xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001992350
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090317s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002388
Feldman, Marissa A.
High school outcomes of middle school bullying and victimization
h [electronic resource] /
by Marissa A. Feldman.
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 106 pages.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: Previous research has revealed that bullying behaviors are negatively related to psychological, behavioral, social, and academic development. However, much of what is known has been determined from cross-sectional or year-long longitudinal studies conducted in elementary or middle school. The present study examined the longer-term correlates of bullying and victimization during the critical transition from middle to high school. Archival data from a large southern school district examined the longer-term implications of bullying and victimization of a middle school cohort (N=1,249). Results revealed that, during the initial survey year and over the following four-year period, self-identification as a bully was related to poorer academic achievement (grade point average), attendance, and discipline problems (total referrals and suspensions). No significant differences were found between victim and uninvolved student profiles, with the exception of victims having more discipline problems over the four subsequent years. Additionally, moderating factors, such as family, peer and school variables, were explored to determine why some youth involved in bullying succeed despite these challenges. Results revealed that the moderating influence of family adaptability and cohesion on student attendance and disciplinary actions persisted over a four-year follow-up period. Whereas increased family cohesion appeared to be related to increased attendance rates for victims, mixed results were demonstrated for family adaptability. Although higher levels of adaptability may be associated with better academic performance for victims, increased family adaptability was associated with poorer behavioral conduct of victims and bullies, as indicated by increased rates of referrals and suspensions.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Ellis Gesten, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
High School Outcomes of Middle Sc hool Bullying and Victimization by Marissa A. Feldman A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Ellis Gesten, Ph.D. Michael Brannick Ph.D. Judith Bryant, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 26, 2008 Keywords: school violence, adolescence, peers, academic achievement, families Copyright 2008, Marissa A. Feldman
Dedication I would like to dedicate this work to my fam ily and friends. It has been your unwavering support and dedication that has allowed me to pursue my dreams. Each of you has greatly contributed to who I am and where I am going. I am forever grateful. I love you.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ellis Gesten, for his support and guidance in my academic, research and clinical pursuits. I am grateful to my committee, Dr. Judith Bryant, who provided great insi ght into child development, and Dr. Michael Brannick, who dedicated his time and energy into ensu ring that I had a clear handle on statistical procedures. Special thanks to Dr. Christ ine Totura who laid the foundation for this project. This research was made possibl e by the overwhelming s upport and dedication of the School District of Pasco County, and specifically, Ray Gadd, Lizette Alexander, Amelia Van Name Larson, David Scanga, and Ken Brown. Thank you all.
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Introduction 1 Bullying Defined 2 Characteristics of Bullies 3 Characteristics of Victims 5 Bullying and Victimization Outcomes 8 Bully Outcomes 8 Victim Outcomes 11 Resilience 15 Risk Factors 15 Protective Factors 17 Middle School Culture and Climate Study 19 Current Study 21 Hypotheses 22 Method 24 Participants 24 Predictor Measures 28 Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire 28 Student Adjustment Survey 29 Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II 30 Outcome Measures 31 Attendance 31 Academic Achievement 31 Discipline Actions 31 Procedure 34 Data Reduction 34 Analyses 34 Results 37 Descriptive Statistics 37 Intercorrelations 39 Bullying Status and Student Outcomes 41 Attendance 41
ii Academic Achievement 41 Discipline Actions 42 Moderator Analyses 45 Attendance 45 Academic Achievement 48 Discipline Actions 51 Discussion 57 Bullying Status and Student Outcomes 57 Bullying Status and Protective Variables 63 Limitations 67 Implications 69 Conclusion and Future Directions 70 References 72 Appendices 83 Appendix A: Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire 84 Appendix B: Student Adjustment Survey 92 Appendix C: Family Adaptability and C ohesion Evaluation Scale II 94 Appendix D: Comparison across Groups on M easures of Adjustment 96 Appendix E: Exploratory Gender Analyses 101 Appendix F: Explorator y Follow-up Analyses Controlling for Initial Values on Outcomes 102 Appendix G: Summary Table for Original and Follow-up Analyses 106
iii List of Tables Table 1 Bullying Status Frequencies and Percentages for Original and Follow-Up Samples 24 Table 2 Sample Characteristics for Original and Follow-up Sample 25 Table 3 Chi-Square Analyses Examining the Relationship of Bullying Status and Attrition 26 Table 4 Chi Square Analyses Examini ng the Relationship of Demographics and Attrition 27 Table 5 Correlations of Referral Levels and Suspensi on Types 32 Table 6 ANOVA Results Examining th e Relationship Between Bullying Status and Moderator Variable s for the Original 2003 and Follow-up 2004-2007 Samples 39 Table 7 Intercorrelations of Moderator and Outcome Variables for 2003 (N=1884) and 2004-2007 (N=1249) Samples 40 Table 8 ANOVA Results Examini ng the Relationship Between Bullying Status and Outcomes for Original (N=1884) and Follow-Up (N=1249) Sample 44 Table 9 ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variables on Attendance for Original and Follow-up Sample 46 Table 10 ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variables on Academic Achievement (GPA) for Original and Follow-up Sample 49 Table 11 ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variables on Disciplinary Actions for Original Sample 52 Table 12 ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variables on Disciplinary Actions for Follow-up Sample 53
iv List of Figures Figure 1 Predictor, dependent a nd moderating variables under investigation for this study 22 Figure 2 Distribution of discipli ne action according to bullying status in 2003 33 Figure 3 Distribution of discipli ne action according to bullying status for 2004-2007 33 Figure 4 Attrition and data reduction 35 Figure 5 Moderation effects of family cohesion and bullying status on attendance in 2003 47 Figure 6 Moderation effects of family cohesion and bullying status on attendance for 2004-2007 48 Figure 7 Moderation effects of fam ily adaptability and bullying status on GPA in 2003 51 Figure 8 Moderation effects of fam ily adaptability and bullying status on discipline referrals in 2003 55 Figure 9 Moderation effects of fam ily adaptability and bullying status on discipline referrals for 2004-2007 55 Figure 10 Moderation effects of fa mily adaptability and bullying status on suspensions for 2004-2007 56
v High School Outcomes of Middle Sc hool Bullying and Victimization Marissa A. Feldman Abstract Previous research has revealed that bu llying behaviors are negatively related to psychological, behavioral, social, and academic development. However, much of what is known has been determined from cross-sec tional or year-long longitudinal studies conducted in elementary or middle school. Th e present study examin ed the longer-term correlates of bullying and vict imization during the critical transition from middle to high school. Archival data from a large southern school district exam ined the longer-term implications of bullying and victimization of a middle school cohor t (N=1,249). Results revealed that, during the initial survey year and over the following four-year period, selfidentification as a bully was related to poorer academic achievement (grade point average), attendance, and discipline problems (total referrals and suspensions). No significant differences were found between vi ctim and uninvolved student profiles, with the exception of victims having more discipline problems over the four subsequent years. Additionally, moderating factors, such as fa mily, peer and school variables, were explored to determine why some youth involved in bullying succeed despite these challenges. Results revealed that the mode rating influence of family adaptability and cohesion on student attendance a nd disciplinary actions pers isted over a four-year followup period. Whereas increased family cohesi on appeared to be related to increased attendance rates for victims, mixed results were demonstrated for family adaptability.
vi Although higher levels of adaptability may be associated with better academic performance for victims, increased family adaptability was associated with poorer behavioral conduct of victims and bullies, as indicated by increased rates of referrals and suspensions.
1 Introduction Over the past several decades, bullyin g has been a growing focus of public, political, and research interest (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton & Scheidt, 2001; Natvig, Albrektsen, & Qv arnstrom, 2001; Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005; Wolke, Woods, Stanford, & Schulz, 2001). Although a minimal amount of conflict and teasing is typical of peer rela tions (Roberts, 2000), bullying pres ents a viable threat to the psychosocial adjustment of the nationÂ’s yout h (Nansel et al., 2001). The many negative psychological, social, educational, and beha vioral consequences of bullying call for increased prevention and intervention efforts. Bullying is a pervasive problem affecting children worldwide. Research indicates the prevalence of bullying varies across cultures from a low 8% in Germany to a moderate 24% in England (Wolke et al., 2001) to a high of 40% in Northern Ireland (Collins, McAleavy, & Adamson, 2004). Alth ough there is variability in overall prevalence rates, which can be attributed to variations in the defi nition and measurement of bullying (Wolke et al., 2001; Yang, Kim, Kim, Shin, & Yoon, 2006), there appears to be congruence across cultures in the trend of bullying. As the frequency of bullying increases, the rate of bullying decreases; sa id differently, there are more victims of intermittent, rather than pervasive, bullying. In a study conducted in the United States, Nansel and associates (2001) investigated the rate of bu llying behaviors and observed that 25% of their sample reported bullying once or twice during the current term, 11% reported bullying sometimes, while only 8% reported bullying week ly. Similarly, a study
2 in Northern Ireland, which examined the rate of victimization, found that 40% of students experienced bullying to some degree in the pa st couple of months, while 26% of students experienced bullying two or three times in the past month, and 4% of students experienced bullying several times a week (C ollins et al., 2004). As these studies demonstrate, prevalence rates are important for understanding the sc ope of the problem. However, it is important to note that much of this research was obtained from self-report measures, and therefore these estimates are likely to underestimate the phenomenon (Olweus, 1995). Bullying Defined To better understand the sc ope of the problem, a clear definition of bullying is necessary. Bullying has been described as th e repeated exposure to negative actions committed by one or more individuals (Olweus, 1995). These negative actions include physical contact, verbal assaul ts, nonverbal gestures, and in tentional exclusion (Olweus, 1995) and are intentionally designed to inf lict harm or discomfort upon individuals who are unable to defend themselves. Thus, bully ing is dependent on a real or perceived imbalance in strength creati ng an asymmetric power rela tionship (Olweus, 1995; Wolke et al., 2001). Within this relationship are those who perp etrate the negative actions (bullies) and those who are the targets of su ch actions (victims). A third recently identified group of bully/victims consists of individuals who both bully others and are victims of bullying. Children ca tegorized into this group, with prevalence rates ranging from 1 % (Katiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rant anen, & Rimpela, 2000; Rigby, 1994) to 8% (Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Kokkinos & Pana yiotou, 2004; Yang et al ., 2006), have been described as being least popular by peers, hot tempered, and having more problems with
3 hyperactivity and impulsivity than do childre n considered Â‘pureÂ’ bullies or victims (Schwartz, 2000; Woods & Wolke, 2004). 1 Characteristics of Bullies. Bullies are individuals who purposefully and repeatedly target another i ndividual for physical or relati onal aggression. Boys, who are more often identified as bullies (Collins et al., 2004; Siann, Callagh an, Glissov, Lockhart, & Rawson, 1994; Wolke et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2006), generally have positive views of violence and use violence to dominate othe rs (Carney & Merrell, 2001; Glew, Rivara, & Feudtner, 2000; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Br ooks, 1999). They are usually physically stronger than boys in general a nd their victims, in particul ar (Glew et al 2000; Olweus, 1995). Regardless of their physical stature, bullies will identify a nd capitalize on victims of any age, status, or physical size if they perceive there is no possi bility of consequence or repercussion (Carney & Merrell, 2001). Bu llies attempt to control other individuals while lacking a sense of empathy toward their victims (Glew et al. 2000; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Olweus, 1995). This devastati ng combination of ability and will incites the perpetration of physical aggression. On the other hand, females are more likely to engage in indirect relation al aggression, rather than phys ical aggression. Relational aggression involves the negative us e of peer relations to cause harm or distress to another individual (Pellegrini, 1998). To accomp lish this goal, female perpetrators employ tactics, such as spreading rumo rs or revealing secrets, whic h facilitate social exclusion and silent rejection (Ostrov, Crick, & Stauffacher, 2006; Smith, 2004). Although no 1 Although these children are of interest when crea ting and implementing intervention programs, due to the limited sample size in the initial study and inconsistent manner in which these children are addressed in the literature, this population will not be examined within the current study.
4 physical harm comes of this form of bullyi ng, psychological and emotional impairment is evident. Research finds that bullies tend to experience symptoms of depression and suicidal ideation. In a recent Norwegian study, results re vealed that both bullies and victims experienced more depressive symp toms than students w ho were uninvolved in bullying (Roland, 2002). Although this finding has been consistent, an explanation remains unclear. Some speculate that feelings of guilt or shame may be related to feelings of depression, while others speculate that the home environment is the influential factor (Rigby, 2003). Furthermore, bullies repo rt suicidal ideation at a greater frequency than victims (Roland, 2002). This is of pa rticular concern because aggression towards others may reveal a propensity for aggre ssion toward themselves (Roland, 2002). Bullies also display externalizing sy mptomology (Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, Gillberg, 2005) and sometimes diagnosable di sruptive behavior disorders (Kikkinos & Panayiotou, 2004). As previously indicated, bul lies are aggressive, destructive, enjoy dominating others, and lack empathy for th eir victims (Carney & Merrell, 2001), which are externalizing behaviors characteristic of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and especially Conduct Disorder (CD). This is of concern since ma ny conduct-disordered youth engage in delinquent, antisocial behavior as adults. Thus, ear ly identification of bullying could facilitate screening for referr al to interventions that will break this negative cycle (Kikkinos & Panayiotou, 2004). Typically, children form peer relationshi ps based on similarity, such as similar behavioral styles and attitude s (Pellegrini et al., 1999); ther efore, bullies affiliate with other aggressive youth (Pelle grini et al., 1999) because th ey share physical aggression
5 and positive attitudes toward bullying (Carney & Me rrell, 2001). For example, Espleage, Holt, and Henkel (2003) found that bullies tend ed to affiliate with other youths who bullied and fought at the same frequency. Although bullies do not show difficulty forming relationships with individuals who sh are their aggressive id eology and behavior, bullies in general tend to e xperience average or below aver age popularity w ith other nonaggressive peers (Carney & Merrell, 2001). This is dem onstrated in the research subtyping popular and unpopular aggressive bullies (Farmer, Leung, Pearl, Rodkin, Cadwallader, & Van Acker, 2002). Popular aggr essive bullies seem to engage with other popular youths and are not ostracized for their aggressive behavior. On the contrary, unpopular aggressive bullies are rejected and socially isolated by other youth and use their aggression to get an d maintain attention. In sum, bullies are individuals who rep eatedly target others for physical or relational abuse. Bullying only occurs in the context of a power differential whereby the perpetrator exerts control over a victim with no empathy for his or her plight. Although research consistently finds that bullies demons trate externalizing behaviors, less is known about the association between bullyi ng and internalizing problems. Characteristics of Victims. Victims are individuals who are targets of repeated negative acts. Victims are of ten categorized into two speci fic groups, aggressive victims and passive victims (Olweus, 1993; Schwar tz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993; Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 1997). Passive victims are of ten physically smaller, have fewer friends, lack assertiveness, and are more submissive than similar aged peers (Glew et. al, 2000; Olweus, 1993; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coi, 1993). They tend to react to the victimization by crying or withdrawing from the situation (Smokowski & K opasz, 2005). In contrast,
6 aggressive victims tend to react to their vi ctimization and any perceived threat in an aggressive manner (Pellegrini, 1998; Schw artz et al., 1997), demonstrating an emotionally dysregulated behavioral pattern (Schwartz et al., 1997). Victimization has been associated with internalizing symptoms and psychological distress. Victimized individuals frequently report greater symptoms of depression than do bullies and uninvolved students (Seals & Yo ung, 2003). Recent research has revealed that 55% of primary school children classi fied as victims had depressive symptoms (Yang et al., 2006). Moreover, Ivarsson and colleagues (2005) determined that victims report suicidal ideation to a greater degree th an bullies and controls. Consistent with these findings, Coggan, Bennett, Hooper, and Dickenson (2003) found that an alarming 33% of victims reported self-harm ideation, 20% reported having deliberately attempted to harm themselves, and 11% reported having attempted to end their own lives. These findings highlight the importanc e for school officials to iden tify victimized students and implement interventions to ensure their safety and well-being. Individuals who are the targets of bu llying behaviors generally manifest symptoms of anxiety. In a study conduc ted by Yang and colleagues (2006), female victims reported anxiety symptoms at a greate r frequency and intensity than their male counterparts. However, there is disagreemen t about whether anxiety is a consequence or an antecedent that contributes to the like lihood of victimization (K atiala-Heino et al., 2000). For instance, some researchers speculate that youth with emotional problems are easy targets and therefore s ought out by the bullies, thereby allowing bullies to gain rewards from observing the victims crying, with drawing or socially isolating themselves (Roland, 2002).
