Archive - Page 2 of 5 - Journal of Bullying & Social Aggression

Sep 13

Battling the Bullies: A Text Analysis of Student Interventions at University

Filed under Bullying, Higher Education
September 13, 2018

Thomas Mueller

McKenzi Wallin

Appalachian State University

Battling the Bullies: A Text Analysis of Student Interventions at University

Abstract

An unfortunate, yet prevalent peril at University is the role of peer association and bullying. Research indicates that often, bullying occurs within a social context (O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). This study used linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) text analysis to explore university students’ perception of bullying intervention through essay writing. Student subjects lived in the same residence learning community (RLC) and were enrolled in the same first year seminar (FYS). It was hypothesized problem solving and bullying resolution would significantly differ before and after the course was completed. Pretest, students exhibited traits identified in the variables “Clout” and “Tone.” In posttest, students exhibited dominant traits “Authentic” and “Tone.” It is suggested social identity among student residents is a constant. Students initially intervened with bravado and confidence. Knowledge gained throughout the FYS course, and within the RLC, led to increased strategic thinking, then transparency, in better understanding the core dysfunction in the bullying persona.

Keywords: Text analysis, Residence Learning Community, First Year Seminar, “Luke,” LIWC, student leadership, linguistic inquiry and word count.

Introduction

An unfortunate, yet prevalent peril at University is the role of peer association and bullying. Research indicates that often, bullying occurs within a social context (O’Connell et al., 1999). As the reach of social interaction increases, there is potential for a systematic process that leads to bullying episodes. The university setting has become endangered and for many students, deemed “unsafe” in both emotional and physical terms. It has become imperative for university administrators and counselors to better understand the dynamics of bullying and the social protocol that Drives it.

The U.S. Department of Education and the Centers for Disease Control released a research based definition of bullying. It summarized “bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm (Gladden, Vivolo-Cantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014).”

Farrington (1993) identified bullying as an act between perpetrators and recipients, one which is Driven by a power differential and imposed negative actions. Bullying may be verbal or physical, in some instances repeated over time. Craig (1998) supported that posit through research that indicates male bullying is predominantly physical at the 5th grade level, but transitions to verbal aggression by the 8th grade. For female respondents, it was documented differences in aggression did not occur until the latter years. When there is peer association, bullying can assume an indirect form. Bullying can include acts of exclusion for targeted individuals, or social framing that includes perpetuating rumors or propagating gossip (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1998).

Although it is documented bullying occurs within many social settings, it is difficult to control (Kyriacou, Mylonakou-Keke, & Stephens, 2016). Among students, bullying is a major problem in schools, yet not well managed by administration officials. It is a complex issue. The study relates that although there is consensus bullying is prevalent, there are alternative views on how to best manage and alleviate this deviant behavior.

Garland, Policastro, Richards, and Miller (2017) stated that while most students are proactive in their defense against bullying, there was a faction that employed victim blaming. This group consisted of males, heterosexuals, and a grade school and high school history of bullying. Students who used illegal drugs or frequent alcohol use were also prone to minimize bullying. Bullying is an issue without boundaries, where counseling and courses specific to the topic are now being developed to support abused students (Webber, 2017).

Now, in the digital age, cyber-bullying has become a frequent form of libelous and slanderous attack. In a study with 226 Greek students, almost one third indicated a bullying assault each month. Male students indicated a greater level of bully events, related to females in the study (Kokkinos, Baltzidis, & Xynogala, 2016).

If bullies exist within educational environments, who are the “bully stoppers?” Who are the protectors who bring interventions to disengage the perpetrators from their actions? In a university setting, future leaders have been developed through First Year Seminars (FYS), which are known as foundational in students’ successful college experience (Gardner, 1986). These specific academic curriculums are most commonly part of general education requirements and tend to be interdisciplinary. FYS focus on honing academic skills such as critical thinking and expository writing (Barefoot & Fidler, 1992). They focus on a variety of topics, or can be associated in content for a specified discipline or profession. Some institutions require a basic study skills FYS, which is offered to prepare students for the rigors they will face throughout their college careers. Topics tend to include grammar, how to take notes, efficient text reading, and proper research techniques (Barefoot & Fidler, 1992). Common learning outcomes for FYS courses include identity within a peer group, student and faculty bonding within the seminar course, and education on specific skills associated with success in college (Murphy, 1989).

First Year Seminars increase meaningful connections with faculty and staff, prompt higher engagement with campus services, increase involvement in activities, and lead to greater satisfaction (Barefoot, Warnock, Dickinson, Richardson, & Roberts, 1998). Prompting cognitive process regarding the construct of bullying can build future leaders who can campaign against bullies and break the recurrent bullying process. Students in this study were housed in a Residential Learning Community (RLC) associated with the course. RLC’s house a predominant population of first year students, brought together through either academic or lifestyle associations (Kuh & Vesper, 1997). Advantages to students in RLC communities include planned programming, academic themes, and focus on student-specific needs. Research indicates students who are housed in residential communities are exposed to productive educational experiences. In many cases, RLC students track through university with a notably higher GPA. Pike (1999) concluded involvement, interaction, integration and intellectual development were significantly higher (over a control group) for students housed in residential communities.

An emerging advantage to the RLC lifestyle is a diverse community (Aber et al., 2010). Engaging others from diverse ethnic backgrounds has become an enriching experience within these dedicated housing communities. Students and faculty within RLCs believed critically analyzing and addressing racial inequality would extend beyond residence life and graduation. Ellett and Schmidt (2011) found that faculty identified the need for equality and sustained interactions in community building. Dialog that holds a meaningful context, coupled with shared experiences, was part of successful relationships. This move towards social justice may be related to a sense of identity within the RLC (Spanierman et al., 2013).

