to punish bullying behaviors, even if the perpetrator is below 18 years old (Levi, n.d.; Stopbul lying.gov, n.d.). The necessity of holding perpetrators accountable in a court of law (Garlough, 2016) establishes clear definitions for terms like harassment and abuse.

Given ever-changing environments where bullying is found, technological advances enabling bullying to occur in cyberspace, and policy-legal evolutions in interventions around bullying, some writers contend that developing a universal definition and interpretation of bullying is difficult and, at times, inappropriate and unnecessary (Bazelon, 2014). Moreover, if a definition does not clearly suit the needs of students, employees, or individuals, organizations must modify it in order for policies to be created (Reigle, 2016). Research has found that when children, teachers, and parents are asked for their definitions of bullying, they often provide different definitions from one another and from the researchers (Monks & Coyne, 2011). For instance, children are more likely to conflate bullying with any type of aggression than are adults. In addition, some writers caution that the social construction of bullying using a Western lens is not always applicable to non-Western cultures (Moon, 2000).

It is incumbent on scholars to provide clear lines of demarcation and appropriate parameters within their own research projects. Valid theories and measurement tools begin with clear conceptual definitions. While it may not be possible or desirable to create a universal definition for bullying, it is critical to posit a specific definition for each individual study and clarify how the definition is congruent with the theory and method utilized in the study.

Bullying is immensely crucial in the lives of not only the target/victim but also the bully and their respective communities (Randall, 1997; Quinn, 2015). Vulnerable groups are the most at risk (Mishna, 2012). In addition, the nature of bullying and its numerous impacts require scholars and practitioners to grapple with its definition, even if we conclude that it’s impossible to create a single definition for all situations. As communication researchers, we are uniquely well-suited for this task, and yet, the task is quite challenging.

Bullying as Communication

Bullying behavior, bystander behaviors, and the ways to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of bullying are communicative in nature (Berry, 2016). Whether through verbal or nonverbal/physical codes, bullies employ communication tactics to achieve their intent (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012). In addition, bullying necessarily requires a sender, a channel, and a receiver or audience. The sheer act of bullying is tantamount to significant noise in a communication channel. Senders, channels, receivers, and noise are all key components in any communication model (West & Turner, 2017), and yet, scholars fail to assert this fundamental template in their research. Moreover, cyberbullying and cyber-aggressions are tantamount to communication episodes (e.g., computer-mediated communication, CMC). Finally, anti-bullying programs and initiatives, too, require expertise in communication skills such as forgiveness, understanding, and empathy (www.stopbullying.gov, n.d.). It is clear, then, that bullying is profitably viewed through a communication lens that employs an understanding of foundational elements.

Models representing the communication process are rarely explicit in communication scholarship. Interestingly, however, the field of communication traces its roots to the various features of these models, and they remain particularly apt to consider in dialogues about bullying. Discussions related to relevant aspects of communication such as communication contexts and effects help scholars to frame their understanding of bullying and assist practitioners as they conceptualize and construct effective interventions around bullying.

Despite these assertions, the communication field has entered this difficult dialogue quite late, and as this anthology attests, our research is just beginning to influence how scholars understand bullying. In the research that does exist, communication scholars have studied bullying by employing a variety of frameworks, including: relational/family (Berry & Adams, 2016; Matsunaga, 2009), workplace (Cowan, 2009), and educational (Goodboy, Martin, & Rittenour, 2016). And while this research has been important in many ways, no clear or consistent thread exists demonstrating scholarly efforts to interpret the bullying concept. In fact, researchers have examined bullying from myriad vantage points, including those of parents (Smorti, Menesini, & Smith, 2003), HR professionals (Cowan, 2012), customer service workers (Bishop & Hoel, 2008), and bystanders (Brody & Vangelisti, 2016), among others. If we accept the assumption that bullying is complex and appears in different forms, it seems necessary to establish some sort of “clarification model” so that discussions and analyses might be more aligned with communication research.

