bullying, cyberbullying, pupil safety and well being

Bullying, cyberbullying,pupil safety and wellbeing

An Indian-European Social SciencesResearch NetworkingProject

https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyingeuindian

Pupil safety and well-being, including bullying andcyberbullying, are vital issues.

Cross-national collaboration is limited, and contactbetween Indian researchers and European researchersalmost non-existent.

This network brings together four European and two Indianresearch teams to share their knowledge and expertise, andproduce joint publications and resources for practitioners,in five main themes.

Objectives of the network

The themes have been chosen for theirimportance in the field, and for the expertisepresent in our teams.

The aim is to increase knowledge concerning pupilsafety and well-being in school, and effectiveness ofprevention, intervention and anti-bullying work inall five countries.

Themes

Theme A: Use and abuse of new technologies includingcyberbullying

Theme B: Social networks in pupils including bullying roles andbystanders

Theme C: Life skills, health and risk-taking

Theme D: Influence of educational and cultural variables inmeasurement, explanation and theory-building

Theme E: Intervention strategies including teacher training,peer support and parent support

Themes

Dr Suresh Sundaram: drssu@yahoo.co.in

Dr E. Joseph Alexander

G. Sajeethkumar

Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, India

Punjabi University, Patiala, India

Dr Damanjit Sandhu: daman10sept@yahoo.co.uk

Dr Gurminder Sokhey,

Dr Naina Sharma,

Kirandeep Kaur, Shubhdip Kaur

Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Dr Alice Jones-Bartoli: a.jones@gold.ac.uk

Professor Adam Rutland

Fran Thompson

Hannah Smith

Emeritus Professor Peter K. Smith (Principal Investigator)

International Observatory of Violence in Schools, Nice, France

Professor Catherine Blaya: cblaya@aol.com

Dr Michael Fartoukh

Dr Rania Hanafi

Aurélie Berguer

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany

Professor Mechthild Schäefer: mechthild.schafer@gmx.de Manuel Stoiber

Anja Pfitzner

Tamara Bramböck

Catherine Hörmann

Netherlands Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, NetherlandsDr Frits Goossens: f.a.gossens@vu.nl

Dr Tjeert Olthof

Dr Nikki Lee

Dr Ruthaychonee Sittichai, Prince SongklaUniversity, Thailand

Professor Phillip Slee; Dr Grace Skrypiec; Dr Alison Wotherspoon, Flinders University,Australia

Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia

Dr Marilyn Campbell, University of Queensland,Australia

Associates

Munich, Germany: 21st-25th October 2012

Patiala, Punjab, India: 7th-11th April 2013

Nice, France: 7th-11th October 2013

Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India: 24th-28th

March 2014

Amsterdam, Netherlands: 4th-7th November 2014

London, UK: 6th-8th May 2015

Meetings

Bullying, Cyberbullying, Pupil Safety and Well-beingAn Indian- European Social Sciences Research Networking Project Principal Investigator: Emeritus Professor Peter K. Smith: p.smith@gold.ac.uk

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyingeuindian

Annamalai University, ,Annamalai

Nagar, India

Dr Suresh Sundaram: drssu@yahoo.co.in..

Dr E. Joseph Alexander, G. Sajeethkumar …

Annamalai University,

Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Dr Alice Jones-Bartoli: a.jones@gold.ac.ukProfessor Adam Rutland, Fran Thompson, Hannah Smith, Emeritus Professor Peter K. Smith

International Observatory of

Violence in Schools, Nice, France

Professor Catherine Blaya: cblaya@aol.com

Dr Michael Fartoukh, Dr Rania Hanafi, Aurélie Berguer

Punjabi University, Patiala, India

Dr Damanjit Sandhu: daman10sept@yahoo.co.uk Dr Gurminder Sokhey, Dr Naina Sharma, Kirandeep Kaur, Shubhdip Kaur

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,….

Munich, Germany

Professor Mechthild Schäefer: mechthild.schafer@gmx.de …………….