7 Victims generally suffer from poor self -esteem (OÂ’Moore & Kirkham, 2001; Slee, 1994), with the frequency of bullying being negatively related to self-esteem (OÂ’Moore & Kirkham, 2001). These children often possess negative cognitions about themselves and their situations (Carney & Merrell, 2001 ; Glew et al., 2000; Smokoswki & Kopasz, 2005). They may see themselves as failures, stupid, or unattractive (Glew et al., 2000). Furthermore, they may wrongly blame themselv es for falling victim to bullying behaviors (Carney & Merrell, 2001). This negative view of the self may perpetuate the continuance of bullying as it may invite and reinforce bullying (Ma, 2002). Victims of bullying also demonstrate poor social adjustment (N ansel et al, 2001). Specifically, victims reported greater difficulty making and maintaining friends than their peers. In general, victims do not have a sing le good friend (Olweus, 1993). If friendships are formed, they may not be quality ones; victims often report lower friendship satisfaction than their nonvictimized peers (Jantzer Hoover, & Narloch, 2006). Researchers postulate that shyness and inab ility to trust others may be factors contributing to poor social adjustment (Jan tzer et al., 2006), which often results in feelings of loneliness and a voidance of social and academ ic situations (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). In summary, victims are the targets of relational and/or physical aggression. Their psychological adjustment overall is characterized by anxiet y, depression, and low self-esteem. Lack of assertiv eness often results in submi ssion to peers. In addition, without necessary social skills, victims ofte n have difficulty developing and maintaining friendships. Without friends to serve as support, these children often fall prey to continuous victimization and pres umably suffer worse outcomes.
8 Bullying and Victimization Outcomes Bullying is a chronic problem resulting in short-term and long-term implications for both the perpetrator and the victim. Re search has identified four categories of negative health conditions that may be consequences of bullying and victimization: (1) low psychological well-being, which includes general unhappiness, low self-esteem, and anger, (2) poor social adjustment, which incl udes withdrawal from social situations, (3) psychological distress, which is marked by high levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, and (4) physical unwellness, which is identi fied by physical illnesses or psychosomatic symptoms (Rigby, 2003) such as aches, pains, and f eelings of sickness and tiredness (Baldry, 2004). Furthermore, to gain a complete con ceptualizati on of the impact of bullying on youth, academic and behavi oral outcomes need to be identified and explored. Bully Outcomes. Few longitudinal studies have been conducted to look at the implications of bullying behaviors for the pe rpetrators. However, it is reasonable to assume there are ramifications for academic, social, behavioral, and psychological wellbeing. Thus, it is necessary to investigate th e existing literature in order to demonstrate the deleterious effects th at continuous aggressive behavior has on normal youth development. Youth involved in bullying during elemen tary and early middle school are more likely to demonstrate psychological devian ce in high school. In a study conducted in Finland, Kumpulainen and Rasanen (2000) i nvestigated deviance in 15-year-olds who had previously been identified as bullies at th e ages of eight or 12 ye ars. In addition to discovering that bullies displayed externa lizing behavior and hype ractivity during the
9 high school years, the probability of deviance, as defined by teacher a nd parent reports of neurosis, antisocial acts, and relationship problems in adolescence was also greater for youth identified as bullies duri ng the earlier stu dy points. Analyses indicated that youth involved in bullying at age ei ght, with concurrent psychologi cal deviance accounted for, were more likely to be reported as deviant by teachers at age 15. Moreover, children who were bullies and deviant at age eight were five times more li kely to display psychological deviance at age 15, while child ren involved in bullying at age 12 were nearly 40 times more likely to demonstrate psychological devi ance at age 15. This finding supports the assumption that bullying and psychological devi ance are additive in their effects. In a similar study, researchers investigat ed the contributions of aggression and bullying behaviors to the prediction of late r self-reported emotional and behavioral problems (Khatri, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 2000 ). Peer aggression, as determined by peer nominations in middle school, was related to externalizing difficulties one year later. Interestingly, girls who engaged in peer aggre ssion were at a greater risk for self-reported delinquency problems than their male counter parts. All together this study shows support for the conclusion that peer aggressi on is predictive of subsequent delinquency. Aggressive behavior often c ontinues into adulthood in the form of antisocial and criminal behavior. Olweus (1995) studied th e prior involvement in bullying behaviors of adult offenders. Thirty-five to 45 percent of boys who were catego rized as bullies in middle school were convicted of at least thr ee crimes by the age of 24. In contrast, only 10% of boys who were not categorized as bullie s were convicted of crimes by that age. This finding supports the conc lusion that young adults identified as school bullies are likely to be recidivist cr iminals. Similar results were found by Huesmann, Eron, and
10 Dubow (2002), who discovered th at individuals identified as aggressive youth at age eight were more likely to have been convicted of crimes, c ited for traffic violations, and displayed aggressive behavi ors toward their spouse and children compared to nonaggressors by age 30. Additionally, children of these individuals were likely to display aggressive behaviors similar to those of their parents. Likewise, men who were previously identified as bullies at school age were more likely to have children who behaved in a similar aggressive manner th an were children of youth who were not involved in bullying (Farring ton, 1993). Although this de monstrates continuity of aggressive behaviors across generations, the m echanisms that contribute to this finding remain unknown. Childhood bullying has also been associated with later substance abuse. Research indicates that aggressive yout h are more likely to engage in excessive drinking and substance use when compared to their peers (Kaltiala-Hieno et al ., 2000). In addition, youth who bullied are more likely to smoke (Nansel et al., 2001). Alarmingly, a recent study conducted by Sourander and colleagues (20 06) revealed that bu lly identification at age eight predicted criminal drug offe nses in the late teen years. While the link between bullying and delinque nt or antisocial acts has been well established, less is known about the rela tionship between bullying behaviors and academic performance. Currently, cross-sec tional research has revealed that bullies perform worse academically than students uninvolved in bullying behaviors (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). Furtherm ore, research conducted by Nansel and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that bullies reported poorer academic achievement, as measured by participantsÂ’ perc eption of school performance, than victims and uninvolved
11 students. While these findings provide insigh t into the correlates of bullying, the longterm implications remain to be seen. In summary, extensive research confir ms the continuity of childhood aggression over time. Research indicates that as bullies age, their externalizing behaviors begin to manifest in rule-breaking and antisocial acts In addition to exte rnalizing consequences, bullies tend to suffer from depression. A lthough researchers speculate that depression may be a result of environmental factors, the mechanisms by which these consequences are evident remain unclear. Furthermore, re search is needed to examine the long-term academic correlates of bullying behaviors. Victim Outcomes. A large body of research has examined the short-term and longterm implications of victimization incl uding externalizing beha vior, internalizing behavior, social adjustment and academic difficulties (Holt & Espelage, 2003). However, the methods employed to obtain this information have typically been case studies, retrospective surveys, or cross-sectional surveys. Because of the difficulty and demands of the design, few studies ha ve been conducted longitudinally. Persistent victimization has been associated with adjustment difficulties in all domains of functioning. Hanish and Guerra (2002) followed an ethnically diverse sample of primary school children over a two-year period. Although vict imization predicted poor outcomes, these outcomes varied as a f unction of victim type. Specifically, children who endured persistent victimization were typically categorize d into a subgroup of children who consistently demonstrated the worst symptomatic outcomes. Instead of exhibiting adjustment problems in one ar ea, these children exhibited diverse and extensive problems in multiple domains. For example, victimized children categorized
12 into the symptomatic group displayed exte rnalizing, internalizi ng, social, and school problems. Specifically, at the two-year fo llow-up these children experienced increased aggression, attention difficu lties, delinquency, anxiety, de pression, withdrawal, school absences and decreased popularit y. Inclusion into the sympto matic group was greater for boys and older children who were consistently victimized at each assessment time. These findings indicate that persiste nt victimization has enduring maladaptive outcomes. A great deal of research has documented th e association of vict imization and selfreported symptoms of anxiety or depr ession (Garrett, 2003). One recent study investigated psychiatric sy mptoms at age 15 among child ren involved in bullying at either age eight or age 12 (Kumpulainene & Rasanen, 2000). Results from parent, teacher, and student questionnair es revealed that victimized youth were more likely to have psychiatric symptoms by age 15 than their non-victimized peers. Victims of bullying scored higher than c ontrols on internalizing/depres sive symptoms, as reported by both parent and teacher. Similar findings from a four-year longitudinal study that followed students during the transition from elementary to middle school were reported by Paul and Cillessen (2003). However, these short-term maladjustment problems were only evidenced in females, which is a consis tent finding in the li terature (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2006). Therefore, re search should consid er possible protective factors that will help particular indivi duals succeed despite this adversity. Hanish and Guerra (2002) also examin ed the effects of being victimized on emotional functioning. Results from the twoyear longitudinal study indicated that early victimization predicted later anxiety and de pression. These findings remained constant even after controlling for the effects of concurrent victim ization and prior levels of
13 adjustment. However, it is worth noting that children who experienced persistent victimization at all time-poi nts displayed internalizing be haviors that predated the victimization. Therefore, although depression and anxiety may be a result of bullying for a group of victims, persistent victims tend to exhibit these symptoms prior to or concurrently with vic timization as well. Victimization generally has a long-lasting impact on se lf-esteem. Schafer and colleagues (2004) examined the long-term co rrelates of elementary and middle school victimization with respect to adult functioning. AdultsÂ’ retr ospective reports of bullying indicated that victimization in school negatively related to ad ultsÂ’ perception of the self. Individuals classified as vict ims scored significantly lower on all aspects of self-esteem, such as general self-esteem a nd self-esteem with regard to others, than did individuals who were uninvolved in bullying. Peer relationships are often affected by chronic victimization (Kim, Leventhal, Koh, Hubbard, & Boyce, 2006). Goldbaum, Cr aig, Pepler and Connolly (2003) surveyed youth in fifth through seventh grade to iden tify the consequences associated with recurrent victimization. Results indicated that victims reporte d decreasing levels of trust and affection toward others as victimizati on increased. In addition, prior victims who no longer experienced victimi zation did not report increased social competence and interaction over time. These findings support th e notion that lower peer affiliation may be a reflection of their experiences. The implications of school victimizati on generally carry through to adulthood. A retrospective study conducted by Schafer and colleagues (2004) found that prior victims rated the Â‘fearfulÂ’ attachme nt profile higher than thei r adult peers who were not
14 victimized. This finding suggests that, al though prior victims desire emotionally close relationships, they feel uncomf ortable getting close to others. Explanations for this finding include the fact that victims have di fficulty trusting others and are fearful of others hurting them. These findings were especially prominent in individuals who suffered victimization in both elementary and middle school. Thus, endurance of the victimization is associated negatively with the development of relationships in adulthood. The association between victimizatio n and academic achievement has yielded inconsistent findings (Farri ngton, 1993; Hanish & Guerra, 2002). Whereas some researchers report no such link (Hanish & Gu erra, 2002) or a bi-directional link between academic achievement and victimization (Aus tin& Draper, 1984), others demonstrate effects presumably as a result of absenteeism (DeRosier, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994). This assertion is predicated on the assumption that victimiz ed youth avoid school for fear of further victimization. In effect, the greater amount of school missed the worse academic performance. DeRosier and colleagues (1994) examined academic and behavioral problems as a function of peer rejection. Elementary school children were assessed during the spring semester of four consecutive years. Peer rejection was associated with both more absences from sc hool and more behavioral problems. This finding demonstrates that peer rejection may result in nega tive perception of the school atmosphere, which may lead to active avoida nce of school. Even though no direct link was found to exist between peer rejection and academic achievement, absenteeism may act as an indirect avenue through which peer rejection im pacts academic functioning. To summarize, victimization has been a ssociated with impaired psychological, social, behavioral and academic functioning. Studies have demonstrated that victims
15 endorse higher levels of anxi ety and depression than similaraged peers. In addition to internalizing symptomology, externalizing behaviors have been reported by teacher, parent, and self reports, indi cating that victimized student s engage in acting out and delinquent acts. Victims also tend to report lower self-esteem and impaired ability to form lasting adult relationships Inconsistent findings with regards to victimization and its association with academic functioni ng require further investigation. Resilience Not all youth who experience bullying and victimization will suffer negative outcomes (Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Dekovic, 1 999). Resilience has been described as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful ad aptation despite challenging circumstances (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). Thus, some children defy the expectation to fail by developing into succe ssful and well-adapted individuals despite serious stressors and challenges (Luthar & Zi glar, 1991). Resilience has been described as achieving good outcomes despite high risk status, sustained competence under threat, or as recovery from trauma (Masten et al., 1990). To understand how children involved in bullying may nonetheless demonstrate adap tive functioning require s an analysis of both risk and protective factors. Risk Factors. The field of child psychopathol ogy has adopted a problem-focused approach to studying human beha vior. Researchers have historically been concerned with identifying stressors during development that place children Â“at riskÂ” for negative outcomes (Garmzey & Masten, 1986). Therefore, risk factors, such as low socioeconomic status, family instability, lower academic ach ievement, more emotional or behavioral problems, are statistical co rrelates of negative outcom es (Masten et al., 1990).