In the remainder of this chapter, we present research on bullying in three contexts (school, workplace, and senior communities) and provide a concrete exemplar illustrating each. We conclude with an illustration of how a holistic model of communication can usefully frame this research. Our approach, therefore, grounds the reported research in praxis. As Hollis (2016a) notes, “theories provide solid backdrops,” and yet, for those who experience bullying, “there is nothing theoretical about the experience” (p. 22). We believe that an approach respecting both the theory and experience of bullying responds to Craven, Marsh, and Parada’s (2013) assertion that theory, research, and practice cannot be separated from one another; if one area is weak, all are impaired. In addition, this chapter serves as an overview of the various environments in which bullying occurs and a precursor to the research that will be offered throughout the remainder of the book. Of necessity, this review includes many sources outside the communication field.

A Contextual Approach

To provide an efficient snapshot of the bullying concept and induce its definition, we articulate three primary environments in which the behavior is typically explored and explained: schools, workplaces, and senior centers. We provide representative conclusions and make no claim that we are exhaustive in our review. We limit the majority of our review to those studies that are theoretical, and we are not exploring the popular culture conversation on bullying (which is quite expansive and didactic in nature). Further, as Randall (1997) observes, “the roots of much bullying are nurtured in the homes of perpetrators where aggression is learned and honed by deviousness into bullying” (p. 5). Therefore, one definitional insight that comes along with Randall’s comment is that bullying is not a fully formed schemata, but rather often follows along developmental stages, allowing for both expansion and extinction of the behavior. In that spirit, we begin our discussion with the context where the largest portion of research exists: the schools.

Schools

Most of the research on bullying in the U.S. didn’t begin until the 1990s, which was the time when scholars realized that boys who shot their classmates, such as the two shooters at Columbine High School in Colorado, had previously been bullied in school. Schools are enclosed spaces where large groups of individuals spend significant amounts of time together, making them opportunistic sites for multiple forms of bullying. Researchers have posited a number of different conclusions related to bullying in the schools. We begin our discussion with what scholars have concluded about bullying during the earliest school years.

Preschool

Although scant research focused on bullying in preschool in the past, recently it has become an area of growing research interest. Pepler and Cummings (2016), for example, posit that 2–5-year-olds are immature, and consequently, children may not recognize when power is being exerted upon them or when they’re exerting power over others. Some research indicates that bullying in preschool is different than what is observed with older children. Specifically, preschoolers tend to be more likely to use direct forms of bullying such as hitting, name calling, and comments such as “you can’t play with us” compared to the more indirect methods, such as spreading rumors, adopted by older children in school (Monks, 2011).

Preschool Bullying: Manuel

While playing at the water table, Manuel continues to splash water at Lydia, making her cry. He sees his friends, Luke and Albert, laugh, and in turn, Manuel continues to throw handfuls of water at the girl. Maggie, one of the preschool teachers, immediately escorts Manuel out of the room, telling him his behavior was unacceptable and mean. She stresses to Manuel that he needs to go back to apologize to Lydia and shake hands.

Much of the research related to preschoolers adopts a developmental-relational perspective (Lerner, 2012; Lerner & Callina, 2014). Applying this model to bullying, Pepler and Cummings state that scholars and practitioners need to understand:

the complex, dynamic, and continuous interactions between an individual child’s characteristics (genetic, neuro-physiological, and developing social-emotional capacity) and experiences in key social relationships (with parents, other caregivers, and peers) as well as in broader contexts (family, school, community) and broader systems (culture, media, and political climate).

(p. 37)

In other words, because young children are introduced to so many potentially influential agents in their early years, the heterogeneity of their bullying experiences needs to be considered before drawing definitive conclusions. Further, researchers have concluded that 4-year-old children are likely to conform to the values and social opinions of other children around them (Haun & Tomasello, 2011), even when they know that the opinion is wrong. Additionally, researchers (Nassem & Harris, 2015) note that children in early childhood experiment with their power potential by bullying their peers and will often cease bullying when they learn from adults (parents, teachers, etc.) and their peers that it is unacceptable. Thus, preschoolers tend to experiment with bullying, and at this age, bullying is a pliable and changeable behavior.