This study examines bullying intervention, as perceived by university students enrolled in a First Year Seminar (FYS) and residing in a RLC. Students were prompted to provide a problem-solving response to a specific bullying scenario at the beginning of the course (pretest) and once again as the course concluded (posttest). Each essay was converted into quantifiable data using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software.

Based on our knowledge, LIWC has not been applied to the construct of bullying. Published academic literature on bullying is sometimes quantitative, conducted through surveys and data collection. Other published studies are qualitative in nature, using interviews or focus groups to discern general themes. This study presents a “hybrid” that collected qualitative input to capture expression, then transitioned to quantitative analysis through LIWC. Statistical testing was used to identify the motivators of bully-stopping, testing for dissimilarities as university Freshman mature through their first semester.

It was important to consider the nature of leadership related to bullying resolution, as well as characteristics exhibited by which those with leadership qualities. Scholars have defined leadership as the ability to impart interactive influence, within a set context, where individuals accept someone as leader, to reach common goals (Silva, 2016). Specific to this study, Kouzes and Posner (1993) defined student leaders as those who challenge the current process; empower others to act; set an example by modeling behaviors; develop a shared vision; and support the affective response in others through encouraging psychological well-being as part of the process.

History and relevance of LIWC

LIWC (referred to as “Luke”) was developed in the mid 1980’s, originally intended as a simple word search and categorizing software. It has steadily evolved over decades of psychological research and technological advancement, and now serves as a fluid and ever-changing tool used for the reliable prediction of linguistic inquiry (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). The concept of linguistic inquiry as an insight as to one’s beliefs, fears, thinking patterns, social relationships and personalities have long been established. Therefore, LIWC serves as a modern technological platform for which to efficiently analyze a person’s psychological or behavioral status: priorities, intentions, and thoughts, degree, valence, and expression of emotion, status of social relationships, status, dominance, and social hierarchy, social coordination and group processes, honesty and deception, thinking styles, and individual differences (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015). “Luke” tabulates frequency of word use and word associations, then categorizes responses into psychological and social variables. Prior studies have documented the importance of using LIWC to assess affective outcomes and emotion (Kahn, Tobin, Massey, & Anderson, 2007).

Students in a university setting have been featured in several prominent studies. Research found that testing for students who wrote about thoughts and feelings, use of positive emotion words and words associated with the development of insight were associated with an improvement in physical health (Kahn et al., 2007). Another university study found that those who wrote about deeply personal topics were subsequently healthier (both physically and psychologically) than those writing about controlled topics (Pennebaker, 1993).

LIWC has two central features, which by working together produce a process for which to sort and analyze text files. Processing, the first feature, allows LIWC to open text files and sort them word by word. The second process is the program’s “dictionaries.” Each word in a text file is grouped into a type of word based on the program’s pretest-established dictionaries. Each of the program’s 80 dictionaries are collections of words that define a category and include such groupings as impersonal pronouns, auxiliary verbs, past tense verbs, positive emotions, and negative emotions (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). While some of the categories are straightforward language dimensions (such as articles and pronouns), the subjective categories (such as positive and negative emotion) requires the input of human judges. A three-step process was established to judge which subjective words fall into which category. Over the years, some word categories and dictionaries have been deleted while others have been added. Overall, the program evolves and changes to provide an accurate and modern reflection of the role it serves within linguistic inquiry research.

LIWC calculates two categories of variables. Most variables are assessed by the proportion of the whole, based on frequency for which those words are presented in the essay. As an example, LIWC might discover that 3.74% of all the words in a poem were impersonal pronouns, while 2.8% of the words were negative emotions. This is the “transparent” measure, set to a percent-of-the-whole 0-100% scale. Four “summary language variables” are scored on a 0-100 standardized scale measure. They are analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone. These measures are derived from a compilation of research from previously published findings in large comparison files (Pennebaker et al., 2015).

The results from LIWC’s capabilities have been numerous and widespread (Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003). Overall, these outcomes have established a strong foundation for exploring health, psychological, and clinical impact through LIWC software. The ever-evolving nature of LIWC and the outcomes it measures are the foundation of an ever growing and influential field of research.

Methods

The research study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB). Student participants submitted demographic information including gender, age and ethnicity. Two sections of First Year Seminar classes were included in the study, 59% were female and 41% were male. An almost equal proportion of students originated from urban (49%) and rural (51%) settings. Most were 18 years of age (84%) while 14% were 19 or 20 years of age. The sample set was predominantly Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American (84%). Five percent were Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American. Three percent were Latino or Hispanic American. Three percent reported East Asian or Asian American.

Most students (57%) stated “family funds my university expenses.” Another faction stated that finances were self-funded, with family help (24%). Eight percent were financed through scholarships, while 11% used a combination of financial aid, scholarships and family. GPAs among the test group were high. Forty one percent held a 3.5-4.0 GPA. The largest proportion stated they came to university with above 4.0 (54%). Some of the Freshman students (32%) carried 1-10 advanced credits from high school to university, while 16% carried in 11-20 credits. Half (50%) did not bring advanced high school credits to university.

Psychologically, the group paired almost even with 51% identifying as introverted and 49% identifying as extroverted. Most (62%) viewed themselves as leaders, while 38% would choose to follow within a group setting. Approximately half (49%) invest one to four hours a week in out of classroom university sponsored activities.