16 Risk factors for victimization include psychological maladjustment, poor peer relations, and low family func tioning. In addition to anxi ety being a consequence of victimization, anxiety may also serve as a risk factor. Because bullying is more likely to occur when youth are alone, anxious or isolat ed, children may lack the protection that peers can provide against bullying (Gol dbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly. 2003). Therefore, youth who bully anxious and withdr awn children are often reinforced for their behavior if the victim continues to be isolated. Thus, the cycl e of violence is perpetuated. Additionally, lack of friendship and low quality friendships are indicated as risk factors for persistent victimization. Research consiste ntly finds the lack of quality friendships or supportive peers may increase an individualÂ’s vul nerability to victim ization (Goldbaum et al., 2003; Natvig, Albreksten, & Qvarnstrom, 2001). Goldbaum and colleagues (2003) surveyed children in grades five through seven to assess ri sk and protectiv e factors that are associated with victimization. Findings from the study revealed that victims often do not have the peer support necessary to prot ect them from bullies. Thus, the rate of victimization is higher amongst youth who do not have peer support. Family functioning has also been shown to place youth at an increased risk for bullying behaviors and negative outcomes. In a recent study, the relationship between family functioning and the involvement of adolescents in bullying behaviors was examined among high school students betw een the ages of 13 and 16 (Rigby, 1994). Results revealed that the families of bullies were functioning at a lower level than those of similar aged peers. Specifically, negative affect in families was found to be associated with the tendency of adolescents to engage in bullying behavior. In addition, adolescents who reported low levels of emotional support fr om their family were also more prone to
17 engage in acts of bullying. Researchers have suggested social learning theory or high emotionality as explanations for these fi ndings (Baldry & Farrington, 2005). Thus, family functioning may have a negative effect on adaptive functioning. For bullies, affiliation with deviant peers appears to be a risk factor for externalizing problems. Dekovic (1999) iden tified individual and family factors that could serve as possible risk and protectiv e factors for the development of problem behaviors in adolescence. Of particular in terest, relationships w ith peers, especially deviant peers, was related to the developmen t of problem behaviors. This problem may occur because bullies often have friendships w ith others who bully (Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999). Protective Factors. Recently, researchers have begun to focus not only on weaknesses and risks when describing cause s of psychopathology, but also on strengths (Orpinas & Horne, 2006). This paradigm sh ift is demonstrated by the recent research interest in protective factors, which are described as indivi dual, social, and institutional resources that promote a successful or pos itive outcome (Dekovic, 1999). Therefore, protective factors are assets th at people actively use to moderate the negative effects of individual or environmental difficulties so th at the development of an individual is more positive than expected (Masten et al., 1990). Teacher support is a documented protective factor that reduces the risk for and effects of bullying. Natvig and colleagues (2001) investigated th e association between bullying behavior and social support in a sample of youth aged 13-15 years. Perceived social support from teachers, as well as p eers, decreased the likelihood of persistent victimization and self-reported measures of school distress. This reveals that school-
18 based, teacher-supported interventions would be effectiv e at decreasing the prevalence and effects of bullying. Just as lack of friendshi p may serve as a risk factor the presence of healthy relationships may also serve a protective function (Pellegrin i et al., 1999). Termed the Â“friendship protection hypothesi s,Â” researchers have postulate d that having a reciprocal best friend protects children from victimizati on and its negative psyc hological correlates (Boulton, Trueman, Ghau, Whitehand, & Amatya 1999). These beneficial friendships are often characterized by high levels of affection and trus t (Goldbaum et al., 2003). Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, and Bukowski (1999) examined friendship presence and quality as moderators of victimization and its ramifi cations. Youth in fourth and fifth grades were assessed at two times over a year. Resu lts revealed that frie ndships served as a buffer against negative psychological adju stment for victimized youth. While victimization measured at Time 1 predicted an increase in internalizing problems for children without a best frie nd, children with a best frie nd suffered no increase. A possible explanation for this fi nding is that if victims have a mutual best friend, then the friend is more likely to intervene when th ere is a problem or provide support while attempting to solve problems associated with being bullied (Goldbaum et al., 2003). Research also suggests that supportive pare nting serves a protective function. In a recent study, the role of social support as moderators for the effects of bullying and victimization in a sample of middle school students was investigated (Davidson & Demaray, 2007). Participants who perceived high er levels of parental support reported lower levels of internalizi ng distress. These results re vealed that parental support buffered the effect of victimization on intern alizing distress. Therefore, children who
19 receive social support at home may have the knowledge or skills to react positively in the face of adversity. In summary, not all children who experience bullying and victimization will experience negative outcomes. Some childre n will remain well adjusted despite this developmental challenge. Thus, to bette r understand the impact of bullying it is important to include poten tial protective factors as we ll. Through this analysis, researchers are better able to inform and im plement prevention and intervention programs to decrease the prevalence of bullying and improve the outcomes of those affected. Middle School Climate and Culture Study In 2003, a district sponsored needs asse ssment was conducted to examine the relationships among family, school, and individu al variables and bullying and victimization (Totura, 2003; Totura, MacK innon-Lewis, Gesten, Gadd, Divine, Dunham, et al., in press). Participants were from a random sel ection of classrooms in 11 middle schools across 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Students complete d questionnaires assessing bullying, victimization, interna lizing, and externa lizing behaviors, and both family and school variables. Moreover, teachers comple ted a brief screening measure to assess a subgroup of studentsÂ’ moodiness, behavioral problems, and lear ning difficulties. Specific individual, school and family variables si gnificantly contributed to differences among bully, victim, bully/victim and uninvolved stud ents. Specifically, victims were more likely to report symptoms of depression and anxiety, low connectedness with parents, and increased difficulty with peer relationships than were uninvolved students. Bullies demonstrated externalizing problems such as anger and referrals, reported poorer family functioning, and decreased school bonding relative to uninvolv ed students. However,
20 adult supervision at the schools moderated the relationship between externalizing and bullying behaviors. Additional analyses suggested that gender played a role in determining the factors that differentiate bullying from vic timization, such as externalizing behaviors experienced by boys serve a protectiv e function against victimization. In 2005, further analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between victimization and middle school psychological and academic outcomes (Totura, 2005). Modeling techniques indicated that psychological functioning mediated the relationship between victimization and academic motivati on. Self-reported victim ization was related to depressive, anxious, and anger sympto mology. Those who experienced greater psychological maladjustment were also less motivated toward academic achievement. Although a proposed relationship between vict imization and academic achievement was investigated, analyses revealed that academic achievement wa s only indirectly associated with victimization through motivation. A dditionally, school, i ndividual and family variables were examined as possible moderato rs of the relationship between victimization and psychological functioning. For males, a ggressive behaviors, coping beliefs and school climate factors were sign ificant moderators. Contrary to expectation, beliefs and engagement in aggressive behaviors appeared to buffer the negative psychological impact of victimization. It was proposed that vic timized students who retaliate with aggression avoid additional negative eff ects of bullying. Also contrary to the researcherÂ’s hypothesis, supervision and in tervention against negative behaviors did not protect victimized students from negative psychologi cal outcomes. Possible explanations for these findings were presented, such as the re ticence of victimized students to seek the
21 help of adults out of fear of further vi ctimization or the possible inadequacies of supervision and interventions. In conclusion, these findings s uggest that further research is needed to understand the academic and psyc hological outcomes of victimized youth. Current Study The current study is a follow-up of the prev ious cross-sectional work. The current study examined longer-term behavioral and academic correlates of middle school bullying and victimization by analyzing school records from the four years following the survey. In addition, the scope of the school records has b een expanded from that of the previous studies (Totura, 2005; Totura, MacKinnon-Lewis, Gesten, Gadd, Divine, Dunham, et al., in press). In addition to disciplinary re ferrals, Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test scores and GPA, suspension and attendance data were also examined. Whereas several studies have sought to examine longitudinal outcomes of bullying behavior in elementary school and adulthood (Huesmann et al., 2002; Olweus, 1995; Schafer et al., 2004), this study is unique in that it follows a large number of students from three cohorts durin g the transition from middle to high school Although research reveals lower rates of bullying in high school (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazl er, 1992), little is known about the correlates of bullying in the formative high school years during which youth establish their identity and make academ ic and behavioral decisions that have lasting consequences for the experiences they will have access to in adulthood (i.e., college and employment). In addition to e xploring the longer-term correlates of bullying and victimization, this study examined factors th at contribute to protecting a student from the negative implications of bu llying behavior. The potential moderating role of specific family, peer, and school variab les in reducing the impact of bullying was studied (See
22 Figure 1). Information from this study will assist in both the design and implementation of middle and high school interventions. Predictor Variable: Bullying Status (bully, victim, uninvolved) Dependent Variables: Academic Achievement Attendance Disciplinary Action Moderators: Connection to Teacher Connection to Peers Family Adaptability Family Cohesion Figure 1. Predictor, dependent and moderati ng variables under inve stigation for this study. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were examined: Hypothesis 1. Self-identified victims will have lower attendance rates than uninvolved students. Hypothesis 2. Students self-identified as bulli es will perform worse academically than victims and those uninvolved, as measured by GPA and FCAT scores.
23 Hypothesis 3. Students self-identified as victims will have lower academic achievement than uninvolved students, as measured by GPA and FCAT scores. Hypothesis 4. Self-identified bullies will have more disciplinary problems than victims and those uninvolved. Hypothesis 5. ChildrenÂ’s reports of teacher s upport will act as a moderator between self-reported victim ization and attendance. Hypothesis 6. ChildrenÂ’s reports of family adapta bility and cohesion will act as a moderator between self-reported victimization and attendance. Hypothesis 7. ChildrenÂ’s reports of connection to peers will act as a moderator between self-reported victim ization and attendance. Hypothesis 8. ChildrenÂ’s reports of teacher s upport will act as a moderator between self-reported victimizati on and academic performance.
24 Method Participants Initially, participants (ages 11-14) were surveyed while enrolled in 11 middle schools in a large school district in Florida (Totura, MacKinnon-Lewis, Gesten, Gadd, Divine, Dunham, et al., in press). Participants (N = 2,510) were classified into bullying group categories (bullies, victims, bully/victims2, and uninvolved) based on OlweusÂ’ Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Only participan ts (N=1,884) with the necessary predictor, moderator and outcome data were included in the current study analyses for the 2003 survey year. The sample consisted of bullies ( n =129), victims ( n =211), and uninvolved students ( n =1,544; See Table 1). There were more females ( n =973, 51.6%) than Table 1. Bullying Status Frequencies and Percentages for Original and Follow-Up Samples 2003 Original Sample (N=1884) 2004-2007 Follow-Up Sample (N=1249) n % n % Bullies 129 6.8 66 5.3 Victims 211 11.2 143 11.4 Uninvolved 1544 82 1040 83.3 males ( n =911, 48.4%) in the overall sample. There wa s a statistically significant gender difference ( 2 (2) = 20.33, p < .01) between bullying categories with more males being classified as both bullies (58.9%) and victims (59.7%) than females (41.1%, 40.3%; See Table 2). The majority of the sample was Caucasian/White ( n =1,448, 2 Bully/victim group were no t analyzed in the current study because of the limited original (N=44) and follow-up (N=18) sample size and inconsistent treatment of the group within the literature.
25Note: Ns may vary due to missing data. Table 2. Sample Characteristics for Original and Follow-Up Sample 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample Bullies (n=129) Victims (n=211) Uninvolved (n=1544) Bullies (n=66) Victims (n=143) Uninvolved (n=1040) Gender Female Male 53 (41.1) 76 (58.9) 85 (40.3) 126 (59.7) 835 (54.1) 709 (55.9) 2 (2) = 20.33, p < .01 25 (37.9) 41 (62.1) 57 (39.9) 86 (60.1) 570 (54.8) 470 (45.2) 2 (2) = 16.99, p < .01 Ethnicity Asian/Indian Black Latino(a) White Other Missing 0 (0) 8 (6.2) 11 (8.5) 96 (74.4) 13 (10.1) 1 (0.8) 2 (0.9) 9 (4.3) 13 (6.2) 169 (80.1) 17 (8.1) 1 (0.5) 39 (2.5) 46 (3) 157 (10.2) 1183 (76.6) 114 (7.4) 5 (0.3) 2 (8) = 14.32, p > .05 0 (0) 4 (6.1) 7 (10.6) 50 (75.8) 4 (6.1) 1 (1.5) 2 (1.4) 6 (4.2) 9 (6.3) 113 (79.0) 13 (9.1) 31 (3.0) 31 (3.0) 103 (9.9) 802 (77.1) 73 (7.0) 2 (8) = 8.03, p > .05 Cohort 6th 7th 8th 21 (16.3) 56 (43.4) 52 (40.3) 79 (37.4) 77 (36.5) 55 (26.1) 500 (32.4) 549 (35.6) 495 (32.1) 2 (4) = 19.18, p < .01 14 (21.2) 27 (40.9) 25 (37.9) 54 (37.8) 55 (38.5) 34 (23.8) 364 (35.0) 364 (35.0) 312 (30.0) 2 (4) = 8.04, p > .05 Parents Marital Status Married Separated Divorced Never Married Deceased Missing 55 (42.6) 19 (14.7) 41 (31.8) 9 (7.0) 5 (3.9) 0 (0) 113 (53.6) 22 (10.4) 53 (25.1) 17 (8.1) 3 (1.4) 3 (1.4) 828 (53.6) 151 (9.8) 386 (25.0) 120 (7.8) 44 (2.8) 15 (1.0) 2 (8) = 9.82, p > .05 34 (51.5) 6 (9.1) 21 (31.8) 2 (3.0) 3 (4.5) 89 (62.2) 12 (8.4) 28 (19.6) 12 (8.4) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7) 626 (60.2) 77 (7.4) 234 (22.5) 72 (6.9) 18 (1.7) 13 (1.2) 2 (8) = 9.95, p > .05 Number of Good Friends at School None 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10 Missing 2 (1.6) 12 (9.3) 22 (17.1) 25 (19.4) 68 (52.7) 1 (0.5) 28 (13.3) 69 (32.7) 38 (18.0) 74 (35.1) 1 (0.5) 8 (0.5) 98 (6.3) 259 (16.8) 315 (20.4) 859 (55.6) 5 (0.4) 2 (8) = 56.03, p < .01 1 (1.5) 4 (6.1) 9 (13.6) 15 (22.7) 37 (56.1) 1 (0.7) 18 (12.6) 42 (29.4) 29 (20.3) 53 (37.1) 3 (0.3) 59 (5.7) 176 (16.9) 219 (21.1) 580 (55.8) 3 (0.3) 2 (8) = 31.82, p < .01
26 76.9%), while 9.6% were Latino/Latina/Hispanic ( n =181), 7.6% self-identified as Other ( n= 144), 3% African American/Black ( n =63), 25 Asian/Indian ( n =41), and 1% unknown ( n =18). There were no statistically significan t differences for ethnicity across bullying categories ( 2 (8) = 14.32, p > .05). Six hundred participants were surveyed in the 6th grade, 682 in the 7th grade, and 602 in the 8th grade. Chi-square analyses revealed significantly fewer bullies in the 6th grade than in 7th and 8th grades ( 2 (4) = 19.18, p < .01). Follow-up analyses focused on those students who remained ( n =1,249) in the district for the 2004-2007 academic school ye ars and met study criteria. The follow-up sample consisted of bullies ( n =66), victims ( n =143), and uninvolved students ( n =1,040). Chi-square analyses revealed that the bullying status of students who remained was different from those who left the system. Specifically, a significan tly greater number of bullies (49%) left the system during the four-year study period (See Table 3), than victims (32%) and uninvolved students (34%). Table 3. Chi-Square Analyses Examining the Relationship of Bullying Status and Attrition Participants who Stayed Participants Who Left Total % Decrease Bullies 66 6312949 Victims 143 6821132 Uninvolved 1040 504154434 Total 1249 6351884 2 (2) = 12.75, p <.01 The follow-up was consistent with the original sample in terms of gender and ethnicity (See Table 4). As with the in itial sample, there were more females ( n =652, 52.2%) than males ( n =597, 47.8%) in the 2004-2007 follow-up sample. Similarly, there
27 were greater percentages of males categor ized as bullies (62.1%) and victims (60.1%) than females (37.9% and 39.9%). The majority of the sample was Caucasian ( n =965, 77.3%), 9.5% were Latino/Latina/ Hispanic ( n =119), 7.2% self-ide ntified as Other ( n =90), 3.3% African-American/Black ( n =41), 2.6% Asian/Indian ( n =33), and ethnicity was only missing for one participant. There wa s no statistically significant difference for ethnicity when compared across bullying categories ( 2 (8) = 8.03, p > .05). For the follow-up participant group, 34.6 % came from the original 6th grade cohort ( n =432), 35.7% from the 7th grade cohort ( n =446), and 29.7% from the 8th grade cohort ( n =371). Table 4. Chi-Square Analyses Examining th e Relationship of Demographics and Attrition Gender Participants who Stayed Participants who Left Total % Decrease Female 652 32197333 Male 597 31491134 Total 1249 6351844 2 (1) = .40, p > .05 Ethnicity Participants who Stayed Participant who Left Total % Decrease Asian/Indian 33 84120 Black 41 226335 Latino(a) 119 6218134 White 965 483144834 Other 90 5414438 Total 1248 6261874 2 (4) = 4.75, p > .05 Cohort Participants who Stayed Participants who Left Total % Decrease 6th 432 16860028 7th 446 23668235 8th 371 23160238 2 (2) = 14.85, p < .01 Total 1248 6361884 Note: Ns may vary due to missing data
28 There was no significant difference be tween bullying categories for cohort classification ( 2 (4) = 8.04, p > .05). However, differences were found by cohort for participants who remained in the study versus those who left the district over the followup period. Fewer participants from the 6th grade cohort (28%) left the district during the study period than those from the 7th (35%) and 8th (38%) grade cohort ( 2 (2) = 14.85, p < .01), indicating that attrition was more likely for older participants who may have moved or transferred into altern ative education programs. Predictor Measures Predictor variables from the initial 2003 survey were selected to identify bullying status and possible protective factors that were hypothesized to moderate the negative academic and behavioral correlates of bullying and victimization. Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; So lberg & Olweus, 2003) is a 39-item child self-report scale used to measure bullying behavior. The scale provides definitions for both bullying and victimization: Â“We say a student is being bullied when another student or several other students say mean and hurtful things or ma ke fun of him or her or call him or her mean and hurtful names completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or leave him or her out of things on purpose hit, kick, push, shove around, or threaten him or her tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean notes and try to make other students dislike him or her and do other hurtful things These things make take place frequently, and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend hims elf or herself. It is also bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we donÂ’t call it bullying when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Als o, it is not bullying when two
29 students of about the same stre ngth or power argue or fight (Solberg & Olweus, 2003, p.246).Â” Based on previous research, the two global meas ures of bullying were used to classify students as bullies, victims or uninvolved (Â“How often have you been bullied at school in the past couple of months?Â”; Â“How often have you taken part in bullying another student(s) at school in the past couple of months?Â”; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Bullies indicated that they had bulli ed others Â“2 or 3 times a monthÂ” or more on the global bullying question (score = 3 to 5), while reporting only being bullied Â“only once or twiceÂ” (score = 1 to 2) on the global vi ctimization question. Conversely, victims indicated that they had been bullied Â“2 or 3 times a monthÂ” or more on the global victimization question (score = 3 to 5), while reporting bu llying others Â“only once or twiceÂ” (score = 1 or 2) on the global bullying question. The comparison group of students, also referred to as those uninvolved, only repor ted being bullied and bullying others Â“only once or twiceÂ” (score = 1 to 2). Previous studies report moderate concurrent validity (.40-.60) of the OBVQ with peer nominations (Olweus, 1978). The reliability coefficients calculated in this study for th e bullying items (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .79) and victim items (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .82) were consistent with those calculated by Totura and colleagues (in press); (CronbachÂ’s alpha =.71, .87). Student Adjustment Survey. The Student Adjustment Survey (SAS) is a selfreport 33-item scale assessing studentsÂ’ motivation, expecta tions of achievement, and connection to teachers, peers, and parents (Santa Lucia & Gesten, 2000). Students were asked to state the degree to which they agr eed with the 33 statements along a five-point scale ranging from (0) Â“Strongly DisagreeÂ” to (4) Â“Strongly Agree.Â” Factor analysis
30 yielded five scales: Connec tion to School (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .78), Connection to Teachers (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .78), Connec tion to Peers (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .69), Motivation (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .55), and Negative Expecta tions (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .61). Reliability for the SAS s cales of interest for the current study was low to moderate, consistent with previous research (Santa Lucia, 2004). Internal consistency was moderate for the Connection to Teachers subs cale (Â“I think my teachers care about me,Â” CronbachÂ’s alpha = .79), but low for the C onnection to Peers subscale (Â“Most students include me in their activi ties,Â” CronbachÂ’s alpha = .54). Family Adaptability and C ohesion Evaluation Scale II. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II (FACES II) (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983) is a 30item self-report measure assessing family f unctioning. The measure is comprised of two scales: Adaptability and Cohesion. The Adapta bility scale includes 14 items that address a familyÂ’s adaptive capacity and flexibility in times of stress (Â“In our family, everyone shares responsibilities,Â” CronbachÂ’s alpha = .83). The Cohesion scale includes 16 items that determine the degree of emotional bonding and individuality within a family (Â“Family members feel very close to each ot herÂ”, CronbachÂ’s alpha = .80). Reliability for the FACES II subscales for the current study was good. Internal consistency for the Adaptability subscale was consistent with previous literature (C ronbachÂ’s alpha = .81; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983). Similarly, the internal consiste ncy for the Cohesion subscale was also high (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .80 ), consistent with previous literature (Olson et al., 1983).
