The Complexity of Bullying and Implications for Counselling

University and College Students

Dr. Tracy MorganPsychologist

Counselling ServicesUniversity of Waterloo

Waterloo, ONtmorgan@uwaterloo.ca

CACUSS ConferenceSaskatoon, SKJune 12, 2007

Overview of Presentation Definition of bullying

Frequency of bullying

Roles in bullying

Perpetration of bullying behaviour Theories and models Correlates Motivations/dynamics of bullying

Forms of bullying behaviour In-person, online

Effects of bullying

Implications for counselling

Sharing experiences

Definition of Bullying “Bullying is a conscious, willful and deliberate hostile

activity, intended to harm” (Coloroso, 2002)

“Punking is a practice of verbal and physical violence, humiliation, and shaming usually done in public by males to other males” (Phillips, 2000, cited in Phillips, 2007)

Based in contempt – harm others without feeling empathy, compassion, or shame (Coloroso, 2002)

Differences between teasing and bullying – bullying has intent to harm and a power differential between person who bullies and victim (Griffin & Gross, 2004)

Issue re: including repetition of bullying behaviours in the definition

Examples include “hitting, name calling, intimidating gestures, racial slurs, spreading rumours, exclusion from groups” (Graham, 2006, p. 317)

Frequency of Bullying

Approximately one-half of first-year college students experienced bullying (Duncan, 1999)

20 to 30% of high school students were involved in bullying (Harris, 2005)

One-third of adolescents experienced peer rejection (Deater-Deckard, 2001)

One-third of 15 686 youth in grades 6 to 10 reported they experienced and/or perpetrated bullying behaviour (Nansel et al., 2001)

76.8% of middle and high school students reported being bullied (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992)

Frequency of Bullying Approximately half of grade 7 students reported being

bullied, including cyberbullying (Li, 2007)

Almost 30% reported that they had experienced bullying on-line and 11% reported perpetrating bullying behaviour online (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006)

Four to 19% of adolescents have both experienced bullying and have perpetrated bullying behaviour (Craig, 1998; Haynie et al., 2001; Xu, Farver, Schwartz, & Chang, 2003)

Two-thirds of boys surveyed engaged in bullying and sexual harassment behaviours – boys were victims of bullying and harassment more than girls, with content that was homophobic (American Association of University Women, 1993)

70% of students in high school reported that they had experienced sexual harassment at school (Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation, 1995)

Frequency of Bullying

Study with 1582 high school students from 18 schools 57% experienced sexual harassment in the last two

weeks – 7% of students experienced physical forms of harassment

15% were somewhat or very upset by these experiences – more females than males were upset by the behaviour

(Walsh, Duffy, & Gallagher-Duffy, 2007)

Roles in Bullying

Coloroso (2002) identified three roles: the bully, the bullied, and the bystander

Images and stereotypes of perpetrators of bullying behaviour

Those who experience bullying are targeted for some reason, usually “different” in some way – most commonly targeted characteristics were race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion (Wessler & De Andrade, 2006)

Bystander – “supporting cast” – acts of omission and commission

More detailed diagram by Olweus (2001)

Theories and Models of Bullying Attribution theory – attribution of intention – aggressive

attributional bias (Orpinas & Horne, 2006)

Preadolescent girls who were aggressive physically indicated hostile attributional biases in ambiguous situations and valued revenge and exclusive relationships with peers (Crain, 2002)

Social information-processing model – how children interpret a situation – to what internal and external cues do they respond (Orpinas & Horne, 2006)

Social learning of aggression – consequences for their behaviour and observation and modelling of others’ behaviour (Orpinas & Horne, 2006)

Theories and Models of Bullying

Social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986)

Individual’s cognitions, their environment, and their behaviours interact – reciprocal determinism – to change behaviour, changes occur in cognitions and/or environment

Types of cognitions Moral justification Labeling Displacement of responsibility Diffusion of responsibility Distortion of consequences Dehumanization of the victim Attribution of blame

(Orpinas & Horne, 2006, pp. 66-69)

Correlates of Bullying Behaviour

Risk factors and correlates of perpetration of bullying behaviour Experienced abuse, neglect – e.g., witnessed

interparental violence (Baldry, 2003; Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006)

Holds beliefs that support violence and anticipates positive outcomes from aggression

Parents support these beliefs Lacks problem-solving skills Parents do not establish limits and consequences Friends are aggressive and use substances

(Orpinas & Horne, 2006)

Correlates of Bullying Behaviour

7290 students from 25 high schools in southern Ontario participated

Bullies and bully-victims reported using angry-externalizing coping behaviours more often than those not involved – victims had higher scores on this measure than uninvolved students