Participants were presented with a complex bullying storyline that incorporated group dynamics; students exhibiting restricted physical capabilities; and those with restricted ability being marginalized and mocked by an external group. The following was posited in the form of an essay question assignment as an introduction to the FYS. The same essay question was presented as a concluding assignment in the course:

You are at a recreational sporting event with a group for the (redacted) RLC. A hiking event is included and several students in your group are taking the hike at a slower pace and are back from the lead group. Another group is also on the hike. They begin to ridicule the slower hikers, telling them they aren’t athletic enough, that the slower hikers should have stayed home. What would you say to the slower hikers from your group? What would you say to the external group that is ridiculing your slow hikers? How did you make decisions on what to say and do? How would you take a leadership role in this situation?

Essay responses were exported from a university learning management system into data management software, then imported into LIWC to achieve text conversion to variable responses. Analysis for this study focused on Pennemaker’s (2015) summary language variables Analytic, Clout, Authentic and Tone. These psychological and social composite variables were relatable to leadership qualities. Summary language variables were examined for mean score comparison pretest FYS, posttest FYS and related to LIWC composite average scores. Essays indicating the highest score for each summary variable, pretest and posttest, were examined for indicative narratives.

The composite variable “Drive” was incorporated as a dependent variable. Drive captures the dimension of group affiliation; levels of achievement; perception of power; and levels of reward based on actions. Data sets for pre and post essay narrative were tested for multiple regression, using the summary variables as independent, and the Drive variable as dependent. Correlations among the five variables were tested pre and post for significant associations.

Though descriptive variables are presented to define the respondent audience, the N of the subjects do not allow for statistically robust testing related to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) measures.

Results

A mean score comparison between pretest and posttest FYS essays was developed. The developers of LIWC provide a benchmark mean score, compiled from their national and international testing dictionaries. Analytic, Clout and Tone variables saw a decrease in mean score, from pretest to posttest. The variable Authentic indicated a sharp increase, from pretest to posttest (Figure 1).

Excerpts for each variable were compiled, to illustrate narratives representative of summary variables Analytic, Clout, Authentic and Tone (Table 1).

Correlation testing in pretest essay data presented a strong negative correlation between Authentic and Clout (r = -.65, p <.001) and a strong positive correlation between Drive and Tone (r = .69, p <.001). In posttest essay data Authentic and Clout was the only associated pair, holding a negative relationship (r = -.36, p = .02).

LIWC summary variables, with other variables selected for their leadership behavior outcomes, were tested in a network analysis. Network analysis determined the linear association of variables within pretest FYS essays (Figure 2) and posttest FYS essays (Figure 3).

Multiple regression analysis was performed to test if personality traits Analytic, Clout, Authentic and Tone significantly predicted the variable Drive. The results of the pretest essays indicated Tone was the unique significant predictor of Drive (R2 = .65, F (4,32)=14.88, p<.001). The regression for the posttest essays was not significant.

Discussion

This study quantified perception of bullying and intended intervention tactics for Freshman university students, with a First Year Seminar serving as the treatment/intervention between pretest and posttest text analysis. Prior to the FYS experience, students addressed the bullying scenario with pretest dominant Clout and Tone. High Clout measures indicate the author holds a perspective of high expertise and confidence. High Tone indicates an approach framed through a positive, upbeat point of view. It should be noted student responses indicate a much higher mean response than is represented in the standard mean provided by LIWC across its cumulative text analysis.

Following one semester in FYS and its related Residence Learning Community, students indicated a slight drop in their Analytic approach and maintained a positive Tone. However, there was a drastic reduction in perception of lout – shifting to a tentative, humble and possibly anxious demeanor, which was more representative of the LIWC standardized mean for Clout. Students transitioned from Clout, to Authentic in resolution style. This indicates students believed themselves to be honest, personal and open in their approach to alleviating the bullying scenario. This partially supports the (Kouzes & Posner, 1993) study, in which student leaders were defined as having compassion for the emotional response in others, promoting psychological wellbeing. A transparent sense of self invites the affective response in others.

“We must be stronger…through reproof of inappropriate actions and encouragement of appropriate actions of members in our group,” wrote the respondent most highly ranked for Clout in the pretest. This shifts in perception in the posttest, note the position taken by the high ranked Clout respondent: “If I want people to respect me as a leader, I have to respect them…No person is of any greater value than another. Everyone is equal and accomplish greater things when they work together….to help everyone fulfill their goals and keep a positive mindset until the end.”

Association of variables through network analysis provides a deeper explanation of leadership narrative. Drives – defined as an overarching dimension that captures needs and motives – became the variable “hub” in pretest essays, anchored by Clout, Achievement and Affiliation. The network also reveals that Affiliation holds a negative relationship with Power. The Drive of students in this pretest had an association to Power, but in a lesser extent. After mediation through FYS, students again set Drives as the foundational variable, this time supported by Analytic, Affiliation and Focus Present. What proves interesting is that Analytic, Affiliation and Focus Present hold negative associations, mediated through the variable Power.

This model supports the definition of bullying as aggressive behavior that is prompted by a perceived power imbalance (Gladden et al., 2014). Students who held a high-power view in pre testing, have learned to reidentify without power traits in posttests. When having Drive(s) one should stay in the present and be Analytical in assessment; when the issue is Power, focus on present is not as relevant.

“Making these decisions (to support the bullied group) extend from my previous experience of stepping up and being a leader…taking a stand…making my presence known in a positive manner,” stated the author of the highest-ranking posttest Analytic response. Here, the residence life community might have presented a positive treatment. This supports the study by (Pike, 1999), where intellectual development was significantly higher for students housed in residential communities.

This study indicates that students in the pretest may have been less Driven by knowledge, but rather by passion. Clout and Achieve were associated with achieving Drive, as noted in the following pretest excerpts:

“The power comes from the comparison of the bully to the bullied, which is often shallow and relative.”