31 Outcome Measures Attendance Records were collected for each student over a five-year period. A percentage of days attended was computed fo r: (1) the 2003 survey ye ar, as well as (2) an average attendance from 2004-2007 ba sed on a 180-day school year. Academic Achievement was measured with the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) and Grade Point Average (GPA) The FCAT is a standardized Florida test administered to students in grades three th rough 11 to assess high-order thinking skills in accordance with the Florida Sunshine St ate Standards (SSS; www.fcat.fldoe.org). The FCAT is compri sed of criterion-refe renced tests (CRT) measuring benchmarks in mathematics, r eading, science and writing. Analyses were conducted using the FCAT SSS developmental s caled scores (math and verbal), which can be compared across years. Internal reliabilities for the FCAT (SSS) range from .87 to .92 for grades four through ten (Florida De partment of Education, 2004). GPA was the average grade a student received in a ll subjects attempted for any given year3. GPA was computed for: (1) the 2003 survey year and (2) a cumulative GPA for grades earned during the 2004-2007 follow-up. Calculations di d not take into account additional points earned for honors or advanced placement cour ses, which resulted in scores ranging from zero to four. Reliability of GPA over th e study period was high (CronbachÂ’s alpha = .93). Discipline referrals and suspension records were be obtained for each participant and used as an indicator of externalizing pr oblem behaviors. Disc ipline referrals were written indicators of behavioral misconduct fo rwarded by teachers to the principal. 3 District policy precluded attendance contri buting to the calculation of course grades.
32 Level 1 referrals included: chewing gum, tardin ess, and violation of dress code or parking regulations. Level 2 referrals included: cl assroom disruptions, skipping class, lewd language, defacing property, and fighting wit hout injury. The most serious Level 3 offenses included: fights resulting in inju ry, possession of weapons, sexual harassment, possession of controlled or ille gal substances, and in timidation of school staff or students. In and Out of School Suspensions (OSS and ISS), which require a leave of absence from all classes for a determined period of time, were targeted to the most serious Level 3 offenses. Correlation analyses revealed m oderate to strong correlations among the three referral and two suspension types (See Table 5). Discipline outcome variables were therefore limited to total re ferrals and total suspensions calculated for: (1) the 2003 survey year and (2) a total count for the 2004-2007 follow-up. Distribu tions are presented to illustrate the mean values of referral s and suspension types by bullying classification (See Figures 2 & 3). Table 5. Correlations of Referra l Levels and Suspension Types Level 1 Referral Level 2 Referral Level 3 Referral ISS OSS Level 1 Referral ----------Level 2 Referral .44** ----------Level 3 Referral .44** .63** ----------In-School Suspension .57** .85** .71** ----------Out-of-School Suspension .34** .63** .66** .50** ----------Note : ** p < .01.
33 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Discipline ActionMean Discipline Value Bullies Victims Uninvolved Level Level Level Total ISS OSS Total 1 2 3 Ref. Sus. Figure 2. Distribution of discipline acti on according to bully ing status in 2003. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Displine ActionMean Discipline Value Bullies Victims Uninvolved Level Level Level Total ISS OSS Total 1 2 3 Ref. Sus. Figure 3. Distribution of discipline action according to bullying status for 2004-2007.
34 Procedure The current study is a follow-up to a district sponsored needs assessment conducted in 2003. This study was conducted co llaboratively with the school district, which assisted with the retrieval of all outcome data. Data were collected and transferred in a manner to ensure confidentiality Â– neither researchers nor district staff was able to match student name or code number to bullying status. Data Reduction Student data were collected for particip ants (N=2,483) from the original survey. A series of criteria were established fo r inclusion in the 2003 and 2004-2007 analyses. First, participation required the two global measures of bullying on the Revised OBVQ to classify students as bullies, victims or uninvolved (See Figure 3). Participants with incomplete data and those self-identified as bully/victims4 were excluded. Second, data needed to be present on all outcome variables including academic achievement, attendance, and discipline re ports to determine the relatio nship between bullying status and academic and behavioral correlates. Of the participants (N=2,243) with all outcome data in 2003, only those (N=1,884) with the required predictor measures were included in the analyses. For the 2004-2007 follow-up sample only participants with complete data on all outcome5 and predictor measures were included in the current analyses (N=1,249). Analyses To examine the academic and behavioral correlates of bullying and victimization, a series of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Multivariate Anal ysis of Variance 4 Bully/victim group were no t analyzed in the current study because of the limited original (N=44) and follow-up (N=18) sample size and inconsistent treatment of the group within the literature. 5 Attendance and discipline reports were identified and retained for participants who had semester grades recorded for all years during th e four-year follow-up period.
35 Figure 4. Attrition and data reduction. Original Survey Sample in 2003 with Bullying Status N= 2390 Academic Achievement n=2243 Attendance n=2355 Discipline Reports n=2355 With All Outcome Variables in 2003 N=2243 With All Outcome & Moderator Variables in 2003 N=1884 Academic Achievement 2004-2007 n=1514 Attendance 2004-2007 n=1514 Discipline Reports 2004-2007 n=1514 With All Outcome Variables 2004-2007 N=1514 Family Ada p tability n=1912 Connect to Peers n=2131 Connect to Teachers n=2138 Family Cohesion n=1908 Connect to Peers n=1450 Family Adaptability n=1298 Family Cohesion n=1294 Connect to Teachers n=1453 With All Outcome & Moderator Variables 2004-2007 N=1249
36 (MANOVA) were conducted. The moderating influences of Connection to Teachers, Connection to Peers, Family Adaptability, and Family Cohesion were examined through a series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Descriptive statistics for all moderator and outcome variables were computed. Pearson Product-Moment correla tions examined the associations among study variables.
37 Results Results for the original and follow-up sample s are presented in four sections: (1) descriptive statistics for peer, school, and family moderator variables, (2) intercorrelations among moderator and outcome variable s, (3) the effect of bullying status on outcome variables, and (4) moderator analyses to examine the mitigating influence of peer, family and school variables on the relationship between bullying status and academic and behavioral correlates. Descriptives Descriptive statistics for peer, schoo l and family moderator variables are presented in Table 6. Scores on the Connecti on to Peers, Connection to Teachers, Family Adaptability and Family Cohesion scales range from one to five, representing an average value for all completed items on each scale67. Higher scores indicat e greater connection, adaptability and cohesion as self-reported by the participants. Overall, participants reported moderate levels of connection to p eers and teachers. Similarly, participants reported moderate levels of family adaptabi lity and cohesion. Analyses of Variances (ANOVAs) were conducted to determine whet her there were group differences in the 6 Although a minimum of 70% of the items on each scale were required to be complete for inclusion in analyses, 95% of the sample were not missing an y items on the SAS and 85% of the sample was not missing any items on the FACES. Because participan ts may not have completed all items, total scale values were not computed. Instead, aver age scale values were calculated. 7 A MANOVA was conducted on all participants who had met the requirements for outcome data during the study period to determine whether the amount of missing data for the scales used to assess moderation varied by bullying classification. Results revealed that there was not a significant group difference on the number of missing items per each moderator scale, =.99, F (8, 2930)=1.30, p >.05 Also, a MANOVA was conducted examining sample that had met the criteria for a minimum of 70% of the items completed on each moderator scale. Again, ther e was not a significant difference between bullying categories on the number of missing items per each scale, =.99, F (8, 2486)=.75, p >.05
38 way bullies, victims and uninvolved students perceived their connection to teachers, connection to peers, family adaptability, a nd family cohesion. Overall, results remained consistent across both the orig inal and follow-up sample in terms of group trends. In 2003, bullies ( M =3.09) reported significantly lower levels of connection to teachers than did victims ( M =3.39), who also reported significan tly lower levels of connection to teachers than did uninvolved students ( M =3.50; F (2) = 26.80, p < .001; =.03). Significant group differences remained in the follow-up sample ( F (2) = 18.88, p < .001; =.03). Findings for Connection to P eers in 2003 revealed that victims ( M =3.25) reported significantly lower levels of connection than bullies ( M =3.53), who reported significantly lower levels of conn ection than uninvolved students ( M =3.76; F (2) = 66.59, p < .001; =.07). Significant mean trends and findi ngs for Connection to Peers remained for the follow-up sample ( F (2) = 49.63, p < .001; =.07). Reports from 2003 revealed that uninvolved ( M =3.05) students saw their families as being more adaptable than victims ( M = 2.89) and bullies ( M =2.74; F (2) = 14.87, p < .001; =.02) with results maintained in the follow-up sample ( F (2) = 8.53, p < .001; =.01). In 2003, there were significant group differences among all categories of bullying (bully M =3.03, victim M =3.26, uninvolved M =3.44) on reported family cohesion ( F (2) = 27.20, p < .001; =.03). For the follow-up sample differences remained between uninvolved ( M =3.51) students and both victims ( M =3.32) and bullies ( M =3.08; F (2) = 16.56, p < .001; =.03).
39Note : Mean (standard deviations) +P Value calculated by conducting ANOVAs to examine group differences on the moderator variables with follow-up Tukey post-hoc tests. Significant differences are reflected by different superscripts in the same row. Intercorrelations Pearson Product-Moment Correlations (See Table 7) revealed moderate positive correlations among all moderator variables with a stronger corr elation between the family adaptability and family cohesion ( r= .72, p < .001). In both original and follow-up samples, school and family moderator variable s revealed significant, small to moderate positive correlations with academic and attendance measures. As expected, all moderator variables were negatively related to total discipline referrals and total suspensions, indicating that higher levels of connection to teachers, peers and family were associated with fewer discipline actions. In additi on, academic and attendance outcomes were negatively correlated with discipline reports. Table 6. ANOVA Results Examining the Relationship Between Bullying Status and Moderator Variables for the Original 2003 and Follow-up 2004-2007 Samples N Bullies Victims Uninvolved F P value+ Connection to Teacher 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1884 1249 3.09 (.73) a 3.14 (.72) a 3.39 (.76) b 3.43 (.72) b 3.55 (.73) c 3.61 (.69) c 26.80 17.88 <.001 <.001 Connection to Peers 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1884 1249 3.53 (.60) a 3.51 (.58) a 3.25 (.70) b 3.29 (.72) b 3.76 (.62)c 3.81 (.61) c 66.59 49.63 <.001 <.001 Family Adaptability 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1884 1249 2.74 (.71)a 2.77 (.74) a 2.89 (.69)a 2.92 (.68) a 3.09 (.71)b 3.09 (.71) b 14.87 8.53 <.001 <.001 Family Cohesion 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1884 1249 3.03 (.58) a 3.08 (.61) a 3.26 (.71) b 3.32 (.72) b 3.44 (.66) c 3.51 (.66) c 27.20 16.56 <.001 <.001
40Table 7. Intercorrelations of Moderator and Outcome Variables for 2003 (N=1884) and 2004-2007+ (N=1249) Samples Connection to Teacher (2003) Connection to Peers (2003) Family Adapt (2003) Family Cohesion (2003) FCAT Reading (2003) FCAT Math (2003) GPA Attendance Total Referrals Total Suspen. Connection to Teacher (2003) .40** .38** .46** .11** .10**. .27** .07* -.20** -.20** Connection To Peers (2003) .39** .25** .39** .13** .13** .19** .03 -.11** -.10** Family Adaptability (2003) .36** .27** .72** .10** .08** .17** .01 -.07* -.08* Family Cohesion (2003) .43** .35** .72** .14** .10** .17** .04 -.12** -.12** FCAT Reading (2003) .14** .13** .11** .16** .71** .39** .08** -.26** -.26** FCAT Math (2003) .14** .13** .11** .16** .43** .41** .11** -.26** -.25** GPA .31** .23** .18** .28** .39** .41** .35** -.51** -.49** Attendance .11** .05* -.00 .05* .35** .08** .15** -.26** -.27** Total Referrals -.18** -.10** -.05* -.11** -. 43** -.16** -.17** -.18** .96** Total Suspensions -.18** -.11** -.05* -.10** -.40** -.15** -.17** -.19** .93** Note: p < .05; **p < .01.+ Intercorrelations for 2004-2007 sample are f ound in the upper quadrant and for the 2003 sample in the lower quadrant. Shaded re gion indicates correlations for school records from 2004-2007. No correlations for FCAT scores are reported for 2004-2007 follow-up sample be cause the test is not administered to 11th and 12th grade students, unless previously failed.
41 Bullying Status and Student Outcomes A series of Analyses of Variance ( ANOVA) and Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) were conducted to exam ine the relationship between bullying status and academic and behavioral correla tes. Follow-up ANOVAs and Tukey Post-Hoc tests were used to iden tify specific relationships. Attendance. Two one-way between groups ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether there were significant differences between bullying groups on attendance during the original survey year and over the f our-year follow-up period. For the original sample, results revealed no differences among bullies, victims, and uninvolved students on attendance, F (2, 1881)=0.19, p =.83. In contrast, a significant group difference was found for the follow-up sample, F (2, 1246)=3.83, p <.05; =.01. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the mean attendance percentage for bullies ( M =93.61, SD =4.70) was significantly lower than both victims ( M =95.21, SD =4.20) and uninvolved students ( M =94.94, SD =4.04), who did not differ significantly from each other. Academic Achievement. A one-way between groups MANOVA was conducted for the original 2003 sample to determine wh ether there was a signi ficant difference in the means for bullying groups on academic achie vement, as measured by the FCAT math and reading developmental scale score and GP A. There was a statistically significant effect of bullying status on the set of academic achievement variables, =.97, F (6, 3600)=8.69, p <.01; =.02. Follow-up univariate anal yses revealed significant group differences for GPA, F (2, 1802)=21.65, p <.01; =.02. Post-hoc comparisons indicated that the mean score for bullies ( M =2.32, SD =.91) was significantly lower than that for victims ( M =2.82, SD =.91) and for uninvolved students ( M =2.86, SD =.86), who did not
42 differ significantly from each other. A one-way between groups ANOVA with the follow-up sample yielded a significant effect of bullying status on GPA, F (2, 1246)=13.28, p <.01; =.02. The mean GPA for bullies ( M =2.39, SD =.65) was significantly lower than victims ( M =2.70, SD =.77) and uninvolved ( M =2.82, SD =.67) students, who did not differ significantly from each other. Discipline Actions. A one-way between groups M ANOVA was conducted for the original 2003 and follow-up samples to determine whether there was a significant difference for bullying groups on total referra ls and total suspensions. There was a statistically significant effect of bullying status on the set of disciplinary variables for the original 2003 sample, =.95, F (4, 3760)=22.16, p <.01; =.02. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed significant group differences for total referrals ( F (2, 1881)=44.18, p <.00; =.05) and total suspensions ( F (2,1881)=33.92, p <.00; =.04). Mean score for bullies (referrals M =3.26, SD =4.86; suspensions M =1.78, SD =2.89) were significantly higher than victims (referrals M =1.32, SD =3.26; suspensions M =.73, SD =1.80) and uninvolved students (referrals M =.97, SD =2.29; suspensions M =.54, SD =1.48). No mean difference was revealed between victims a nd uninvolved students. Furthermore, these discipline results persisted ove r the four-year follow-up pe riod. The one-way between groups MANOVA conducted for the follow-up samp le revealed statis tically significant differences for bullying status on th e set of discipli nary variables, =.96, F (4, 25490)=14.41, p <.00; =.02. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed significant group differences for total referrals ( F (2, 1246)=27.87, p <.00; =.04) and total suspensions ( F (2, 1246)=26.90, p <.00; =.04). Post-hoc comparisons indicated a significant mean score difference among all status groups: bullies (referrals M =11.24, SD =12.53;
43 suspensions M =6.82, SD =8.26), victims (referrals M =6.01, SD =11.98; suspensions M =3.34, SD =7.06), and uninvolved students (referrals M =3.91, SD =7.06; suspensions M =2.22, SD =4.50). Overall, results indicated that group differences on academic, behavioral, and discipline variables persiste d over the four-year study period (See Table 8). Selfidentification as a bully was related to poorer academic achievement (GPA), attendance, and discipline problems (total referrals and suspensions). The only significant difference found between victim and uninvolved student profiles was that victims had more discipline problems during the four-year follow-up period.
