Handbook of School Violence and School Safety

International Research and Practice

Shane Jimerson, Amanda Nickerson, Matthew J. Mayer, Michael J. Furlong, Shane Jimerson, Amanda Nickerson, Matthew J. Mayer, Michael J. Furlong

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136898273
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

The Handbook of School Violence and School Safety: International Research and Practice has become the premier resource for educational and mental health professionals and policymakers seeking to implement effective prevention and intervention programs that reduce school violence and promote safe and effective schools. It covers the full range of school violence and safety topics from harassment and bullying to promoting safe, secure, and peaceful schools. It also examines existing school safety programs and includes the multi-disciplinary research and theories that guide them. Examinations of current issues and projections of future research and practice are embedded within each chapter. This volume maps the boundaries of this rapidly growing and multidisciplinary field of study. Key features include...

Comprehensive Coverage – The chapters are divided into three parts: Foundations; Assessment and Measurement; Prevention and Intervention Programs. Together they provide a comprehensive review of what is known about the types, causes, and effects of school violence and the most effective intervention programs that have been developed to prevent violence and promote safe and thriving school climates.

Evidence-based Practice – Avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to prevention and intervention, the focus throughout is on the application of evidence-based practice to address factors most commonly associated with school violence and safety.

Implications for Practice – Each chapter bridges the research-to-practice gap, with a section delineating implications for practice of the foregoing research.

Chapter Structure – To ensure continuity and coherence across the book, each chapter begins with a brief abstract and ends with a table showing the implications for practice.

International Focus – Acknowledging the fact that school violence and safety is a global concern, this edition has increased its focus on insights learned from cross-national research and practice outside the USA.

Expertise – The editors and authors are experienced researchers, teachers, practitioners, and leaders in the school violence field, their expertise includes their breadth and depth of knowledge and experience, bridging research, policy, and practice and representing a variety of international organizations studying school violence around the world.

Section III

Research-Based Prevention and Intervention Programs

25

A Social-Ecological Model for Bullying Prevention and Intervention in Early Adolescence

Susan M.Swearer

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Dorothy L.Espelage

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Brian Koenig

K12 Associates, Madison, WI

Brandi Berry, Adam Collins, and Paige Lembeck

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Abstract

A social-ecological model of the bullying dynamic is described in this chapter. The empirical literature linking individual, peer group, school, family, and community factors in bullying and victimization is reviewed. Data from 5,470 middle school students and 11,447 high school students in Grades 9 through 12 were analyzed to examine social-ecological variables involved in bullying and/or victimization. Specifically, we examined the influence of individual factors (depression, suicidal ideation, alcohol/drug use, sexual orientation, gender, race, grade); peer factors (peer alcohol, cigarette, drug use, delinquency); school factors (school climate, school belonging); family factors (free/reduced lunch, alternative home placement, risky family environment, parental abuse, positive parenting); and community factors (neighborhood safety, neighborhood connection) on bully perpetration and victimization. The social-ecological model of bullying was supported, illustrating the complex psychological and social picture of youth involved in bullying. Suggestions for positive supports across the social ecology are presented.

Involvement in bullying and peer victimization is the result of the complex interplay between individuals and their broader social environment. Since the first edition of this book, much has been written about the need to view bullying and peer victimization from a larger, social perspective. In this chapter, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) classic ecological theory is used as a foundation to illustrate the interrelated nature between the individual, multiple contexts, and engagement in bullying and victimization behaviors. First, the bullying literature across the social-ecology is reviewed, a social-ecological model of bullying is proposed and evaluated, and implications for effective bullying prevention and intervention are discussed.

Social-ecological theory has been previously applied to the conceptualization of bullying and victimization (Swearer & Doll, 2001; Swearer & Espelage, 2004; Swearer et al., 2006). It is clear from both theory and research that bullying and victimization are phenomena that are reciprocally influenced by the individual, peer group, school, family, community, and society. However, while we know that bullying is the result of multiple factors, a major challenge facing bullying researchers is how to empirically examine these many contexts. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine each area in depth, a brief overview of selected social-ecological variables associated with bullying and peer victimization is provided and followed by an empirical examination of these multiple influences.