“…do it because it’s never right to watch someone get bullied and realize you had the power and ability to stop them.”

“(We have) the power and should stand up for the ones getting bullied.”

A more thoughtful, reflective student formed a solution in posttest. Still anchored by Drive, processing was now filtered through an analytical approach, staying in the moment to ascertain needed information for the best decisions as demonstrated in the following posttest excerpts:

“I do not appreciate conflict between people for silly reasons such as bullying.”

“It is the actions that occur after the harmful words that truly determine who is the real winner. Bullies are lonely people who are desperately seeking for attention at any cost.”

“It is clear the third group of the hikers has taken the former approach to athleticism. Typically, bullies are the ones who are self-conscious and are unable to have high levels of self-esteem.”

“At first I struggled with staying diplomatic and I gave the bullies the reactions they wanted. I eventually learned to stay calm and collected and learned that saying nothing at all was better.”

Through this process, students became less assertive and more transparent in attaining positive outcomes. As the students began and concluded the semester, affiliation remained a constant. Resident Learning Communities attract students with similar interests and passions. Social identity within the group was essential in alleviating bullying brought by external parties, against their affiliated group.

Limitations

Since LIWC is a rather new science in social and psychological research, there is a broad interpretation in conceptual meaning. Dictionaries and algorithms designed in LIWC were developed over a broad range of topics and writings (Humphreys & Wang, 2017). Some of the interpretations might be actionable, while other associations might prove spurious in nature. Text analysis now provides substantial data for statistical computing. However, analysis should be part of a methodology that references prior study and theories. The rigor of quantitative testing remains in need of the proper operationalization and framing of constructs. Repeated testing with other students from other population groups is required before results can be generalized across a larger population.

References

Aber, M. S., Dutta, U., Neville, H. A., Spanierman, L. B., De La Rosa, B., & Communities, L. L. (2010). Fostering Diversity, Dialogue and Democracy in the Intersections Living Learning Community at the University of Illinois. Implementing Diversity, 187.

Barefoot, B. O., & Fidler, P. P. (1992). National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programming, 1991. Helping First Year College Students Climb the Academic Ladder. The Freshman Year Experience: Monograph Series Number 10. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED354842

Barefoot, B. O., Warnock, C. L., Dickinson, M. P., Richardson, S. E., & Roberts, M. R. (1998). Exploring the Evidence: Reporting Outcomes of First-Year Seminars. The First-Year Experience. Volume II. Monograph Series, Number 25. National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 1629 Pendleton St. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED433742

Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 123–130.

Ellett, T., & Schmidt, A. (2011). Faculty Perspectives on Creating Community in Residence Halls. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 38(1), 26–39.

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Bullying. Crime and Justice, 17, 381–458.

Gardner, J. N. (1986). The Freshman Year Experience. College and University, 61(4), 261–274.

Garland, T. S., Policastro, C., Richards, T. N., & Miller, K. S. (2017). Blaming the Victim: University Student Attitudes Toward Bullying. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(1), 69–87.

Gladden, G., Vivolo-Cantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin. (2014). Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements. Retrieved from https://calio.dspacedirect.org/handle/11212/1303

Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J.-H. (2017). Automated Text Analysis for Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx104

Kahn, J. H., Tobin, R. M., Massey, A. E., & Anderson, J. A. (2007). Measuring Emotional Expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. The American Journal of Psychology, 120(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445398

Kokkinos, C. M., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and Personality Correlates of Facebook Bullying Among University Undergraduates. Comput. Hum. Behav., 55(PB), 840–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.017

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N. (1997). A comparison of student experiences with good practices in undergraduate education between 1990 and 1994. The Review of Higher Education, 21(1), 43–61.

Kyriacou, C., Mylonakou-Keke, I., & Stephens, P. (2016). Social pedagogy and bullying in schools: the views of university students in England, Greece and Norway. British Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3225

Murphy, R. (1989). Freshman Year Enhancement in American Higher Education. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 1(2), 91–101.

Newman, M., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D., & Richards, J. (2003). Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0238

Pennebaker, J. W. (1993). Putting stress into words: health, linguistic, and therapeutic implications. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31(6), 539–548.

Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/31333

Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-05202-006

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1998). Bullying as a Group Process: Participant Roles and Their Relations to Social Status Within the Group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T

Silva, A. (2016). Can Leaders of Public Companies Make Them Innovative? Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(1), 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21449

Spanierman, L. B., Soble, J. R., Mayfield, J. B., Neville, H. A., Aber, M., Khuri, L., & De, L. R. B. (2013). Living Learning Communities and Students’ Sense of Community and Belonging. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(3), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0022

Tausczik, & Pennebaker. (2010). The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676

Webber, M. A. (2017). Bullying: University Students Bring a Moral Perspective to Middle School Students. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 157.

Figure 1. Mean scores psychological and social summary variables

Table 1. Highest rank excerpts LIWC psychological and social summary variables (0 to 100 point scale)