44 Table 8. ANOVA Results Examining the Relationship Between Bu llying Status and Outcomes for Original (N=1884) and Follow-Up (N=1249) Sample Bullies Victims Uninvolved F P value+ GPA 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 2.32 (.91)a 2.39 (.65) a 2.82 (.91)b 2.70 (.77) b 2.86 (.86)b 2.82 (.67) b21.65 13.28 <.001 <.001 FCAT Math 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample11777.39 (193.54) -----------1780.10 (215.57) -----------1780.40 (211.98) -----------.01 -----------.99 ----FCAT Reading 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample11768.01 (257.44) -----------1784.05 (292.18) -----------1766.25 (270.60) -------------.39 ----------.68 ----Attendance 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 93.61 (5.31) 93.61 (4.70) a 93.84 (7.06) 95.21 (4.20) b 93.92 (5.45) 94.97 (4.02) b0.19 3.86 .83 <.05 Total Referrals 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 3.26 (4.86) a 11.24 (12.53) a 1.32 (3.26) b 6.01 (11.98) b .97 (2.29) b 3.91 (7.06)c 44.18 27.87 <.001 <.001 Total Suspensions 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1.78 (2.89) a 6.82(8.23) a .73 (1.80) b 3.34 (7.06) b .54 (1.48) b 2.22 (4.50) c33.92 26.90 <.001 <.001 Note : Mean (Standard Deviations). + P Value calculated by conducting ANOVAs to examine group differe nces with follow-up Tukey pos t-hoc tests. Significant differences are reflected by different superscripts in the same row. 1 FCAT scores not reported for 2004-2007 follow-up samp le because the test is not administered to 11th and 12th grade students
45 Moderator Analyses To determine whether peer, family and school variables mitigated the relationship between bullying status and academic and behavi oral correlates, moderator analyses were conducted. For each outcome variable (i.e., attendance, academic achievement, and discipline actions), an Analys is of Covariance (ANCOVA) or Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted in the or iginal survey year and for the fouryear follow-up period. These sta tistical procedures were select ed based on their ability to assess the moderating influence of conti nuous variables (connection to teachers, connection to peers, family adaptability, a nd family cohesion) on a categorical predictor variable (bullying status) and continuous de pendent variable (attendance, achievement, and discipline). To assess moderation, th e interaction between the predictor and moderator was examined. Attendance. Two one-way between-groups ANCOVAs (2003 and follow-up) were conducted to determine whether self-re ported connection to teachers, connection to peers, family adaptability, and family cohe sion act as moderators between victimization and attendance (Attendance = bullying status + connection to teachers + connection to peers + family adaptability + family cohesi on + bullying status*connection to teacher + bullying status*connection to peers + bullyi ng status*family adaptability + bullying status*family cohesion; See Table 9). The ANCOVA conducted on the 2003 sample revealed a non-significant interaction effect of bullying st atus and connection to teacher, F (2,1869)=1.01, p >.05. Similar findings were found in the follow-up sample, F (2,1234)=1.30, p >.05.
46 Table 9. ANCOVA Results for the Moderati on Effects of School and Family Variable s on Attendance for Original and Followup Sample Variable Source DF MS F P Attendance 2003 Status (F)188.8.131.52 Connection to Teacher (C)1133.994.27<.05 Connection to Peers (C)1.12.01.95 Family Cohesion (C)1302.829.64<.01 Family Adaptability (C)1262.858.37<.01 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)231.811.01.36 Status*Connection to Peers (I)184.108.40.206 Status*Family Cohesion (I)2137.544.38<.05 Status*Family Adaptability (I)238.831.24.29 Attendance 2004-2007 Status (F)220.127.116.11 Connection to Teacher (C)18.104.22.168 Connection to Peers (C)121.591.29.26 Family Cohesion (C)1167.5910.04<.01 Family Adaptability (C)1109.686.57<.05 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)22.214.171.124 Status*Connection to Peers (I)223.351.40.25 Status*Family Cohesion (I)285.865.14<.01 Status*Family Adaptability (I)242.642.55.08 Note: (F = fixed factor, C = c ovariate, I = interaction).
47 A significant interaction effect was demons trated for bullying status and family cohesion in 2003, F (2,1869)=4.38, p <.02; =.01 (See Figure 5). This moderating influence of family cohesion remained significant when assessed in the 2004-2007 follow-up sample, F (2,1234)=5.13, p <.05; =.01 (See Figure 6). Family cohesion moderated the negative relationship between bullying status and attendance. These results suggest that higher levels of fam ily cohesion were beneficial for victims and bullies. For contrast, there was no differen ce in attendance rates as family cohesion increased for uninvolved students. 86 88 90 92 94 96 98Avera g e Cohesion Percent Attendanc e Uninvolved Bullies Victims 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 5. Moderating effects of family cohe sion and bullying status on attendance in 2003
48 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Average CohesionPercent Attendanc e Uninvolved Bullies Victims 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 6. Moderating effects of family cohe sion and bullying status on attendance for 2004-2007. The ANCOVA conducted on the 2003 sample revealed a non-significant interaction effect of bullying st atus and connection to peers, F (2,1869)=.20, p >.05. Similar results were found for the 2004-2007 sample, F (2,1234)=1.29, p >.05. Academic Achievement. Two one-way between-groups ANCOVAs were conducted in the survey year and over th e four-year follow-up period to determine whether self-reported connection to teachers, connection to p eers, family adaptability, and family cohesion act as moderators betw een victimization and academic achievement, as measured by GPA (Academic Achievement = bullying status + connection to teachers + connection to peers + family adapta bility + family cohesion + bullying status*connection to teacher + bullying status*connection to peers + bullying status*family adaptability + bullying stat us*family cohesion; See Table 10).
49 Table 10. ANCOVA Results for the Moderati on Effects of School and Family Variab les on Academic Achievement (GPA) for Original and Follow-up Sample Variable Source DF MS F P GPA 2003 Status (F)2.721.07.34 Connection to Teacher (C)123.4234.61<.01 Connection to Peers (C)12.764.08<.05 Family Cohesion (C)111.2216.53<.01 Family Adaptability (C)17.1810.61<.01 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)126.96.36.199 Status*Connection to Peers (I)188.8.131.52 Status*Family Cohesion (I)184.108.40.206 Status*Family Adaptability (I)22.523.72<.05 GPA 2004-2007 Status (F)220.127.116.11 Connection to Teacher (C)15.5413.02<.01 Connection to Peers (C)1.671.58.21 Family Cohesion (C)12.014.72<.05 Family Adaptability (C)1.882.07.15 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)2.01.03.97 Status*Connection to Peers (I)2.08.20.82 Status*Family Cohesion (I)18.104.22.168 Status*Family Adaptability (I)2.551.30.27 Note: (F = fixed factor, C = covariate, I = interaction).
50 The ANCOVA conducted on the 2003 sample revealed a non-significant interaction effect of bullying st atus and connection to teacher, F (2,1869)=.66, p >.05. Similar results were found in the follow-up sample, F (2,1234)=.03, p >.05. Additional family and school moderators were analyzed, although not initially hypothesized. Examination of self-reported fam ily cohesion, family adaptability and peer connection and their relations hip with bullying status a nd academic achievement are reported. Non-significant inte raction effects for family c ohesion were found in the 2003 ( F (2,1869)=.56, p >.05) and 2004-2007 follow-up sample ( F (2,1234)=.61, p >.05). Although family cohesion was not found to mo derate the relationship between bullying status and academic achievement, a significan t interaction effect was indicated in the 2003 analyses for family adaptability, F (2,1869)=3.72, p <.05; =.01 (See Figure 7). These results revealed that increased family adaptability was related to higher GPAs for victims and uninvolved students. Furthermore, increases in family adaptability were negatively related to GPA for bullies sugge sting a differential relationship between bullying status and family adaptability. N on-significant findings were reported for the follow-up sample, F (2,1234)=1.30, p >.05. Finally, connection to peers did not moderate the relationship between bullying status and academic achievement. Non-significant results were found for the 2003 sample ( F (2,1869)=.71, p >.05) and 2004-2007 follow-up sample ( F (2,1234)=..20, p >.05).
51 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Average Family AdaptabilityGPA Uninvolved Bullies Victims 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 7. Moderation effects of family adap tability and bullying st atus on GPA in 2003. Discipline Actions. Although no hypotheses were proposed regarding the moderating influence of school and family va riables on bullying stat us and disciplinary actions, two one-way between-groups M ANCOVAs were conducted for exploratory reasons (Disciplinary Actions = bullying stat us + connection to teachers + connection to peers + family adaptability + family cohesi on + bullying status*connection to teacher + bullying status*connection to peers + bullyi ng status*family adaptability + bullying status*family cohesion; See Tables 11 and 12). Examination of the MANCOVA for the 2003 group revealed a significant interaction effect for family adaptability ( =.99, F (4, 3736)=4.78, p <.01; =.01) and family cohesion ( =.99, F (4,3736)=3.07, p <.01; =.01) on the disciplin ary variables.
52 Table 11. ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variable s on Disciplinary Actions for Original Sample Variable Source DF MS F P Total Referrals 2003 Status (F)2.09.01.99 Connection to Teacher (C)1109.2315.89<.01 Connection to Peers (C)111.721.71.84 Family Cohesion (C)22.214.171.124 Family Adaptability (C)152.127.58<.01 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)210.441.52.22 Status*Connection to Peers (I)126.96.36.199 Status*Family Cohesion (I)210.861.58.21 Status*Family Adaptability (I)223.183.37<.05 Total Suspensions 2003 Status (F)188.8.131.52 Connection to Teacher (C)137.4614.11<.01 Connection to Peers (C)184.108.40.206 Family Cohesion (C)220.127.116.11 Family Adaptability (C)113.755.18<.05 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)18.104.22.168 Status*Connection to Peers (I)22.214.171.124 Status*Family Cohesion (I)2.02.01.99 Status*Family Adaptability (I)23.611.34.26 Note: (F = fixed factor, C = covariate, I = interaction)
53 Table 12. ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variable s on Disciplinary Actions for Follow-up Sample Variable Source DF MS F P Total Referrals 2004-2007 Status (F)126.96.36.199 Connection to Teacher (C)1898.6314.06<.01 Connection to Peers (C)188.8.131.52 Family Cohesion (C)177.061.21.27 Family Adaptability (C)1670.7710.50<.05 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)184.108.40.206 Status*Connection to Peers (I)2220.127.116.11 Status*Family Cohesion (I)18.104.22.168 Status*Family Adaptability (I)2292.894.58<.01 Total Suspensions 2004-2007 Status (F)22.214.171.124 Connection to Teacher (C)1331.5613.13<.01 Connection to Peers (C)126.96.36.199 Family Cohesion (C)188.8.131.52 Family Adaptability (C)1299.9811.88<.01 Status*Connection to Teacher (I)184.108.40.206 Status*Connection to Peers (I)212.08.48.62 Status*Family Cohesion (I)220.127.116.11 Status*Family Adaptability (I)2158.476.28<.01 Note: (F = fixed factor, C = covariate, I = interaction)
54 Although univariate follow-up analyses revealed a non-significant inte raction effect for family cohesion and total referrals ( F (2,1869)=1.58, p >.05) and total suspensions ( F (2,1869)=.01, p >.05), a significant interaction effect was found for family adaptability and total referrals, ( F (2,1869)=.3.37, p <.05; =.01; See Figure 8). A non-significant interaction was found for family ad aptability and total suspensions, F (2,1869)=1.36, p >.05. The MANCOVA conducted on the 2004 -2007 follow-up sample revealed a significant interaction effect for family adap tability on the set of disciplinary variables ( =.99, F (4, 2466)=3.53, p <.01; =.01). Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that family adaptability moderates the relationshi p between bullying status and total referrals ( F (2,1234)=.4,58, p <.01; =.01) and total suspensions ( F (2,1234)=.6.28, p <.01; =.01; See Figures 9 and 10). These findings suggest that although increased adaptability is related to better behavioral conduct for uninvol ved students, adaptability was negatively related behavioral conduct fo r victims and bullies. Therefor e, increases in perceived family adaptability were demonstrated to be related to more referrals and suspensions. The MANCOVA conducted for the 2003 sa mple revealed no significant interaction effects for connection to teacher ( =.99, F (4, 3736)=.53, p >.05) and connection to peers ( =.99, F (4, 3736)=1.04, p >.05). Findings from the 2004-2007 were consistent and indicated that connection to teacher ( =.99, F (4, 2466)=.54 p >.05) and connection to peers F (4, 2466)=.90, p >.05) did not moderate the relationship between bullying status and disciplinary actions.
55 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Family AdaptabilityTotal Discipline Referrals Uninvolved Bullies Victims 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 8. Moderation effects of family adap tability and bullying status on discipline referrals in 2003. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Average Family AdaptabilityTotal Discipline Referrals Uninvolved Bullies Victims 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 9. Moderation effects of family adap tability and bullying status on discipline referrals for 2004-2007.
56 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Average Family AdaptabilityTotal Suspensions Uninvolved Bullies Victims 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 10. Moderation effects of family adapta bility and bullying status on suspensions for 2004-2007. Overall, results indicated that the mode rating influence of family variables and bullying status on student attendance and discip linary actions persis ted over a four-year follow-up period in this sample. Whereas hi gher levels of family cohesion for selfreported victims appeared to be associated with higher attendance rates, mixed results were demonstrated for family adaptability. In creased family adaptability appeared to be related to better academic performance, but nega tively associated to studentÂ’s behavioral conduct, as indicated by an incr ease of total referrals and su spensions with higher levels of perceived family adaptability.
57 Discussion Although much is known about the concurrent or short-term impact of bullying and victimization on youth development, less is known about the longer-term implications of such behavior. This st udy examined the longe r-term correlates of bullying and victimization duri ng the critical transition fr om middle to high school. Analyses of behavioral and academic sc hool outcome data identified longer-term negative correlates of bullying and victimi zation, including poorer attendance, academic achievement, and behavioral conduct for bullies. The profiles for victims were similar to those of uninvolved students, with the excep tion of victims having more discipline referrals and suspensions during the four-y ear follow-up period. However, not all children involved in bullying, either as perpetrator or victim, experienced negative academic or behavioral correlates. Potentia l family, school and peer protective factors were explored to determine why some childre n succeeded in the face of these challenges. The present study is discussed in terms of findings, limitations, and implications. Bullying Status and Student Outcomes School adjustment variables have been i nvestigated in relation to bullying and victimization, but have yielde d inconsistent findings (Aus tin & Draper, 1984; DeRosier et al., 1994; Nansel, et al., 2001). Previous research using self-report measures of school adjustment (Nansel et al, 2001) with vict imized students (DeRosier et al., 1994; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), has typically id entified a negative relationship between victimization and school adjustment. For example, a study conducted by Kochenderfer
58 and Ladd (1996a) revealed that children who reported victimi zation by their peers in the fall of their kindergarten year experienced gr eater adjustment difficulties, including selfreported school avoidance, at the second a ssessment period during the spring. Therefore, Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996b) suggested that students victimized by their peers develop negative cognitions about school and seek to wi thdraw from the environment that causes them distress. Support for this proposed mechanism is provided by Sharp (1995) whose survey of British primary and secondary school students indicated th at 20% of children said they would skip school to avoid vi ctimization. Though the relationship between bullying and school avoidance has been dem onstrated by self-reported perceptions and strategies, initial research m easuring actual school attendanc e behavior has not supported this finding (Glew, Fan, Kat on, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005). The present study examined the relati onship between bullying behaviors and attendance using objective school records data. In the initial survey year, there were no significant attendance differen ces between victims and unin volved students. This is consistent with recent research investiga ting school attendance, using comparable measurement and similar bullying categories (G lew et al., 2005). Fu rther, attendance did not decline for victims over the next four y ears. Thus, while previ ous studies suggested that victims dislike school and report school avoidan ce as a strategy to reduce victimization, these results s uggest that they do not employ this strategy enough to impact their actual rate of attendance. Limited research exists examining the relationship between bullying and school adjustment. Cons istent with the findings reported by Glew and colleagues (2005), attendance rates of bullie s were not significantly different from victims and uninvolved students in the ini tial survey year during middle school.