Endorsement of normative beliefs about antisocial behaviour was related to bullying behaviour

(Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-Cura, 2006)

Correlates of Bullying Behaviour

Those who experienced and/or perpetrated violence have higher risk for drinking and smoking, using other types of violent behaviours, and antisocial behaviours (e.g., Nansel, Overpeck, Haynie, Ruan, & Scheidt, 2003; Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001)

Equivocal results for those who bully and depression (e.g., Kumpulainen et al., 2000)

Suicidal ideation (Roland, 2002)

Correlates of Bullying Behaviour

Grade 10 sample – those who perpetrated bullying behaviour frequently had lower levels of affective empathy than those who perpetrated bullying occasionally – lower scores on both cognitive and affective empathy was related to more violent forms of bullying by males and to indirect bullying by females (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006)

Gender Gender differences in type of bullying behaviours –

different motivation – boys bully in physical ways to establish dominance (Pellegrini, 2003) and establish their place in hierarchies (Klein, 2006) and to maintain identity as “normal” male and create “outcast male identities” (Phillips, 2007)

Girls bully in social ways to affect social connections (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, 1996)

Developmental theories Gilligan (1982) girls’ and women’s focus on

relationships Brown (1998, 2003) suggested that focus on

relationships contributes to them taking out aggression on each other, rather than challenging their gender oppression

Gender

Critique of mixed messages received (Ringrose, 2006)

Increase in girls’ aggression (Ringrose, 2006) “mean girls” phrase Girls’ aggression is less prevalent than boys (Archer, 2004;

Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001)

In completing surveys, girls may be less likely to report perpetrating bullying behaviour than boys (Pepler et al., 2006)

60% of victims of cyberbullying (grade 7) were girls and slightly more than 50% of cyber-bullies were male (Li, 2007)

Sexual Orientation

1025 Japanese men who identified as homosexual, bisexual, or questioning – 83% reported being bullied at school, 60% experienced verbal harrassment,15% had attempted suicide, 71% reported high levels of anxiety, 13% reported high levels of depression (Hidaka & Operario, 2006)

Relationship between sexual orientation, being bullied, and experiencing suicidal ideation and attempting suicide – retrospective for experiences in elementary, middle, and high school - path model – bullying was a significant variable related to suicidality, especially for middle school (grades 6 to 8) (Friedman, Koeske, Silvestre, Korr, & Sites, 2006)

Racial and Ethnic Background

80 focus groups and 400 Student Leadership Workshops in 11 states – 7000 anonymous student statements -“racially degrading language directed at Black, Hispanic, and Asian students” (Wessler & De Andrade, 2006, p. 515) – similarly high rates in schools where Black students were less than 1% of the student population and where they were more than 20% of the student population

Students of minority ethnic backgrounds felt less vulnerable with increased ethnic diversity (grade 6 students from 99 classrooms in Los Angeles) (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006)

However, members of dominant group were victimized – higher levels of self-blame for those in the majority ethnic group who experienced peer harassment (Graham, 2006)

Physical Attributes A study with middle school students found that they were

more willing to interact with peers who were “thin” versus those who were “fat” – participants endorsed negative stereotypes associated with “fat” and characters described as fat were stigmatized (Greenleaf et al., 2006)

Physical weakness is related to repeated victimization (Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges & Perry, 1999)

Religion

Students who were Fundamentalist Christian, Wiccan, and Mormon were targeted – students who were Jewish and Muslim were targeted most often (Wessler & De Andrade, 2006)

Giftedness

Study with gifted 8th graders – one incident of bullying was highly distressing – perceived that they needed to stop it themselves and had violent thoughts when it continued (Peterson & Ray, 2006)

Forms of Bullying Behaviour In-person – types of interpersonal violence – verbal,

physical, sexual Cyber-bullying – “students are able to harass others day

and night using technological devices such as computer systems and cellular phones” (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006, p. 148)

Instant messaging, email, websites such as Facebook (Kids’ Help Phone and Bell Canada, 2007)

Anonymous, occur at any time, take many forms, may be more daring than in-person (Li, 2007)

Students could be suspended or expelled for bullying, including cyber-bullying, following changes to Ontario’s Safe Schools Act on June 4, 2007 (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 5, 2007)

Forms of Bullying Behaviour

Recent CACUSS newswire link to an article in Winnipeg Free Press March 1, 2007 on cyberbullying

Student in business program at University of Manitoba was targeted by more than 220 people on the Facebook website

Glenn Feltham, Dean of Business, University of Manitoba, began an investigation – business program will develop a “professional code of conduct on this matter”