TEXT PRETEST	TEXT POSTTEST
Analytic (81.13)	Analytic (77.45)
“…leadership-based response to this observation of ridicule, the student must show traits and responses to both the people being ridiculed and those who are ridiculing them, showing a response that displays more than just leadership, but also one of consideration of a possible compromise…while keeping the integrity of a group rather than segregating them based off speed, which would be the easiest route, but not the one that showed the most leadership skills.”	“To the slower hikers in my group, they are doing nothing wrong. It does not matter how you start, it is how you finish. As long as my peers finish, I have no issue with the pace they take. I will be there for each step of the way…Making these decisions extend from my previous experience of stepping up and being a leader…to just taking a stand, I have always found myself making a presence known in a positive manner.”
Clout (92.09)	Clout (76.86)
“One of the most difficult roles of a great leader is to hold both ourselves and others accountable for our actions. We will be much stronger teams through both reproof of inappropriate actions and encouragement of appropriate actions of members of our group. ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me’ is a lie. Those words strike us at our very core. From this core, comes our motivation and valuation of our self-worth.	“If I want people to respect me as a leader, I have to respect them…I must respect them the way I want to be respected by them. No person is of any greater value than another. Everyone is equal and accomplish greater things when they work together….to help everyone fulfill their goals and keep a positive mindset until the end.”
Authentic (89.69)	Authentic (84.12)
“Everyone develops their skills at different paces, some faster than others, which is perfectly normal. I would tell them to think back to when they were slower beginner hikers and how they felt in those shoes and how they would feel if someone was talking to them how they were talking to our slower hikers. I would make it pretty clear…to leave our hikers alone. If they were only out on the trail to bother other people…they have no business being out here.”	“Before starting college, I was often afraid of speaking my mind, especially if that involved sticking up to others…I feel more confident in my abilities to stand up to those who try and put myself or others down. My first step of action…would be to comfort the slower hikers…I would make sure they feel comfortable enough to continue on with the hike and support them the rest of the way up with words of encouragement.”
Tone (98.01)	Tone (86.11)
“I have found that the best way to bring others up to speed (no pun intended) is to encourage them. Encouragement is such a powerful tool to bring others up when they are down…. I would do my best to motivate everyone in the group from the fastest hikers to the slowest ones to encourage one another and love each other…I have found that leading takes a whole lot but you are blessed with a whole lot more through others.”	“I would encourage the slower group to continue at their pace and enjoy the hike. As a society we must be able to treat others with respect and identify with others around us on a deeper level. I would try to help both groups understand each other by surfacing details about why the slower group is going at the rate they are. Maybe they want to enjoy the views…By bringing something we all can agree on… it will be a lot easier to find common ground with the pace.”

Permanent link to this article: http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/battling-bullies-text-analysis-student-interventions-university/

Sep 05

Cyberbullying & Substance Abuse

Filed under Blog
September 5, 2018

Cyberbullying & Substance Abuse – According to the Megan Meier Foundation—a foundation created by Tina Meier after her 13-year-old daughter, Megan, took her own life as a result of being cyberbullied—approximately 34 percent of all school-aged kids have endured cyberbullying at some point in their lives.

Leave comment

Permanent link to this article: http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/cyberbullying-substance-abuse/

Aug 03

An Interactive Bully Prevention Program: Using Story Time, Dolls & Pledges to Teach About Bullying

Filed under Bully
August 3, 2018

Martha Mendez-Baldwin

Manhattan College

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to implement and assess a Bully Prevention Program for Kindergarten through grade 8 students. The goal was to develop a program that was interactive and age appropriate for each grade. The program incorporated the reading of a story, an interactive bully-simulation activity that uses a paper doll, and an anti-bullying pledge. Follow up interviews with the teachers indicate that the students engaged with and enjoyed the program. Furthermore, teachers rated the program as successful in reducing discipline issues involving bullying and teasing. The study also surveyed the middle school children at the school to learn more about the prevalence of bullying and attitudes and behaviors related to bullying. Results show that the children are observing a significant amount of bullying in school and that less than half would feel comfortable telling their parents if they were being bullied. Results demonstrate the need for parents to be more active in talking to their children about bullying. Furthermore, more research attention should be focused on the development, implementation, and assessment of evidence-based interactive bully prevention programs.

An Interactive Bully Prevention Program:

Using Story Time, Dolls & Pledges to Teach About Bullying

Bullying is an issue of great concern for today’s youth, parents, and educators. A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself (Olweus, 1993). The goal of bullying is to gain power over and dominate other individuals. There are four forms of bullying: physical (including hitting, kicking, spitting, pushing, stealing, and destruction of property), verbal (such as taunting, malicious teasing, name calling, and making threats), psychological/relational (including spreading rumors, manipulating social relationships, exclusion from a peer group, extortion, and intimidation) and cyber-bullying ( using the Internet, cell phones, social media or other technology to spread rumors, intimidate, threaten or humiliate) (Cohn and Canter, 2003; National Resource Center for Safe Schools, 1999). An imbalance of power, whether real or imagined, is a key component of bullying. Bullies engage in hurtful behavior against those who cannot defend themselves because of size, strength, psychological resilience, physical or mental limitation, or social status (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004; Olweus, 1993).

According to the Department of Education, 1 out of 3 students is bullied at school daily; 160,000 students are absent from school daily due to the fear of being bullied. It is estimated that 13 million American children are teased, taunted and physically assaulted by their peers, making bullying the most common form of violence our nation’s youth experienced in 2012. Schools are no longer the safe haven that they used to be.

School safety is a prerequisite for school success and bullying is quickly becoming an epidemic that interferes not only with school success but psychological and emotional well-being. The World Health Organization’s Bullying Survey (Nansal et al., 2001), which assessed the bullying experiences of more than 15,000 youth in the public school system in the United States, indicates that 53% of boys and 37% of girls report having participated in bullying and 12% of the boys report having participated in bullying on a weekly basis.

Bullying not only threatens a student’s sense of personal safety; bullying is related to academic difficulties. Victims often have difficulty concentrating on their schoolwork, experience declines in academic performance, and have frequent absences from school. Not surprisingly, they are at a higher risk for dropping out of school.

Being bullied is also related to emotional and psychological distress. Many victims of bullying experience loneliness and difficulty making friends. (Lumsden, 2002). They often suffer humiliation, insecurity, and loss of self-esteem and may develop a fear of going to school, depression, and other mental health problems that can accompany them into adulthood (Shellard, 2002; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001).