59 However, the current study revealed that bu llies attended signifi cantly fewer days of school than victims and uninvol ved students over the four-y ear follow-up period. This finding is consistent with previ ous research that purports that bullies are at an increased risk for truancy (Mayer, Ybarra, & Fogliatti, 2001). Another school-related vari able frequently examined and crucial for success during this developmental period is academic achievement (e.g., DeRosier et al., 1994; Glew et al., 2005; Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Hoglund, 2007; Juvone n et al., 2000). In the initial assessment, the GPA of bullies was si gnificantly lower than that of victims and uninvolved students who did not differ from each other. Similar findings in the followup analyses indicated that this middle sc hool academic disadvantage continues for bullies. This finding is related to those reported by Nansel and colleagues (2001), who found that bullies reported poor er academic achievement, as measured by participantsÂ’ perception of school performance, than victim s and uninvolved students. However, it is notable that there were no group differences identified on st andardized testing measures in the current study, a consiste nt finding in the literature (Glew et al., 2005). This suggests that the link between bullying stat us and GPA may be a function of bulliesÂ’ behavior, rather than acquired knowledge/achie vement. For example, a studentÂ’s grades report more global performance, not only summ arizing a set of dive rse academic tasks and assignments over months but are also likel y influenced by multiple contextual factors such as attendance, the amount and quali ty of schoolwork completed and submitted, attention and cooperation, pro-so cial behavior, and others. Data available on some of these variables demonstrated that bullies did in fact attend fewer days and engaged in more antisocial acts than victims and uninvolved st udents. It is possible that these factors,
60 among others, collectively contribute more to GPA than the knowledge that is applied during standardized testing, which is a more highly structured and constrained performance demand setting. In the current study, victimization was not significantly related to worse academic performance, although a mean trend did emer ge. These findings are consistent with Hanish and Guerra (2002) who found no re lationship between victimization and low academic achievement. The lack of a dire ct link (DeRosier et al., 1994) has prompted researchers to explore an indirect link be tween victimization and academic achievement, through modeling techniques (Juvonen, Nishin a, & Graham, 2000; Schartz, Gorman, Nakamoto & Toblin, 2005; Totura, MacKi nnon-Lewis, Gesten, Gadd, Divine, Dunham, et al., in press). For example, previous re search indicates that victimization predicts academic difficulties through the mediating influence of psychological adjustment, including depression, loneliness, motiva tion, and self-worth (Juvonen et al., 2000; Schartz et al., 2005; Totura, MacKinnon-Lewis, Gesten, Gadd, Divine, Dunham, et al., in press). Some investigators have proposed that poor attendance is part of the pathway through which victimization may contribute to academic difficulties (De Rosier et al., 1994). Using the criteria set forth by Bar on and Kenny (1986), the current study examined whether attendance is the pathwa y by which victimization may contribute to academic difficulties. Unfortunately, result s did not support the mediation hypothesis. Although a significant main effect was demons trated for bullying status and academic achievement during the initial and follow-up period, because there was not a significant difference between victims and uninvolved students on the de pendent variable, the first
61 criterion was not established. Moreover, th e second criterion coul d not be established because results revealed that victim s and uninvolved students did not differ on attendance, the mediator. These findings s uggest that attendance does not mediate the relationship between victimization and academic achievement. Furthermore, exploratory regression analyses comparing victims and uni nvolved students on th e first two steps of the model support these findings. Significant findings were found for behavi oral adjustment. Bullies had more discipline problems (referrals and suspensi ons) than victims and uninvolved students during both the initial study peri od and follow-up. This finding is consistent with prior research documenting that bullies had highe r parent ratings for conduct problems, hyperactivity, and total difficultie s, but lower ratings than uninvolved children for prosocial behaviors (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfied, & Karstadt, 2000). Similarly, self-report measures have also indicated a strong rela tionship between bullying and delinquent acts (Perren & Hornung, 2005). Furthermore, longe vity of behavioral misconduct, over the five-year study period, is consis tent with previous findings that aggression and bullying behaviors are related to persistent behavi oral maladjustment (Khatri, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 2000). Furthermore, the current st udy provides insight into the key period between middle school, the most frequen tly researched developmental period, and adulthood. Although previous research has exam ined behavioral adjustment using selfand parent-report measures with students in elementary or middle school (Khatri et al., 2000; Woods & White, 2005) and criminal reco rds have been analyzed for adults (Huesmann et al., 2002; Olweus, 1995), the current study contribu tes to the literature by analyzing school records data, including both discipline re ferrals and suspensions of
62 middle and high school students. By tracki ng students over severa l years during their adolescent years, the relationship between bullying status and academic and behavioral correlates can be better understood. Victimization was also related to be havioral misconduct. Although the mean level of referrals and suspensions was not significantly different from uninvolved students in the initial study year, the mean trend was in the predicted direction. Furthermore, analysis of the four-year follow-up period revealed that victims had significantly more disc ipline referrals and suspensions than uninvolved students, though less than bullies. Most studies have found th at victims are more likely to manifest aggressive and acting-out behavior than st udents uninvolved in bully ing, as indicated by parent and self reports (DeRos ier et al., 1994; Khatri et al ., 2000; Wolke et al., 2000). Only one study with elementary school aged students, failed to demonstrate a link between victimization and behavioral ad justment difficulties (Glew et al., 2005). However, lack of significance in that case ma y be due to the very low base rates of suspensions, the studyÂ’s sole behavioral measure, at that age. The absence of initial findings, but evidence of longitudinal diffe rences for victims on discipline actions suggests that the negative behavioral correlate s of victimization may be additive and only reach threshold over time. In sum, the current study revealed c oncurrent and longer-term academic and behavioral correlates of bullying behaviors. Findings first identified in the original survey year persisted during th e four-year follow-up and revealed that bullies have worse academic and behavioral performance on a ll outcome measures than victims and
63 uninvolved students, whose profiles were sim ilar with the exception of victims receiving more discipline referrals and suspensions during the four-year follow-up period. Bullying Status and Protective Variables Teacher support did not moderate the relationship between bullying status and academic or behavioral correlates in the current study. Although previous research reported a protective effect for teacher s upport on the frequency of bullying behaviors and on self-reported measures of school di stress (Natvig et al., 2001), more objective indicators such as discipli ne referrals were not include d. Thus, while teacher support may be protective against studentsÂ’ negative perception of school experiences, this did not extend to discipline rela ted behaviors in the current study. However, further examination of the current analyses suggests that perceived teacher support may mediate the relationship between vi ctimization and academic performance. Although the interaction among the variables was not signifi cant, there was a significant main effect for studentsÂ’ perceived connection to teach er on academic achievement and discipline actions in both the original survey year and during the follow-up period. Moreover, the significant effect between bully ing status and outcomes disa ppeared in this model (i.e., academic achievement = bullying status + connection to teacher + bullying status*connection to teacher). The possible me diational role of conn ection to teachers on victimization and its deleterious effects is supported by Herrero, Estevez, and Musitu (2006), who found that the association between victimization and psychological distress was mediated by teacher relations. StudentÂ’s report of their level of conn ection to peers did not moderate the relationship between victimization and academic or behavioral correlates. The lack of a
64 significant interaction between victimizati on and connection to peers on attendance, academic achievement and discipline actions may have resulted from methodological limitations. Whereas the current study assesse d participantsÂ’ global relationships with peers (i.e., Â“most students at school like to in clude me in their activitiesÂ”), previous research has focused on the presence and quali ty of close relations hips, which are often characterized by high levels of affection a nd trust (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005; Goldbaum et al., 2003; Hodges et al., 1999 ). For instance, Hodges and colleagues (1999) found that victimsÂ’ psychological dist ress was buffered by the existence of having a mutual best friend. This finding supports the Â“friendship protect ion hypothesisÂ” that having a reciprocal best friendship, which is characterized by low conflict and betrayal, protects against victimiza tion and its detrimental effects (Boulton, Trueman, Ghau, Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999). Family variables did have a present, but weak, moderating influence on bullying involvement and academic and behavioral correl ates. Although research has consistently demonstrated that negative family relations such as high-conflict (Baldry & Farrington, 2005), parental overcontrol (Rigby, Slee & Mart in, 2007), low parental support (Perren & Hornung, 2005), and poor communication (Rigby, 1994) are risk factors for bullying and victimization, less is known about the protective function of families. Family cohesion, which represents the emo tional connection of family members, moderated the relationship between bullying st atus on student attendance duri ng the initial survey year and the four-year follow-up period. Alt hough attendance rates for uninvolved students remained similar as reports of family c ohesion increased, higher attendance rates for victims and bullies were associated with high er levels of family cohesion. This finding
65 indicates that increased levels of cohesi on are selectively asso ciated with better attendance for victims and bullies, whereas additional family support might not be needed for uninvolved students. A review of the items for the cohesion scale on the FACES-II suggests this construct may also re present perceived family support. This finding is consistent with those of Davids on and Demaray (2007) w ho found that parental support buffered the effect of victimization on internalizing distress. In a warm and supportive family environment, victims and bullies may be encouraged to discuss bullying related concerns and benefit from pa rental modeling and problem-solving input. Therefore, victims who identify their family as being cohesive ma y not avoid school out of fear of further victimiza tion because they have the support needed to proceed with their daily activities. The m oderating effects of family cohesion and bullying status did not extend however to academic achievement and discipline actions. Family adaptability, by cont rast, did moderate the relationship between bullying status and academic achievement, but only in th e initial survey year in middle school. At that time, increased perceived family adapta bility was related to higher GPA for victims and, even more so, for uninvolved students. This suggests that families that demonstrate the ability to change power structures, role relationships, and rules in response to stress may be related to improved academic performance for victims and uninvolved students. In the home, victims and uninvolved student s may be practicing and learning critical thinking and problem solving skills, which are important for school success. In contrast, higher levels of perceived family adaptability/f lexibility were related to worse academic achievement for bullies. While at one level puzzling, these results may be explained by
66 the fact that bullies need more highly struct ured families, wherein rules are clearly and firmly established, and pare nts are authoritative. Although family adaptability moderated th e relationship between bullying status and discipline actions during the initial survey year and the follow-up period, the findings were contradictory to expect ations. Although prior research found moderate levels of adaptability is optimum for family func tioning (Olson et al., 1982), the current study found that higher levels of perceived family ad aptability were related to fewer referrals and suspensions for uninvolved students, which demonstrates better behavioral conduct. On the other hand, higher levels of perceive d family adaptability were related to more referrals and suspensions for bullies and vict ims. The dramatic two-fold increase in discipline actions observed for bullies may be re lated to the construct of adaptability. As mentioned, high scores on the adaptability scal e may reflect a less stable family structure where rules and roles are either negotiated or are unclear. If th ere is no clear power hierarchy because of democra tization within the family, bu llies may not have a clear understanding of boundaries, a nd consequences for their ac tions may not be applied. Therefore, increases in family flexibility may be related to incr eases in behavioral misconduct, as measured by referrals and susp ensions, for both bullies and victims. In summary, the moderating influence of school, peer, and family variables were examined to determine whether the negative correlates of bullying and victimization could be buffered. Unfortunate ly, few significant interactions emerged. Family cohesion appeared to buffer the relationship between bu llying status and attendance, with increased perceived cohesion related to in creased attendance. While high levels of adaptability are related to higher GPAs for uninvolved students and victims, high levels of adaptability
67 are related to lower GPAs for bullies. However, increased adaptability was related to more discipline actions for bullies and victims, but not uninvolved students. Adaptability as measured by the FACES II appears to operate more as a risk than protective factor in these families. Limitations Despite its longitudinal design, results of this study should be interpreted with caution since it is not known whether the onset of academic and behavioral difficulties predated bullying involvement. Although participants were classified into bullying categories according to the OlweusÂ’ Bully/V ictim Questionnaire, which is the Â“gold standardÂ” of the field (Glew et al., 2005), several limitations in the assessment of bullying and victimization should be considered. Bullies and victims may be underrepresented in the current study because participants may have been reluctant to classify themselves as such. The inclusion of multiple raters, such as peers and/or teachers, may have provided a more complete picture of peer relations and bullying status because additional raters might diminish informant bias regarding unde sirable behaviors. However, with low agreement between teacher, peer, and self re ports (Totura, Green, Karver, & Gesten; in press), researchers are left in the predicament of determining which reports should be used for bullying classification. Second, the current study did not investigate the academic and behavioral correlates for participan ts classified as bully/victims, a recurring limitation in the bullying liter ature. Although previous re sults have suggested unique characteristics and outcomes for this group, the small number of participants selfidentified as bully/victims precluded their inclusion in the study. Third, assessing bullying involvement at one time period does not provide insight into the stability of
68 bullying and victimization over time. Therefor e, the current study could not determine if academic and behavioral correlates were the result of initial or persistent bullying behaviors. Several limitations involving the sample are worth noting. Participants came from one large southern school district, whic h was mostly Caucasian (77%). Therefore, findings may not apply to et hnically diverse populations. Although the overall sample size was large (original N=1,884, follow-up N= 1,249), there were unequal sample sizes across bullying groups, a consistent finding in the field because of the nature of the phenomenon. The vast majority of the sa mple was comprised of uninvolved students ( n =1,544, n =1,040) and fewer participants were self-identified as bullies ( n =129, n =66) and victims ( n =211, n =143), which is consistent with the nature of the bullying phenomenon. Moreover, unbalanced attrition, w ith more bullies leav ing the system, may have contributed to decreased power. Howe ver, the differential attrition is likely a function of the construct being measured. Pa rticipants classified as bullies, who in general had the most referrals and suspensions, were at the highest risk for school change or drop out. Although differential attrition ma y have decreased power significant results were still observed. The search for protective factors may have been made more challenging by the selection of variables that se rved as predictors in the follow up portion of this study. The Â“connection to peersÂ” factor from the Student Adjustment Scale had low reliability and may have been a less then optimal proxy for fr iendship quality. While previous research investigated the protective e ffect of having a best frie nd and the quality of that relationship, the scale used in the curren t study measured more global peer relations,
69 making it more difficult to find support for a moderating effect of friendship. Second, items on the adaptability scale on the FACE S-II may represent more than a familyÂ’s ability to change in response to stress. Instead, examination of the items and factor loadings revealed that the s cale appears to assess democra tization in the family, which differentially affects bullies and victims from uninvolved students. While the ability to adapt under strain may be a uni versal asset for individuals to possess, too much freedom and uncertainty in family roles, rules, a nd consequences may cont ribute to behavioral misconduct for those at risk for bullying and vi ctimization. Rather, a more hierarchical family structure with authorit ative parenting would be predic ted to moderate the negative correlates of bullying behaviors. Implications The findings from this study have impor tant implications for the design and implementation of bullying prevention and in tervention programs. Results demonstrate distinct academic and behavioral outcomes across bullying categories during the initial survey year and four-year follow-up period. With bullies showing worse academic and behavioral correlates than victims and uninvolved students, specific interventions targeted to educate students at -risk for bullying behaviors and to deter these behaviors are warranted. Furthermore, although many sc hools implement bullying prevention and intervention programs in elementary or mi ddle school, results from the current study revealed that the negative correlates of bu llying should not be overlooked in high school. Therefore, screening for bullying behaviors should occur in high school to determine whether previous interventions were successful or additional interven tions are needed.
70 Bullying interventions should extend beyond the schools. The current study revealed family functioning to play an importa nt, albeit complex, role in the relationship between bullying status and academic and be havioral outcomes. Interventions only targeted to school and peer factors may fall s hort of their in tended effects. Therefore, collaboration between school personnel and fam ilies is the first step in addressing these concerns. Since much of what we learn is taught and modeled at the home, parents should be informed regarding the policies a nd interventions that are being implemented in school. Furthermore, parenting practices and family interactions should be assessed to determine possible areas for intervention. Conclusion and Future Directions Examination of the longer-term correlates of bullying and victimization, as well as investigation into possible protective factors that buffe r against the negative correlates of bullying behaviors, has contributed to a better understand ing of the bullying phenomenon. However, more research is warranted. Longitudinal research, tracking students from school entry to graduation, w ould provide insight into many remaining questions. First, researchers could determ ine whether negative psychological, academic, and behavioral correlates were an antecedent to or consequence of bullying and victimization. Second, these correlates could be examined in terms of persistent or intermittent bullying and victimization to dete rmine whether there is a differential impact of the longevity of bullying behaviors. Fi nally, the use of time series analyses can determine whether the effects of bullying are gr adual and constant, or more variable over time. Understanding the impact of bullying and victimization, as well as its timing, may
71 assist the administration of fr equent screeners, the creation of early prevention programs, and the implementation of time-sensitive interventions. Research is needed to explore a broader range of possible protective factors to better guide the design of prevention and inte rvention programs. Wh ile the current study revealed the important protective function families may serve to mitigate the negative correlates of bullying and vict imization, additional resear ch is needed to identify additional family, school, peer, and community variables that may moderate or mediate the relationship, specifically on academic and behavioral outcomes. For example, further investigation into the Â“frie ndship protection hypothesisÂ” as it relates to studentsÂ’ academic and behavioral adjustment will facilit ate a better understanding of whether or not the implementation of a friendship promoti on intervention will moderate the negative correlates of victimization.