Manuel Stoiber, Anja Pfitzner, Tamara Bramböck, Catherine Hörmann

Netherlands Vrije Universiteit, .

Amsterdam, Netherlands

Dr Frits Goossens: f.a.gossens@vu.nl ……. Dr Tjeert Olthof, Dr Nikki Lee

The project: Pupil safety and well-being, including bullying and cyberbullying, are vital issues. Cross-national collaboration is limited, and contact between Indian researchers and European researchers almost non-existent. This network brings together four European research teams, and two Indian teams. We will share knowledge and expertise, and produce joint publications and resources for practitioners, in five main themes.

The themes have been chosen for their importance in the field, and for the expertise present in our teams. The aim is to increase knowledge concerning pupil safety and well-being in school, and effectiveness of prevention, intervention and anti-bullying work in all five countries. The themes are:

Theme A: Use and abuse of new technologies including cyberbullying

Theme B: Social networks in pupils including bullying roles and bystanders

Theme C: Life skills, health and risk-taking

Theme D: Influence of educational and cultural variables in measurement explanation and theory-building

Theme E: Intervention strategies including teacher training, peer support and parent support

Meetings: Munich, Germany: 21st-25th October 2012

Patiala, Punjab, India: 7th-11th April 2013

Nice, France: 7th-11th October 2013

Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India: 24th-28th March 2014

Amsterdam, Netherlands: 4th-7th November 2014

London, UK: 6th-8th May 2015

Associates: Dr Ruthaychonee Sittichai, Prince Songkla University, Thailand; Professor Phillip Slee; Dr Grace Skrypiec; Dr Alison Wotherspoon, Flinders University, Australia; Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia; Dr Marilyn Campbell, University of Queensland, Australia.

Indian-European NetworkTheme B: Groupdynamics

From an intercultural perspective to a prevention/intervention perspectiveMechthild Schäfer & Klaus Starch

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is there empirical evidence, that bullying is a robust phenomenon?

– Is bulling in indian classes as relevant as in german classes?

– Is bullying in indian classes as salient as in german classes?

SAMPLE

39.7

51.5

8.8

India (N= 911)

Girls (N=358) Boys (N=464) Missing (N=79)

28.4

64.5

7.1

Germany (N= 578)

Girls (N=164) Boys (N=373) Missing (N=41)

Instruments

• Participant Role Approach (Salmivalli et al, 1996)

–Social Status (Dodge, Coie and Copetelli, 1986)

• social preference (LM-LL), social impact (LM+LL)• perceived popularity

• Reading the mind in the eyes questionnaire(Baron-Cohen, 2001)

• Moral foundations questionnaire (Graham, Haidt & Nosek,

2008)

• Moral indentity questionnaire (Aquino & Reed, 2002)

Participant Role Approach (Salmivalli et al. 1996)

If kids are asked about preferred behaviors ofclassmates• nine in ten kids in class have a distinct role as

– bully– assistant– reinforcer– defender– outsider

Participant Role Approach (Salmivalli et al. 1996)