Bullies also experience negative consequences. They are often less popular when they get to high school, have few friends, and are more likely to engage in criminal activity. Bullying behavior has also been linked to other forms of antisocial behavior, such as vandalism, shoplifting, skipping and dropping out of school, fighting, relationship abuse, violent crimes, and drug and alcohol use (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001). A strong correlation has been found between bullying other students during school years and experiencing legal or criminal troubles as adults. Olweus (1993) found that 60 % of boys characterized as bullies in grades 6-9 had at least one criminal conviction by age 24, compared to 23 % of boys not characterized as bullies.

Bullying also has an effect on bystanders. Those who witness bullying are more likely to exhibit increased depression, anxiety, anger, post-traumatic stress, alcohol use, and low grades (Shellard, 2002). Students who regularly witness bullying at school fear that the bully may target them next and they feel that teachers and other adults are either unable or unwilling to control bullies’ behavior (Shellard & Turner, 2004).

Kim & Leventhal (2008) conducted a review of 37 studies that examined the relationship between bullying experiences and suicide. This study clearly demonstrates that any bullying experience, whether as a victim, perpetrator, or bystander, increases the risk of suicidal ideations and/or behaviors in children and adolescents. In September of 2010, New York State Legislation signed the Dignity for All Students Act into law (NY State Education Department, 2010) requiring schools to take a proactive stance against bullying, including implementing bully prevention curriculums.

While bully prevention programs are necessary in school, it is important to understand which anti-bullying programs work and which are most effective for children of different ages. Bully prevention efforts vary tremendously from school to school. Some bully prevention programs involve a onetime school assembly. This type of program may not engage all students therefore compromising the learning experience for those who do not engaged. Other programs involve displaying posters against bullying without an accompanying program. In this case, one must question whether merely seeing posters about bullying will actually reduce bullying behavior. Zero-tolerance policies, which suspend or expel bullies, have not been shown to reduce bullying behavior. Instead, according to a review by the American Psychological Association’s Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) those policies may lead to higher rates of student misbehavior and are also associated with higher rates of student anxiety, alienation, and distrust of adults.

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2011), only 8 % of anti-bullying programs implemented in U.S. schools are evidence-based. The most extensively examined one is the Olweus Bully Prevention Program, a long-term, multi-level plan that addresses students, teachers, parents, and surrounding communities. Backed by several decades of research, its design is formatted for grades K–12 and has been implemented in many schools throughout the United States. It is a very extensive program that involves students and teachers, incorporates weekly sessions with role playing, and promotes empathy and advocacy. While this program has been effective in some schools, it is a rather lengthy program that utilizes a large portion of classroom instruction time. As school teachers struggle to implement the newly added Common Core Curriculum, classroom teaching time is a valuable resource that educators might not relish giving up.

The purpose of this study was to conduct and evaluate an evidence-based interactive Bully Prevention Program for Kindergarten through grade 8 students at two Catholic Schools in Westchester County, New York and to assess teachers’ level of satisfaction with the program. This study examined the use of a short term program that consists of different components that are developmentally appropriate for different grades. The program incorporated the reading of a story, an interactive bully-simulation activity that uses a paper doll, and an anti-bullying pledge. The program utilizes Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of constructivism by providing an interactive learning experience for children that is enjoyable but effective in teaching about the impact of bullying, how to handle situations involving bullying, and how to empathize with the bully, victim, and bystander.

Mendez-Baldwin and Pugliese (2012) piloted the Bully Prevention Program with a similar group of Catholic School children in grades K-8. The Pilot Bully Prevention Program utilized paper dolls and anti-bullying pledges. Teacher evaluations of the program were fairly positive but teachers felt that the paper doll activity that simulated bullying was more effective in grades 2-8. They reported that the younger students did not engage with the activity and that most did not grasp the message or understand how the activity related to bullying. They believed it was too abstract for the children even though it involved a hands-on project.

For this study, the component of the Bully Prevention Program for the younger students, grades Kindergarten to Grade 1, was modified to include a reading of a book about bullying followed by a discussion and anti-bullying pledge. The primary goal of the study was to obtain preliminary empirical support for this interactive bully prevention program that uses different components that are age appropriate. In addition, the researcher aimed to obtain information from the middle school students about their attitudes and behaviors related to bullying.

Methods

Participants

The study included 403 participants; all were elementary school students from two Catholic schools in Westchester County, New York where the median household income is $75,000. The majority of the participants (95.7%) were Caucasian, 2.3 % were Hispanic, the remaining were African American (1.2%) and other (.08%). The bully prevention program was given to students from kindergarten to 8th grade. The program was conducted by the primary author, an applied developmental psychologist who has over 20 years working with children and adolescents, along with an advanced Psychology student who assisted the primary author.

The middle school students at the two schools, 86 in total, completed the short 10 item survey.

Materials

A picture book, Chester the Raccoon and the Big Bad Bully by Audrey Penn was used in the program. In this book, Chester the Raccoon, who is a story book character most young children are familiar with, encounters a bully. With the help of his mother, Chester and his friends learn how to deal with the classroom bully. In addition, 14 paper dolls (7 girls and 7 boys) 24 inches in height, made of cardboard were used in the study. The dolls were designed by the researcher to look like children ages 8-13 years old. The dolls were used for an interactive activity designed to teach children about the emotional harm caused by bullying. Lastly, pledge forms were also used in the program. Pledge forms allowed the students to either draw or write their pledge to end bullying. Students in Kindergarten and Grade 1 were given an ” I’m a Buddy; Not a Bully!” drawing to color in place of a pledge form.