72 References Austin, A. M., & Draper, D. C. (1984). The relationship among peer acceptance, social impact, and academic achievement in middle childhood. American Educational Research Journal, 21 (3), 597-604. Baldry. A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30 343-355. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protecti ve factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. School Psychology of Education, 8, 263-284. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mode rator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, st rategic, and statistic al considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 (6), 701-712. Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K ., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480-484. Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., White hand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 461-466.
73 Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer reje ction as an anteceden t of young childrenÂ’s school adjustment: An examina tion of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37 (4), 550-560. Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22 (3), 364-382. Coggan, C., Bennett, S., Hooper, R., & Dick enson, P. (2003). Association between bullying and mental health status in New Zealand adolescents. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 5, 16-22. Collins, K., Mcleavy, G., & Adamson, G. ( 2004). Bullying in schools: A Northern Ireland study. Educational Research, 46 (1), 55-71. Davidson, L.M. & Demaray, M.K. (2007). So cial support as a moderator between victimization and intern alizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36 (3), 383-405. Dekovic, M. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the development of problem behavior during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28 (6), 667-685. DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., Patters on, C. J. (1994). ChildrenÂ’s academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799-1813. Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74 205-220.
74 Farmer, T. W., Leung, M., Pearl, R., Rodkin, P. C., Cadwallader, T. W., & Van Acker, R. (2002). Deviant or diverse groups? The peer affiliations of aggressive elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (3) 611-620. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Unders tanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice, 17, 381-458. Florida Department of Education. (2004). Assessment and Accountability Briefing Book Retrieved December 2, 2006, from www.firn.edu/doe.sas.fcat.htm. Garmezy, N., & Masten. A. S. (1986). Stre ss, competence, and resilience: Common frontiers for therapis t and psychopathologist. Behavior Therapy, 17, 500-521. Garrett, A. G. (2003). Bullying in American schools. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company, Inc. Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psycho-social adjustment and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatric an d Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026-1031. Glew, G., Rivara, F., & Feudtner, C. ( 2000). Bullying: Children hurting children. Pediatrics in Review, 21 (6), 183-190. Goldbaum, S., Craig, W. M., Pe pler, D. Connolly, J. (2003). De velopmental trajectories of victimization: Identifying risk and protective factors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19 (2), 139-156. Graham, S., Bellmore, A. D., & Mize, J. (2006) Peer victimization, aggression, and their co-occurrence in middle school: Pathways to adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (3), 363-378.
75 Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longit udinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and psychopathology, 14, 69-89. Herrero, J., Estevez, E., & Musitu, G. (2005) The relationships of adolescent schoolrelated deviant behaviour and victimizati on with psychological distress: Testing a general model of the mediational role of parents and teachers across groups of gender and age. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 671-690. Hodges, E. V., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection agai nst an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 94-101. Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2003). A cluste r analytic investigation of victimization among high school students: Are profile s differentially associated with psychological symptoms and school belonging? Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19 (2), 81-98. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Percepti ons of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13 5-16. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L., & Dubow, E. F. (2002). Childhood predictors of adult criminality: Are all risk factors reflected in childhood aggressiveness? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, 185-208. Ivarsson, T., Broberg, A. G., Arvidsson, T., & Gillberg, C. (2005). Bullying in adolescence: Psychiatric problems in vi ctims and bullies as measured by the youth self report (YSR) and the depr ession self-rati ng scale (DSRS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59 (5), 365-373.
76 Jantizer, A. M., Hoover, J. H., & Narloch, R. (2006) The relationship between schoolaged bullying and trust, shyness and quality of fr iendships in young adulthood. School Psychology, 27 (2), 146-156. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Exam ining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540-550. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. ( 2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 349-359. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying at school Â– an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661-674. Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. (2000). Aggression and peer victimization as predictors of self -reported behavioral and emotional adjustment. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 345-358. Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y. J., Hubbard, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: Causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 1035-1041. Kochenderfer, B, J. & Ladd, G. W. (1996a). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317. Kochenderfer, B, J. & Ladd, G. W. (1996b). P eer Victimization: Manifestations and Relations to School Adjustment in Kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 34 (3), 267-283.
77 Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Pred icting bullying and vi ctimization among early adolescents: Associations w ith disruptive behavior disorder. Aggressive Behaivor, 30, 520-533. Kumpulainen, K., & Rasanen, E. (2000). Child ren involved in bullying at elementary school age: Their psychiatric sympto ms and deviance in adolescence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24 (12), 1567-1577. Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22. Ma, X. (2002). Bullying in middle school: Indi vidual and school characteristics of victims and offenders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13 (1), 6389. Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444. Mayer, G. R., Ybarra, W. J., & Fogliatti, H. (2001). Addressing bullying in schools. Safe Schools Center. Retrieved from http://www.berkeleypta.org. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (16), 2094-2100. Natvig, G. K., Alberktsen, G., & Qvanstrom, U. (2001). School-related stress experience as a risk factor for bullying behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30 (5), 561-575.
78 Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of martial and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69-83. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basi c facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 11711190. Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying of peer abus e at school: Facts and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4 (6), 196-200. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. OÂ’Moore, M., & Kikham, C. (2001). Self es teem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27 (4), 269-283. Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2006). Bullyi ng prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social comp etence. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Ostrov, J. M., Crick, N. R., & Stauffacher, K. (2006). Relational aggres sion in sibling and peer relationships during early childhood. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 241-253. Paul. J. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2003). Dyna mics of peer victimization in early adolescence: Results from a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19 (2), 25-43.
79 Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19 (2), 165-176. Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 216-224. Perren, S. & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and Delinquency in Adolescents: VictimsÂ’ and perpetratorsÂ’ family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 5164. Radloff, L. S. (1977). A CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48 (9), 583590. Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent schoolchildren involved in bully/victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying am ong Australian school children: Reported behaviors and attitudes towards victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131 (5), 615-627. Rigby, K., Slee, P.T., & Martin, G. (2007). Imp lications of inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental health. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 801-812. Roberts, W. (2000). The bully as victim: Unde rstanding bully behaviors to increase the effectiveness ofÂ… Professional School Counseling, 4 (2), 148-155.
80 Roland, E. (2002). Bullying, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research, 44 (1), 55-67. Santa Lucia, R. C. (2004). Connections coun t: Understanding gender and race differences in school-based problem behavior duri ng adolescence. (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of South Florida). Santa Lucia, R. C. & Gesten, E. L. (2000). Adjustment across the middle school transition: Gender and race considerations. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington. D.C. Schafer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Singer, M. M., & van der Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 379-394. Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims a nd aggressors in childrenÂ’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28 (2), 181-192. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boysÂ’ play groups. Child Development, 64 (6), 1755-1772. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bate s, J. E. (1997). The ear ly socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68 (4), 665-675. Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and childrenÂ’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 425-435. Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victim ization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicit y, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38 (152), 735-747.
81 Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 81-88. Siann, G., Callaghan, M., Glissov, P., Loc khart, R., & Rawson, L. (1994). Who gets bullied? The effect of sc hool, gender and ethnic group. Educational Research, 36 (2), 123-134. Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational a nd interpersonal correla tes of anxiety associated with peer victimization. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25 (2), 97-107. Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullyi ng: Recent developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9 (3), 98-103. Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz K. H. (2003). Bu llying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27 (2), 101-110. Solberg, M. E. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalen ce estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268. Sourander, A., Elonheimo, H., Niem ela, S., Nuutila, A., Helenius, H., Sillansmaki, L., et al. (2006). Childhood predictors of male criminality: A prospective populationbased follow-up study from age 8 to late adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45 (5), 578-586. Spielberger, C. D. (1973). Preliminary test manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory for children. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Totura, C. M. (2003). Bullying and victim ization in middle school: The role of individual characteristics, family f unctioning and school contexts (MasterÂ’s Thesis, University of South Florida, 2003)
82 Totura, C. M. (2005). Victimization and academ ic achievement at school: The role of psychosocial mediators and moderators (Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, 2005). Totura, C. M. Wienke, Green, A., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (in press). Multiple informants in the assessment of ps ychological, behavioral, and academic correlates of bullying and victimization. Journal of Adolescence. Totura, C. M. Wienke, MacKinnon-Lewis, C ., Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R., Divine, K. P., Dunham, S., & Kamboukos, D. (in press) Bullying and victimization among boys and girls in middle school: The influe nce of family and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence. Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., and Kars tadt, L. (2000). The association between direct and relational bullying and beha viour problems among primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 (8), 989-1002. Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., & Schulz, H. (2001). Bullying a nd victimization of primary school children in England and Ge rmany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 673-696. Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct a nd relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 135-155. Yang, S., Kim, J., Kim, S., Shin, I., & J, Y. (2006). Bullying and victimization behaviors in boys and girls at Sout h Korean primary schools. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45 (1), 69-77.
84 Appendix A: Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire You will find questions about your life in school There are several answers next to each question. Each answer has a number by it. Dark en in the circle on the scantron form that matches the answer that best describes you for each statement. Here are some questions about being bullied by other students. First, we define or explain the word bullying. We say a student is bei ng bullied when another student, or several other students: Say mean and hurtful things or make fun of him or her or call him or her hurtful names Completely ignore or exclude him or her from their gr oup of friends or leave him or her out of things on purpose Hit, kick, push, shove around, or lock him or her inside a room Tell lies or spread false rumors about hi m or her or send mean notes and try to make other students dislike him or her And other hurtful things lik e that, including be ing teased in a mean and hurtful way. When we talk about bullying, these things ha ppen repeatedly, and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend himself or hers elf. Note that we also call it bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But, we donÂ’t call it bullying when the teasi ng is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not bullying when students of a bout equal strength or power argue or fight. ABOUT BEING BULLLIED BY OTHER STUDENTS Have you been bullied at school in the past couple of months in one or more of the following ways? Please answer all of the questions: I havenÂ’t It has only 2 or 3 About once Several been bullied happened times a a week times a in the past once or month week couple of twice months 1. How often have you 1 2 3 4 5 been bullied at school in the past couple of months? 2. I was called mean names, 1 2 3 4 5 was made fun of, or teased in a hurtful way.
85 Appendix A (Continued) 3. I was hit, kicked, pushed, 1 2 3 4 5 shoved around, or locked indoors. 4. Other students told lies 1 2 3 4 5 or spread false rumors about me and tried to make others dislike me 5. I had money or other 1 2 3 4 5 things taken away from me or damaged 6. I was threatened or 1 2 3 4 5 forced to do things I didnÂ’t want to do 7. I was bullied with mean 1 2 3 4 5 names or comments about my race or color. 8. I was bullied with mean 1 2 3 4 5 names, comments, or gestures with a sexual meaning 9. I was bullied in another 1 2 3 4 5 way. In this case, please write where:_______________ 10. In which classes is the stude nt or students who bully you? I havenÂ’t been In my class In a different In a higher In a lower In different bullied in the class but same grade grade grades last couple of grade months 1 2 3 4 5 6
86 Appendix A (Continued) 11. Have you been bullied by boys or girls? I havenÂ’t been Mainly by one By several Mainly by one By several By both boys bullied in the girl girls boy boys and girls last couple of months 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. By how many students have you usually been bullied? I havenÂ’t been Mainly by one By a group of By a group of By a group of By several bullied in the student 2-3 students 4-9 students more than 9 different last couple of students months of groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. How long has the bullying lasted? I havenÂ’t been Mainly by one By a group of By a group of By a group of By several bullied in the student 2-3 students 4-9 students more than 9 different last couple of students stud ents of months groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Where have you been bullied? I havenÂ’t been bullied in I have been bullied in one The last couple of months or more of the following places in the past couple of months 1 2 Continue here if you have been bul lied in the past couple of months: Have you been bullied: No Yes 14a. on the playground/athletic field (during recess or brea k times)? 1 2 14b. in the hallways/stairwells? 1 2 14c. in class (with the teacher pr esent)? 1 2 14d. in the classroom (without the teacher present)? 1 2 14e. in the bathroom? 1 2
87 Appendix A (Continued) 14f. in gym class or the gym locker room/shower? 1 2 14g. in the lunch room? 1 2 14h. on the way to and from school? 1 2 14i. at the school bus stop? 1 2 14j. on the school bus? 1 2 14k. somewhere else in school? 1 2 In this case, please write where:________________________________ I havenÂ’t been I have been I have been bullied in the bullied but I bullied and last couple of have not told have told months (skip anyone (skip somebody the next 6 the next 6 questions) questions) 15. Have you told anyone that you have been bullied at school in the 1 2 3 past couple of months? Have you told (that you have been bullied): No Yes 15a. your class (homeroom) teacher? 1 2 15b. another adult at school (a di fferent teacher, the 1 2 principle, the school nurse, the custodian, the school psychologist, etc.)? 15c. your parents/guardians? 1 2 15d. your brothers or sisters? 1 2 15e. your friends? 1 2 15f. somebody else? 1 2 In this case, please write who:____________________________
88 Appendix A (Continued) Almost Once in SomeOften Almost Never a while times Always 16. How often do the teachers or other adults try to put a stop 1 2 3 4 5 to it when a student is being bullied at school? 17. How often do other students 1 2 3 4 5 try to put a stop to it when a student is being bullied at school? I havenÂ’t No, they Yes, they Yes they been bullied havenÂ’t have have in the last contacted contacted contacted couple of the school the school the school months once sev eral times 18. Has any adult at home contacted the school to 1 2 3 4 try to stop your being bullied at school in the past couple of months? That is I donÂ’t feel I feel a bit I feel sorry probably much sorry for for him or what he him or her her and or she want to help deserves him or her 19. When you see a student your age being bullied at school, what do you feel or think? 1 2 3 4
89 Appendix A (Continued) ABOUT BULLYING OTHER STUDENTS I havenÂ’t It has only 2 or 3 About once Several bullied happened times a a week times a another once or month we ek student(s) twice in the past couple of months 20. How often have you taken part in bullying 1 2 3 4 5 another student(s) at school in the past couple of months? Have you bullied another student(s) at school in the past couple of months in one or more of the following ways? Please an swer all of the questions/ I havenÂ’t It has only 2 or 3 About once Several bullied happened times a a week times a another once or month we ek student(s) twice in the past couple of months 21. I called another student mean names, made fun 1 2 3 4 5 of or teased him or her in a hurtful way 22. I kept him or her out of things on purpose, excluded him or her from 1 2 3 4 5 their group of friends, or completely ignored him or her 23. I hit, kicked, pushed shoved him or her 1 2 3 4 5 around or locked him or her indoors. 24. I spread false rumors about him or her and 1 2 3 4 5 tried to make others dislike him or her.
90 Appendix A (Continued) 25. I took money or other things from him or her 1 2 3 4 5 or damaged his or her belongings. 26. I threatened or forced him or her to do things 1 2 3 4 5 he or she didnÂ’t want to do. 27. I bullied him or her with mean names or comments 1 2 3 4 5 about his or her race or color. 28. I bullied him or her with mean names, comments, 1 2 3 4 5 or gestures with a sexual meaning. 29. I bullied him or her in another way. 1 2 3 4 5 In this case, please write That way:________________ I havenÂ’t No, they Yes, they Yes, they bullied other havenÂ’t have talked have talked students(s) talked with with me with me about at school me about it about it it several times in the past once couple of months 30. Has your class (homeroom) teacher talked with you about your bullying other 1 2 3 4 students at school in the past couple of months? 31. Has any adult at home talked with you about your bullying 1 2 3 4 other students at school in the past couple of months?
91 Appendix A (Continued) Yes Yes, I donÂ’t No, I No Definitely Maybe Know donÂ’t No think so 32. Do you think you could join in bullying a student whom 1 2 3 4 5 6 you didnÂ’t like? I have never I take I donÂ’t do I just I donÂ’t do I try to noticed that part in anything watch anything help the students my the but I what but I bullie d age are bullying think the goes on think I student bullied bullying ought to in one Is OK help the way or bullied another student 33. How do you usually react if you see or 1 2 3 4 5 6 understand that a student your age is being bullied by other students? Never Seldom SomeFairly Often Very Time often often 34. How often are you afraid of being bullied by other 1 2 3 4 5 6 students in your school? Little Fairly SomeA good Much or little what deal Nothing 35. Overall, how much do you think your class teacher has done to counteract 1 2 3 4 5 bullying in the past couple of months?