(Martin, 2007)

Forms of Bullying Behaviour

Cyber-bullying: Our Kids’ New Reality – 2500 responses to Kids Help Phone survey between December 20, 2006 and January 20, 2007 – more than 70% of respondents indicated that they had experienced online bullying – 44% of respondents indicated that they had bullied someone online

76% were called names, 52% had rumours spread about them, 38% were threatened

(Kids’ Help Phone and Bell Canada, 2007)

Effects of Bullying Behaviour

Meta-analysis by Hawker and Boulton (2000) on the effects of experiencing bullying across a wide age range over a 20-year period indicated: depression loneliness anxiety and social anxiety low general or global self-esteem negative social self-concept

Effects of Bullying Behaviour More recent studies have found similar results:

Low self-esteem (Ledley et al., 2006; Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003)

Suicidal behaviour (Paulson & Everall, 2001)

Drug use (Reinherz, Giaconia, Hauf, Wasserman, & Paradis, 2000)

Physical health problems (Rigby, 2001)

Criminal behaviour (Miller-Johnson, Coie, Maumary-Gremaud, Lochman, & Terry, 1999)

Less comfort with intimacy, closeness, trusting others, depending on others, more worry about abandonment (Ledley, et al., 2006)

Effects of Bullying Behaviour

Negative social evaluation, social avoidance and loneliness (Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003)

Peer victimization was related to victimization by romantic partners - more so for men (university student sample) (Lento, 2006)

Threat of ostracism is related to depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts in children and adolescents (DiFillipo & Overholser, 2000; Kistner, Balthazor, Risi, & Burton, 1999; Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000)

One-third of 387 university students reported that peer rejection was their “most extreme traumatic event” (Lev-Wiesel, Nuttman-Shwartz, & Sternberg, 2006, p. 138)

Effects of Bullying Behaviour 7290 students from 25 high schools in southern Ontario

participated

Compared to bullies and those not involved, bully-victims and victims had: higher levels of depression lower levels of self-esteem more relational difficulties

Bully-victims and bullies reported that their parents had less knowledge of their activities than victims and those not involved

Bullies, bully-victims, and victims reported lower levels of maternal attachment than those not involved

(Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006)

Effects of Bullying Behaviour

Bully-victims had higher degree of psychosocial risk compared to those in either group – combine effects experienced by bullies and victims (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006)

Bully-victims experience internalizing problems, rejection by peers, lack of close friendships, indicate more acceptance of deviance, less involved parents, more hyperactivity, negative emotionality, reactive aggression (Craig, 1998; Haynie et al., 2001; Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Henttonen, 1999; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002; Schwartz, 2000; Xu, Farver, Schwartz, & Chang, 2003)

Effects of Sexual Harassment

More self-conscious Embarrassed Afraid Less confident Confused Doubtful about having a happy romantic relationship Less popular

(AAUW, 1993, 2001)

Suicidal ideation (e.g., Rivers, 2000)

Poor body image, lower self esteem, anger, uncomfortable talking about sex, less trust of males (OSSTF, 1995)

Implications for Counselling It is important for counsellors to recognize:

Bullying is a form of interpersonal violence

Clients may be reluctant to disclose bullying experiences

Clients may perceive that they should be able to handle bullying

Variable attributions for bullying behaviour

Clients who experienced bullying may blame themselves

Power dynamics between the person who perpetrated the bullying behaviour and the victim

Clients may have perpetrated bullying behaviour and been victimized

Implications for Counselling

Explore what happened – nature of bullying, how clients responded, how others responded

Explore clients’ interpretations of bullying, their coping strategies

Cognitive-behavioural approach – interpretations of experiences of bullying – what behavioural responses are reinforced

Interpersonal skills communication conflict resolution

Implications for Counselling

Solution-focused brief therapy (Young & Holdorf, 2003) – strengths’ focus – “non-problem talk” (p. 273) – exceptions to the problem – 118 students – majority in high school – range of 1 to 7 sessions

20 girls who bullied were randomly selected for three months of brief strategic family therapy (BSFT) – assessed how families resolved conflict – helped them negotiate more - one-year follow-up – significant reduction at end of therapy and maintained at follow-up (Nickel, Luley, et al., 2006)

36 boys aged 14 and 15 years who bullied were randomly selected for 12 weeks of BSFT – significant reduction in bullying behaviour (Nickel, Muehlbacher, et al., 2006)

Sharing Experiences

What clinical experiences have you had with clients who have experienced and/or perpetrated bullying behaviours?

How have you conceptualized the complexity of bullying experiences?

What effects have your clients experienced? What counselling approaches have you utilized?