A survey consisting of 10 Yes or No questions all relating to bullying within the school was used in the study. The survey was created by the researcher and measured the prevalence of bullying and certain bully related behaviors. Sample survey questions included “Have your parents ever asked you if you have been bullied?”, “Is there someone in your class that acts like a bully?” and “Would you tell a parent if you were being bullied?”.

Procedure/Description of the Program

The Anti-bullying program was designed to teach children in Kindergarten through grade 8 about the harmful effects of bullying and how to prevent further acts of bullying within the school. The program consisted of several different parts, each designed to meet the cognitive abilities of each group of children. The program was conducted in the student’s classrooms over a period of 4 days during the month of October 2014, Bullying Prevention Awareness Month. Teachers and principals were present during each of the program sessions.

The program for the youngest age group (the kindergarten class and grade 1) consisted of reading a book, Chester the Raccoon and the Big Bad Bully by Audrey Penn. In this book, Chester the Raccoon, who is a story book character most young children are familiar with, encounters a bully. With the help of his mother, Chester and his friends learn how to deal with the classroom bully. The researcher read the story in traditional story time fashion, with children sitting in a circle on the floor. After reading the story, the researcher and her assistant led a circle time discussion with the children. The topics covered during the discussion included: 1) the difference between the behavior of a bully and that of a friend; 2) how to deal with a bully at school in a nonviolent way; 3) understanding why someone may act like a bully; and 4) the importance of telling a trusted adult if you are being bullied or witness bullying. After the discussion, the children recited a short pledge about being a buddy not a bully, and then were given a picture of a person with a sticker on it which reads “I’m a Buddy, not a Bully!” to color. The “I’m a Buddy, not a Bully” pictures were displayed in the classroom as a reminder to students about their anti-bullying pledge.

The second component of the Anti-Bullying program was delivered to grades 2-5. It involved completing an interactive Josephine/Joseph Doll activity and writing their own Anti-Bullying pledges. The Josephine/Joseph Doll activity was piloted in a previous study by the researcher using a similar sample of elementary and middle school children. The Josephine/Joseph Doll is a large paper doll that the students were instructed to say something mean to and then cut off a piece with a scissor; this was done to symbolize the harmful effects that bullying can have on a person. After all the children have said something mean, they passed around the doll again and said something nice while repairing the doll with multi-colored tape. This symbolized how after being bullied people are left with emotional scars and damage. After the activity, the researchers led a discussion on bullying. The topics covered in the discussion included 1) what constitutes bullying behavior; 2) why someone may be behaving as a bully; 3) the effects of bullying; 4) the importance of telling a trusted adult; and 5) ways to deal with bullying in a nonviolent way. After the discussion, children wrote and recited their own anti-bullying pledge.

The program for the middle school children (grades 6-8) was similar to the program for the 2nd-5th grade. The children completed the same Josephine/Joseph Doll activity and wrote and recited their own pledges but the discussion for this age group included the following additional topics: 1) Internet safety and; 2) cyber-bullying in addition to the topics covered in the grades 2-5 program.

Middle School Survey

The middle school students (grades 6-8) also completed an anonymous survey in order to measure the prevalence of bullying and other bully related activities. The survey was completed at the end of the Anti-Bully Program. The principals of the two schools obtained consent from the parents allowing the children to complete the surveys. The survey consists of 10 Yes or No questions all relating to bullying within the school and took about 10 minutes to complete. They were completed in the classroom on the same day as the program.

Teacher Follow-Up & Satisfaction

The researcher conducted 2 short interviews with each of the classroom teachers and principals of the two schools. Interviews were conducted in person by the primary researcher at the school. The first interview occurred 1 day after the program and focused on the teachers’ and administrators’ satisfaction with the program and their assessment of how engaged the students were. They were also asked whether they believed the students enjoyed the program. The second interview was conducted 2 months after the program. Teachers were asked to provide feedback about the effectiveness of the program in reducing behavior and incidents related to bullying.

Results

Teacher Satisfaction

Follow-up interviews with the teachers and principals indicate a high level of satisfaction with the Bully Prevention Program at both schools. 100% of the teachers and administrators at both schools rated the program as highly informative and effective in reducing behavior and incidents related to bullying. Furthermore 100% stated that the children had enjoyed the workshop and easily engaged in the program.

Middle School Survey

Twenty-six (30.23 %) of the participants responded “No” to the question: Have your parents ever asked you if you have been bullied?” Twenty-two (25.59%) of the participants indicated that they would not feel comfortable speaking to a parent if they were being bullied at school. Forty-five (52.33%) of the children responded that they have been bullied and 31 (35.88%) indicated that they have said something mean or nasty about someone on social media. Eighty- four participants (97.67%) said they felt sad for children who were bullied, and 85 (98.84%) of the participants are aware that children and teens have committed suicide due to issues related to bullying.

Discussion

The results demonstrate the need to continue bully prevention efforts. About half of the students surveyed indicated that they have been bullied at school and more than 1/4 of the students admitted to having said something mean or nasty to someone on social media. Despite wide spread efforts by schools and other bully prevention campaigns, to raise awareness about bullying and bullying prevention, bullying is still occurring. Bullying is quickly becoming one of the most serious issues facing schools today (Olweus, 1994).

Bullying is related to emotional distress and even suicide. Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims (Kim & Leventhal, 2008). Kim & Leventhal (2008) provide a systematic review of 37 studies conducted on children and adolescents that examined the association between bullying experiences and suicide. Despite methodological and other differences and limitations that were found in the 37 studies, the review clearly illuminated that any participation in bullying increases the risk of suicidal ideations and/or behaviors in youth.