BullyDefender

Reinforcer

Assistants

Outsider

31.36

38.1

69.46

24.7521.86

46.61

23.3819.41

42.79

16.2313.38

29.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sociometry PRQ Overall

Indian boys Indian Girls German boys German girls

AVERAGE NOMINATIONS RECEIVED BY SEX

6.412.9 13.1 11.5

26.3

10.2

19.6

2.4 2.4 3.7

37.8

22.6

9.1

22

5.49.9 9.7

1924.9

9.5

21.6

0

10

20

30

40

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim No role

Germany

Boys Girls Overall

5.48.8 10.3

18.1 21.1

10.3

25.9

2.2 3.4 5.3

23.719.6

8.9

36.9

3.7 6.7 8.1

19.9 21.2

9.4

31.1

0

10

20

30

40

Bully Assitant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim No role

India

Boys Girls Overall

PREAVALENCE RATES: INDIA - GERMANY

64.18 65.03 58.2449.6 52.98 54.56

35.82 34.97 41.7650.4 47.02 45.44

0

20

40

60

80

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

India

Boys Girls

68.75 65.3 68.5361.6 60.67

69.17

31.25 34.7 32.47 38.4 39.3330.83

0

20

40

60

80

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

Germany

Boys Girls

PERCENTAGE OF NOMINATIONS FROM BOYS AND GIRLS

80.85 80.89 76.7393.12 83.59 83.08

19.15 19.11 23.276.88 16.41 16.92

0

50

100

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

India: Boys and girls nominating boys

Boys Girls

76.47 70.83 70.85 76.29 69.88 70.29

23.53 29.17 29.15 23.71 30.12 29.71

020406080

100

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

Germany: Boys and girls nominating boys

Boys Girls

NOMINATIONS FOR BOYS?

12.12 10.53 9.81 5.15 8.76 9.77

87.89 89.47 90.19 94.85 91.24 90.23

0

50

100

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

India: Boys and girls nominating girls

Boys Girls

41.45 42.95 48.36 45.3956.62

44.9958.55 57.05 51.64 54.62

43.3855.01

0

20

40

60

80

Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

Germany: Boys and girls nominating girls

Boys Girls

NOMINATIONS FOR GIRLS?

-4

-2

0

2

4SP

PPSI

German pupils

-4

-2

0

2

4SP

PPSI

Indian Boys

-4

-2

0

2

4SP

PPSI

Indian Girls

Social Impact (SI), Perceived Popularity (PP), Social Preference (SP)

PROFILES FOR PARTICIPANT ROLES

Conclusions I

Bullying is interculturally robust phenomenon

– bullying-roles indicate a similarty of the bullyingprocess

– however in India restricted to a only-boys andonly-girls society even within one single class

METAANALYSES TELL ...

• most effective intervention comes out of the class itself

• in 25% of bullying incidents peersintervene

• two in three of these interventions area success

CRIMINAL LIABILITY VS VIOLATED RIGHTS

CLASS

VICTIM

DEFENDER

OUTSIDER

BULLY

ASSISTANT

REINFORCER

GROUPSDYNAMICS - neutralizing

Bully

Defender

GROUPSDYNAMICS – building up

BullyBully

Reinforcer

GROUPSDYNAMICS - downsizing

Reinforcer

Bully

Defender

LOOKING AT MORAL FOUNDATIONS

Individuating foundations– harm (empathy and caring is valued)– fairness (clear understanding of what`s wrong and

right)

Binding foundations– ingroup („one for all, all for one“)– authority (the necessity of leading is accepted)– purity (keeping one‘s record clear)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4Harm

Fairness

IngroupAuthority

Purity

GermanyBully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim

MFQ PROFILES FOR PARTICIPANT ROLES

MORAL FOUNDATIONS

Bullies and Reinforcer• are higher on the binding foundations

(authority, purity & ingroup)• are lower on harm than other roles

Defender and Outsider• top the individuating foundations (harm,

fairness)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4Harm

Fairness

IngroupAuthority

Purity

Germany: Probully GroupBully Assistant Reinforcer

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4Harm

Fairness

IngroupAuthority

Purity

Germany: Antibully GroupDefender Outsider Victim

MFQ PROFILES FOR PARTICIPANT ROLES

Reinforcer

• are liked by bullies (like assistents) • perceived as the most popular in class

• reinforcers (like assitents) like bullies morethan bullies other bullies

• reinforcers nominate one in five bullies asmost popular (as defenders do)

OUTSIDER

• have an antibullying attitude• prefer indirect support for the victim• give direct support preferred to those they

are friend with

• have defending skills (30%)• can have aggressive tendencies (10%)

Prevention/Intervention

• is guided more by dealing with ressources thanby the intent to change behavior– might look for a social climate based on defenders

behaviors and values to protect the class frombullying

– might broaden up the perspective of reinforcers(high on ingroup) from within the probully group tothe whole class

– thus they might give less applause to the bulliesactions

– which might distract assistants attention fromthe bullies

CHANGING PERSPECTIVE IS CHANGING THE SYSTEM