Individual Variables Associated with Bullying and Victimization

Depression

Students who perpetrate bullying or who are bullied are more likely to report symptoms of depression than peers who are not involved in bullying (Roland, 2002; Seals & Young, 2003). Studies comparing students’ involvement based on bully/victim status have yielded several results that support this finding. The results of three such studies found that victims scored significantly higher on depressive symptoms than bully perpetrators (Roland, 2002); victims and bully-victims endorsed higher depression scores than bullies (Menesini, Modena, & Tani, 2009); and bullies and bully-victims were more likely to be depressed compared to victims (Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, & Mickelson, 2001). Involvement in bullying is related to higher rates of depression regardless of whether the bullying is direct or indirect (Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2008; Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006). Marini et al. (2006) found that bully-victims endorsed significantly higher levels of depression than bullies only when involved in indirect rather than direct bullying. Evidence suggests that bullying involvement, whether frequent or infrequent, is also associated with a higher risk for depression (Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007). However, a student’s risk for depression increases as the frequency of his or her involvement in bullying increases. The results of the study undertaken by Klomek et al. (2007) also showed that students who were bully-victims had the highest risk for depression. This was especially true for girls; in fact, girls who were bully-victims were 32 times more likely to be depressed than girls who were not involved in bullying. These results suggest that students involved in bullying, particularly bully-victims and girls, are more likely to experience symptoms of depression compared to uninvolved peers.

Suicidal Ideation

Studies show that adolescents involved in bullying report higher levels of suicidal ideation than students uninvolved in bullying (Klomek et al., 2007; Roland, 2002). While some evidence suggests that the association between suicidal ideation and bully/victim status may be stronger for victims of bullying compared to perpetrators of bullying (Rigby & Slee, 1999), the results of another study showed that perpetrators of bullying were more likely to report suicidal ideation than victims of bullying (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999). The results of one study found that bully-victims had the highest risk for suicidal ideation, as compared to bullies, victims, and students uninvolved in bullying (Klomek et al., 2007). Yet, other evidence suggests that there are no differences in levels of suicidal ideation between bully-victims and students who are not involved in bullying (Herba et al., 2008). Furthermore, while some studies have found that girls score significantly higher than boys on measures of suicidal ideation, regardless of bully/victim status (Klomek et al., 2007; Roland, 2002), other studies have found no gender differences in levels of suicidal ideation (Herba et al., 2008) or have found that boy, but not girl, bullies showed higher than average levels of suicidal ideation (Rigby & Slee, 1999). Thus, there are still many unanswered questions regarding bullying and suicidal ideation.

After exploring the relationship between these constructs, Herba et al. (2008) found that parental internalizing disorders and feelings of rejection in the home moderated the relationship between suicidal ideation and victimization. Evidence also suggests that high self-control and authoritative parenting may decrease the likelihood that victims of bullying will experience suicidal ideation (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). Another study found that social hopelessness partially mediated the relationship between suicidal ideation and victimization (Bonanno & Hymel, 2010). Consistent with Rigby and Slee (1999), these results also showed that perceived social support from family members appeared to have an ameliorating effect, such that students who report greater perceived family support endorse lower levels of suicidal ideation. At this point in time, the complex relationship between bullying and suicidal ideation is not fully understood.

Alcohol and Drug Use

Alcohol or drug use (AOD) is related to involvement in bullying as well. This association is not surprising given the well-documented correlation between substance use and aggressive behaviors in the literature. For instance, there is a link between fighting others and alcohol consumption (Shepherd, Sutherland, & Newcombe, 2006). In their middle school sample, Berthold and Hoover (2000) found that youth who bullied others were also more likely to smoke, chew tobacco, and drink alcohol than students who did not bully. In addition to these findings, students who bully are not the only students who are at-risk for alcohol and drug use. Alcohol consumption appears to be related to victimization as well (Thompson, Sims, Kingree, & Windle, 2008). The relationship between substance use and victimization is particularly evident for victims of bullying who are aggressive (i.e., bully-victims). For instance, in one study of seventh- through eleventh-grade students, aggressive victims and aggressive non-victims reported more alcohol and drug use than nonaggressive victims and nonaggressive non-victims (Brockenbrough, Cornell, & Loper, 2002). Bystanders (i.e., individuals who observe bullying) are also at-risk for substance use (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009). Overall, involvement in bullying is clearly related to alcohol use.