92 Appendix B: Student Adjustment Survey Directions: Read each sentence carefully and darken the circle on the scantron form for the number that sounds most like you for each statement. Strongly Disagree Disagree I donÂ’t know Agree Strongly Agree 1. Students usually get along well with each other in this school 1 2 3 4 5 2. Making friends is very difficult in this school* 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am in the wrong group to feel a part of this school 1 2 3 4 5 4. A student can be himself/herself and still be accepted by other students in this school* 1 2 3 4 5 5. Most students at school like to include me in their activities* 1 2 3 4 5 6. I always seem to be left out of important school activities* 1 2 3 4 5 7. I think my teachers care about me+ 1 2 3 4 5 8. Teachers are not usually available before class to talk with students 1 2 3 4 5 9. My teachers often get to know me well+ 1 2 3 4 5 10. Most teachers like my friends and me+ 1 2 3 4 5 11. I care what most of my teachers think about me+ 1 2 3 4 5 12. Some teachers would choose me as one of their favorite students+ 1 2 3 4 5 13. I like school 1 2 3 4 5 14. My teachers donÂ’t pay much attention to me 1 2 3 4 5 15. I get a lot of encouragement at my school 1 2 3 4 5 16. Other kids in my class have more friends than I do* 1 2 3 4 5 17. I feel a sense of school spirit 1 2 3 4 5 18. I donÂ’t feel safe at this school 1 2 3 4 5 19. I have friends who are of different racial and ethnic backgrounds at this school 1 2 3 4 5 20. Discipline is fair at this school 1 2 3 4 5
93 Appendix B (Continued) Strongly Disagree Disagree I donÂ’t know Agree Strongly Agree 21. I feel like I am learning a lot at school 1 2 3 4 5 22. School is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 23. I believe I am learning important things in school 1 2 3 4 5 24. I liked school more last year than I do this year 1 2 3 4 5 25. I feel that I can go to my teacher for advise or help with schoolwork+ 1 2 3 4 5 26. I feel that I can go to my teacher for advise or help with non-school related problems+ 1 2 3 4 5 27. Most of my teachers donÂ’t expect very good work from me 1 2 3 4 5 28. I donÂ’t care how well I do in school 1 2 3 4 5 29. I try as hard as I can to do my best at school 1 2 3 4 5 30. I am an important member of this school 1 2 3 4 5 31. It bothers me when I donÂ’t do something well 1 2 3 4 5 32. Education is important for success in life 1 2 3 4 5 33. I feel prepared for middle school 1 2 3 4 5 34. I think I will go to college 1 2 3 4 5 Note: indicates items on the Connection to Peers subscale. + indicates items on the Connection to Teachers subscale
94 Appendix C: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II Directions: Describe your family. How ofte n does each behavior happen in your family according to the following scale? Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always 1. Family members are supportive of each other* 1 2 3 4 5 2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion 1 2 3 4 5 3. It is easier to discuss problem with people outside the family than with other family members* 1 2 3 4 5 4. Each family member has input in major family decisions 1 2 3 4 5 5. Out family gathers together in the same room* 1 2 3 4 5 6. Children have a say in their discipline 1 2 3 4 5 7. Our family does things together* 1 2 3 4 5 8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions 1 2 3 4 5 9. In our family, everyone goes his/her own way* 1 2 3 4 5 10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person 1 2 3 4 5 11. Family members know each otherÂ’s close friends* 1 2 3 4 5 12. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family 1 2 3 4 5 13. Family members consult other family members on their decisions* 1 2 3 4 5 14. Family members say what they want 1 2 3 4 5 15. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family* 1 2 3 4 5 16. In solving problems, the childrenÂ’s suggestions are followed 1 2 3 4 5
95 Appendix C (Continued) Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always 17. Family members feel very close to each other* 1 2 3 4 5 18. Discipline is fair in our family 1 2 3 4 5 19. Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to other family members* 1 2 3 4 5 20. Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems 1 2 3 4 5 21. Family members go along with what the family decides to do* 1 2 3 4 5 22. In our family, everyone shares responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 23. Family members like to spend their free time with each other* 1 2 3 4 5 24. It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family 1 2 3 4 5 25. Family members avoid each other at home* 1 2 3 4 5 26. When problems arise, we compromise 1 2 3 4 5 27. We approve of each otherÂ’s friends* 1 2 3 4 5 28. Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds 1 2 3 4 5 29. Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family* 1 2 3 4 5 30. Family members share interests and hobbies with each other* 1 2 3 4 5 Note: indicates items on the Cohesion subscale, the Adaptability subscale consists of all other items.
96 Appendix D: Comparison across Gro ups on Measures of Adjustment Two scales from the initial 2003 survey we re selected to assess group differences on measures of adjustment. The State/Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children-Trait Anxiety (STAIC) is a 20-item self-report measur e of anxiety (Spielberger, 1973). The questionnaire is comprised of two twenty-ite m scales: State and Trait anxiety. The Trait anxiety scale, which measures consistent and cross-situational levels of anxiety, was used for analyses (Â“I worry too much,Â” Cronbach al pha = .93). The second scale that was used to assess group differences on adjustment was the Center for Epidemiological StudiesDepression Scale (CES-D), which is a 20-item se lf-report measure of depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977). The questionna ire has demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach alpha = .81) and included items such as, Â“I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family and fr iends,Â” Â“I felt lonelyÂ” and Â“I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.Â” On both scales, average scores were calculated and range from 0-5, with higher sc ores indicating maladjustment.
97 Appendix D (Continued) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children Directions: A number of statements that boys and girls use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement carefully a nd decide if it is hardly ever, sometimes, or often true for your. Then darken the scan tron circle with the same number as the statement that descries you best. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Remember to darken the circle for each statement that best describes how you usually feel. Hardly Ever Sometimes Often 1. I worry about making mistakes 1 2 3 2. I feel like crying 1 2 3 3. I feel unhappy 1 2 3 4. I have trouble making up my mind 1 2 3 5. It is difficult for me to face my problems 1 2 3 6. I worry too much 1 2 3 7. I get upset at home 1 2 3 8. I am shy 1 2 3 9. I feel troubled 1 2 3 10. Unimportant thoughts run through my mind and bother me 1 2 3 11. I worry about school 1 2 3 12. I have trouble deciding what to do 1 2 3 13. I notice my heart beats fast 1 2 3 14. I am secretly afraid 1 2 3 15. I worry about my parents 1 2 3 16. My hands get sweaty 1 2 3 17. I worry about things that may happen 1 2 3 18. It is hard for me to fall asleep at night 1 2 3 19. I get a funny feeling in my stomach 1 2 3 20. I worry about what others think of me 1 2 3
98 Appendix D (Continued) Center for Epidemiological Studies Â– Depression Scale Directions: For each statement below, darken in the circle on the scantron form for the number that best describes how often you felt or behaved this way for each of the following statements during the past week. Rarely or none of the time (Less than 1 day) Some or a little of the time (1-2 days) Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) Most or all of the time (5-7 days) 1. I was bothered by things that usually donÂ’t bother me 0 1 2 3 2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor 0 1 2 3 3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends 0 1 2 3 4. I felt that I was just as good as other people 0 1 2 3 5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing 0 1 2 3 6. I felt depressed 0 1 2 3 7. I felt that everything I did was an effort 0 1 2 3 8. I felt hopeful about the future 0 1 2 3 9. I thought my life had been a failure 0 1 2 3 10. I felt fearful 0 1 2 3 11. My sleep was restless 0 1 2 3 12. I was happy 0 1 2 3 13. I talked less than usual 0 1 2 3 14. I felt lonely 0 1 2 3 15. People were unfriendly 0 1 2 3 16. I enjoyed life 0 1 2 3 17. I had crying spells 0 1 2 3 18. I felt sad 0 1 2 3 19. I felt that people disliked me 0 1 2 3 20. I could not get Â“goingÂ” 0 1 2 3
99 Appendix D (Continued) ANOVA Results Examining the Relationship Betw een Bullying Status and Adjustment for Original and Follow-Up Sample Bully Victim Uninvolved F P value+ Anxiety 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1.68 (.46) a 1.67 (.45) a1.94 (.49) b 1.90 (.49) b1.59 (.43) a 1.57 (.41) a59.72 38.72 <.01 <.01 Depression 2003 Sample 2004-2007 Sample 1.17 (.32) a 1.16 (.32)a 1.38 (.35)b 1.38 (.34)b 1.20 (.29) a 1.12 (.28) a36.63 25.94 <.01 <.01 Note: Mean (standard deviations), Ns vary because of missing data. +P Value calculated by conducting ANOVAs to exam ine group differences with follow-up Tukey post hoc tests. Significant differences are reflected by different superscripts in the same row
100 Appendix D (Continued) T-Test Results Examining the Eff ects of Attrition on Adjustment Participants Who Stayed Participants Who Left T P Anxiety 1.61 (.44)1.67 (.47)-2.81 <.01 Depression 1.22 (.30)1.22 (.32).03 .98 Note: Mean (standard deviations). Ns vary because of missing data.
101 Appendix E: Exploratory Gender Analyses Two-Way ANOVA Results Examining the Relationship Between Bull ying Status, Gender and Outcomes for the Original (N=1884) and Follow-up Sample (N=1249) Gender Bullying Status Two-Way ANOVA Results Males Females Bullies Victims Uninvolved Status F Gender F Status* Gender F Attendance 2003 2004-2007 93.88 (5.77) 95.48 (3.64) 93.90 (5.53) 94.42 (4.43) 93.61 (5.31) 93.61 (4.70) a 93.84 (7.06) 95.21 (4.20) b 93.92 (5.45) 94.97 (4.04) b .17 4.72** .00 14.39** .12 1.49 GPA 2003 2004-2007 2.63 (.94) 2.67 (.72) 2.97 (.80) 2.88 (.64) 2.28(.94) a 2.39 (.65)a 2.80 (.92) b 2.70 (.77)b 2.85 (.87) b 2.82 (.67) b 23.02** 13.16** 16.94** .57 .69 3.24* Referrals 2003 2004-2007 1.65 (3.22) 5.65 (9.29) .72 (2.04) 3.52 (7.14) 3.26 (4.86) 11.24 (12.53) a 1.32 (3.26) 6.01 (11.98 ) b .97 (2.29) 3.91 (7.06)c 35.41** 26.93** 36.09** .37 4.84** 1.87 Suspensions 2003 2004-2007 .92 (1.97) 3.22 (5.81) .40 (1.30) 2.01 (4.53) 1.78 (2.89) a 6.82 (8.26) a .73 (1.80) b 3.34 (7.06) b .54 (1.48) b 2.22 (4.50) c 27.21** 26.13** 27.50** .26 3.04** 1.63 Note : p < .05; **p < .01.
102 Appendix F: Exploratory Followup Analyses Controlling for Initial Values on Outcomes Note: (F=fixed factor, C=covariate) ANCOVA Results for the Relationship between Bullying Status and Follow-Up Outcomes Controlling Initial Scores on Attendance, Academ ic Achievement and Discipline Actions in 2003 Variable Source DF MS F P Attendance 2004-2007 Status (F)275.87 6.46 <.01 Attendance 2003 (C)16300.45 536.80 <.01 Error124511.74 GPA 2004-2007 Status (F)2.66 3.10 <.05 GPA 2003 (C)1306.23 1428.39 <.01 Error266.91.21 Referrals 2004-2007 Status (F)1501.37 10.81 <.01 Referrals 2003 (C)27126.72 153.55 <.01 Error124412.08 Suspensions 2004-2007 Status (F)1218.61 11.14 <.01 Suspensions 2003 (C)220.45 1.04 .31 Error1244
103 ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variables on Follow-up Outcomes Controlling for Initial Scores o n Attendance and Academic Achievement in 2003 Variable Source DF MS F P Attendance 2004-2007Status (F) 2.0032.18.11 Attendance 2003(C) 1.17142.43<.01 Connection to Teacher (C) 1.000.04.85 Connection to Peers (C) 1.001.61.43 Family Cohesion (C) 1.018.18<.01 Family Adaptability (C) 1.015.24<.05 Status*Connection to Teacher (I) 2.001.94.39 Status*Connection to Peers (I) 2.001.72.49 Status*Family Cohesion (I) 2.0032.47.09 Status*Family Adaptability (I) 2.0021.46.23 GPA 2004-2007Status (F) 2.01.03.97 GPA 2003(C) 160.17281.74<.01 Connection to Teacher (C) 18.104.22.168 Connection to Peers (C) 1.03.14.71 Family Cohesion (C) 1.522.45.12 Family Adaptability (C) 22.214.171.124 Status*Connection to Teacher (I) 2.01.06.95 Status*Connection to Peers (I) 126.96.36.199 Status*Family Cohesion (I) 188.8.131.52 Status*Family Adaptability (I) 2.07.32.72 Note: (F = fixed factor, C = covariate, I = interaction) Appendix F (Continued)
104 Appendix F (Continued) Note: (F = fixed factor, C = covariate, I = interaction) ANCOVA Results for the Moderation Effects of School and Family Variables on Follow-up Outcomes Controlling for Initial Levels o f Discipline Action in 2003 Variable Source DF MS F P Discipline Referrals 2004-2007Status (F) 2109.352.45.09 Referrals 2003(C) 118236.91407.84<.01 Connection to Teacher (C) 1197.094.41<.05 Connection to Peers (C) 1.96.02.88 Family Cohesion (C) 116.00.36.55 Family Adaptability (C) 1251.985.64<.05 Status*Connection to Teacher (I) 2106.232.38.09 Status*Connection to Peers (I) 184.108.40.206 Status*Family Cohesion (I) 220.127.116.11 Status*Family Adaptability (I) 2204.204.57<.05 Suspensions 2004-2007Status (F) 244.942.25.11 Suspensions 2003(C) 15295.41265.47<.01 Connection to Teacher (C) 193.644.69<.05 Connection to Peers (C) 1.001.000.99 Family Cohesion (C) 143.952.20.14 Family Adaptability (C) 1197.379.90<.01 Status*Connection to Teacher (I) 252.642.64.07 Status*Connection to Peers (I) 18.104.22.168 Status*Family Cohesion (I) 22.214.171.124 Status*Family Adaptability (I) 2121.436.09<.01
105 Appendix F (Continued) A series of one-way between groups Analys is of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted using the 2004-2007 follow-up sample to determ ine whether the relationship between bullying status and school outcomes (ie. attendance, acad emic achievement and discipline actions) was maintained when controlling for initial values on those measures. Results revealed that significant group differences remained on attendance ( F (2, 1245)=6.46, p <.01), GPA ( F (2, 1245)=3.10, p <.05), referrals ( F (2, 1245)=10.81, p <.01) and suspensions ( F (2, 1245)=11.14, p <.01) when controlling for 2003 values. Post hoc tests revealed that bullies consistently demonstrated poor attendance, achievement and behavioral conduct when compared to victims and uninvolved students. There were no diffe rences been victim and uninvolved student profiles. A series of one-way ANCOVAs were conduc ted using the 2004-2007 follow-up sample to determine whether peer, family and school variables mitigated the relationship between bullying status and academic and behavioral outcomes when controlling for initial values on attendance, GPA and discipline actions. Results revealed that family adaptability remained a moderating influence on bullying status and di scipline actions, including total referrals ( F (2, 1231)=4.57, p <.05) and total suspensions ( F (2, 1231)=6.09, p <.01). However after controlling for initial rates of attendance in 2003, family cohesion no longer moderated the relationship between bullying status and rate of attendance for the follow-up sample ( F (2, 1231)=6.46, p >09).
106 Appendix G: Summary Table for Original and Follow-up Analyses Note : Dark shadings indicate p <.01 and light shadings indicate p <.05. Tukey post-hoc comparisons are reported for outcomes. Original Sample 2003 Post Hoc Comparisons Follow-up Sample 2004-2007 Post Hoc Comparisons Outcome Variables B V U B V U Attendance Academic Achievement FCAT Math FCAT Reading GPA Discipline Actions Referrals Suspensions Moderator Variables Connection to Peer x Attendance x GPA x Referrals x Suspensions Connection to Teacher x Attendance x GPA x Referrals x Suspensions Family Cohesion x Attendance x GPA x Referrals x Suspensions Family Adaptability x Attendance x GPA x Referrals x Suspensions