Middle School

Sometimes called “the drama years” (Kilpatrick & Joiner, 2012), middle school remains a prime location for bullies to flourish. At this educational level, bullying is considered to be a group phenomenon, involving the bully, the target/victim, and the bystanders (Datta, Cornell, & Huang, 2016). Themes related to popularity and status (Wright & Li, 2013) are embedded in discussions of bullying for young children in grades 6–8. Adolescents at this stage draw upon their self-appraisals and other situational factors to determine how to cope with the bullying.

At this point in their educational trajectory, students begin to use social media to bully others for attention, among other reasons (Hicks, Jennings, Jennings, Berry, & Green, 2018). Cyberbullying is a topic that resonates across people’s lives, but it seems to have its genesis during the middle school years. During the middle school years, cyberbullying is undertaken via apps such as Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube and serves as an opportunity to digitally harass someone, post hurtful information and/or images, embarrass peers, or spread rumors (Martin, Wang, Petty, Wang, & Wilkins, 2018). Cyberbullying seems to increase as middle schoolers age and, in one study, as grade level increased (from seventh grade to eighth grade), so did instances of cyberbullying (Şentürk & Bayat, 2016).

Smith (2014) reports on studies showing that family factors influence children of middle school age in myriad ways related to bullying in the school. The researcher distills three themes: (1) a difficult home environment, featuring significant parental conflict, providing a bullying role model; (2) excessive parental control, resulting in children being unprepared to stand up to bullies; and (3) domestic abuse, prompting children to accept or to mete out violence.

The aforementioned discussion suggests that bullying in middle school is multifactorial and functions as a result of a confluence of factors, namely a desire for popularity, a predilection for social media, and family factors such as parental conflict.

Middle School Bullying: Paige

Deciding that she was among the best dressed at school, Paige tells her friends during lunch about the shoes that Samantha is wearing. As the girls go past Samantha’s lunch table, they laugh in unison, with Paige yelling: “Shoes for Sale! Samantha’s Shoes for Sale!” Sam feels scared and looks down at her cell phone, hoping the episode will end quickly. Later, however, Sam finds that Paige took a picture of her shoes and posted them on Instagram with the caption: “See Sad Samantha’s Stinking Shoes!”

High School

Research examining bullying in high school (grades 9–12) is quite sparse, with only 31 studies looking at bullying in the U.S. focused on this cohort (Azeredo, Rinaldi, de Moraes, Levy, & Menezes, 2015). Bullying investigations have studied both face-to-face and cyberbullying, although the research is more anecdotal than empirical. At the secondary level, similar to the middle school level, scholars continue to view bullying as a group experience (Edwards & Batlemento, 2016). Much of the research centers on the characteristics of the bully and the effects of bullying upon target/victims. From a theoretical standpoint, scholars have adopted a social-ecological approach, suggesting that there is a relationship among the individual and their family, community, and school (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Thus, attitudes and behaviors related to bullying are influenced by a dynamic interplay of both academic and non-academic stakeholders (Merrin, Espelage, & Hong, 2018).

With respect to the high school bully, a number of characteristics have been identified. A bully is more likely to engage in alcohol consumption and smoking (Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004), consider suicidal ideation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010), carry a weapon (Nansel et al., 2004), feel social isolation (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003), and, while identifying as extroverts, score low on agreeability assessments (Maunder & Crafter, 2018). High school bullies tend to be healthier and stronger than those not involved in bullying (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001) and enjoy elevated peer group status (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003).

The target/victim of a bully has also been investigated. First, high school is a time of identity development (Smith, 2014). As a result, when teens manifest identities that are outside the mainstream of their high school classmates, they often become the targets of bias bullying. Racial harassment, faith-based bullying, homophobic/LGBT bullying, bullying the differently abled, and so forth, all constitute bias bullying, also known as identity-based bullying or prejudice-driven bullying.

The literature related to high school bullying also examines the effects of bullying. This research notes that the effects are both short and long term. Most profoundly, exposure to high school bullies re...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Part I Foundations of Bullying and Communication Research
• Part II Contexts of Bullying Bullying, Culture, and Identity
• Workplace Bullying
• Bullying in the Academy
• Bullying Within/Across the Lifespan
• Cyberbullying
• Epilogue: Looking Forward
• References
• Contributors
• Index