Sexual Orientation

Research has also explored the relationship between sexual orientation and involvement in bullying. A study that matched 106 seventh- through ninth-grade students attracted to same-sex individuals with same-age students attracted to opposite-sex individuals found no differences between the two groups in their reported rates of bullying others, observing bullying, or being victims of bullying (Rivers & Noret, 2008). Yet, the results of other studies have yielded contradictory results. Based on the survey responses of adolescents ages 14 to 22, gay males were less likely than heterosexual males to bully others while heterosexual females and bisexual females were more likely than heterosexual females to bully others (Berlan, Corliss, Field, Goodman, & Austin, 2010). Mostly heterosexual males and gay males were more likely to be bullied than their heterosexual male peers. Similarly, mostly heterosexual females, bisexual females, and les-bians were more likely to be bullied than their heterosexual female peers. In addition, Birkett, Espelage, and Koenig (2009) found that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) students reported being bullied and being the targets of homophobic victimization more frequently than their heterosexual peers, with questioning students reporting the highest levels of bullying. Surprisingly, the perpetration of homophobic victimization may not indicate the presence of homophobic attitudes. Although the social context is a significant factor in explaining students’ use of homophobic teasing, evidence suggests that aggressive social climates were found to have a stronger association with increased use of homophobic teasing than homophobic social climate (Poteat, 2008).

Compared to other types of bullying, however, homophobic victimization warrants special concern given that it appears to be associated with more negative outcomes than other forms of bullying. For example, one study found that boys who had been bullied by being called “gay,” regardless of sexual orientation, showed more negative effects (e.g., more psychological distress) than peers bullied for other reasons (Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008). Thus, it has been asserted that schools must combat homophobic teasing in order to improve outcomes for LGBQ students (Birkett et al., 2009). In addition, given that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (GLBTQ) students appear to be more vulnerable to bullying than their heterosexual peers, researchers have called for more research on bullying within sexual minority populations (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Swearer, 2010).

Peer Variables Associated with Bullying and Victimization

It is the peer group that becomes a major socialization force during early adolescence. Researchers have consistently documented that the transition from elementary school to middle school is a potential stressor associated with negative emotional and psychological outcomes for some students. In the limited available research on the trend of bullying during this transition, it appears that there is a temporary increase in bullying during early adolescence (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1995; Pellegrini, 2002; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Indeed, Akos (2002) found that fifth graders identified bullying as one of their primary concerns about starting sixth grade.

Peer Influences

It is clear that the peer group has a significant influence on students’ socialization and behavior, especially during adolescence. Consequently, it is vital to closely examine peer groups to fully understand the bullying dynamic. Three theories that shed light on the peer group’s effect on aggression and bullying are the dominance theory, homophily hypothesis, and attraction theory (Swearer et al., 2006). The dominance theory posits that bullying can be perceived as an avenue to obtain a higher social status (i.e., dominance) within a group (Pellegrini, 2002). However, bullying may result from an underlying desire to behave in ways that are similar to one’s peers as well. This theory is captured by the term “homophily,” which means that individuals who associate with one another tend to be similar in some way (Kandel, 1978). Although there is a paucity of research examining the homophily hypothesis and how it applies to bullying in particular, the results of one study suggest that the homophily hypothesis pertains to less severe aggressive behaviors for adolescents, such as teasing (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003). Lastly, the attraction theory states that adolescents are likely to pursue relationships with peers who reflect personality traits or behaviors indicative of independe...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Editors' Biographies
• Contributors
• SECTION I Foundations of School Violence and Safety
• SECTION II Assessment and Measurement
• SECTION III Research-Based Prevention and Intervention Programs
• Author Index
• Subject Index