The current study also highlights the need for parents to communicate more with their children about bullying. Less than half of the children indicated that their parents have asked them if they have ever been bullied at school and less than 30% said they would feel comfortable telling their parents if they had experienced bullying at school. Parents must open the lines of communication with their children and this communication must include discussions about bullying. Children must feel comfortable talking to their parents about bullying experiences as the emotional stress caused by bullying is something that they will need their parents support and help to deal with. Parents must be encouraged to directly ask their children about their experiences being bullied at school.

Mendez-Baldwin, Cirillo, Ferrigno, & Argento’s (2015) study of social media usage and cyber-bullying among teens revealed a significant association between being friends with your child on social media and their likelihood of talking to you about cyber- bullying experiences, demonstrating that parents are key factors in their teens’ experience and exposure to cyber-bullying. Mendez-Baldwin, et.al. (2015) also yielded a correlation between parents who monitored their children’s activity during middle school and the students’ likelihood of telling an adult about cyber-bullying. Thus, as children transition through middle school to high school, parents should be encouraged to become involved in their children’s virtual world.

The researcher recommends that schools include parents in their bully prevention efforts. Unfortunately, there are still a large number of adults who believe that bullying is just a part of normal childhood and these parents may not realize the impact of bullying or prevalence of bullying among today’s youth. Furthermore, since most parents are aware that schools are implementing bully prevention programs, they may not realize that they should continue these efforts at home as well. Schools can play a role in encouraging parents to speak to their children about bullying. This is essential for addressing the spread of bullying and helping to make schools the safe zone that they should be.

Further research should address the role of parents in bully prevention. One suggestion might be to survey parents and examine their attitudes about bullying. This should include an examination of their behaviors related to teaching and communicating with their children about bullying. This may be a necessary first step in understanding how to help parents promote anti-bullying behavior and Internet safety in their children.

Research efforts directed at examining the effectiveness of bully prevention programs are also warranted since must school districts are conducting bully prevention, but studies continue to demonstrate that bullying is still occurring. Bullying interferes with school success and is related to emotional, mental health, and legal problems that can accompany children into adulthood. Effective bully prevention is essential in order to secure a bright future for today’s youth.

Furthermore, more evidence-based bully prevention programs are needed. This study suggests that short term programs that are interactive and age appropriate may be effective. Based on teacher reports, children easily engaged and enjoyed the short story, Josephine/Joseph doll that simulated bullying, and the pledge components of the program. Furthermore, teachers reported fewer behavioral problems and incidents related to bullying. This study is limited because the program was only implemented at two Catholic Schools in Westchester County, NY. Another limitation is that the teacher follow-up period of 2 months was relatively short and does not address whether the initial benefits of the program were long lasting. In addition, the program should be repeated and tested more rigorously using a randomized controlled trial design which Howard, Flora, & Griffin (1999) suggest, in their literature review of bully prevention programs, are lacking. Nonetheless, the current study does present some preliminary support for the utility of an interactive bully prevention program which involved the use of paper dolls to simulated bullying, story time, and pledges.

References

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance

policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American

Psychologist, 63, 852–862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Cohn, A., and Canter, A. (2003). Bullying: Facts for Schools and Parents. National Association

of School Psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.naspcenter.org.

Howard, K. A., Flora, J., & Griffin, M. (1999). Violence-prevention programs in schools: State

of the science and implications for future research. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 8,

197–215. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80077-0

Kim, Y.S. & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A Review. International Journal of

Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 133-154. http://dx.doi.org/2191-02780334-

013910.1515

Lumsden, L. (2002). Preventing Bullying. ERIC Digests. Retrieved from www.ericdigests.org.

Mendez-Baldwin, M.M. , Cirillo, K., Ferrigno, M. & Argento, V. (2015). An Examination of

Cyber- Bullying and Social Media Use in Teens. Journal of Bullying and Social Aggression,

1, No 1 (sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/cyber-bullying-among-teens/

Mendez-Baldwin, M.M. & Pugliese, A. (April 2012). Design & Implementation of a Bully

Prevention Program: Pledges & Dolls-A Pilot Study, Poster presented at the 41st annual

Hunter College Psychology Convention, New York, NY.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt,

P. C. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with

psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

National Resource Center for Safe Schools. (1999). Recognizing and Preventing Bullying. Fact

Sheet 4. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

New York State Education Department (2010). The dignity for all students act. Retrieved from

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/dignityact/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2001). Addressing the Problem of

Juvenile Bullying. OJJDP Fact Sheet (June 2001), #27. Retrieved from http://

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school; What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England:

Blackwell Publishers.

Shellard, E. (2002). Recognizing and Preventing Bullying. The Informed Educator Series.

Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Shellard, E., and Turner, J.R. (2004). Safe and Secure Schools. Arlington, VA: Educational

Research Service.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy

and Program Studies Service (USDOE). (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-

bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Bullying in Schools. Community Oriented Policing Services’

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Problem-Specific Guides Series, No. 12. Retrieved

from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Permanent link to this article: http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/interactive-bully-prevention-program-using-story-time-dolls-pledges-teach-bullying/

Aug 03

Attitudes of College Students to Cyberbullying in Higher Education

Filed under Cyber Bullying
August 3, 2018

Clara Wajngurt, Ph.D

Queensborough Community College/City University of New York

Volume 1, Number 1, 2018

Abstract

This paper researches whether cyberbullying is an issue for college students. In fact, it is found that cyberbullying issues continue to evolve from graduation from high school. Particularly, we find that more college bound females get cyberbullied than college bound males, and more college bound females than college bound males will report the cyberbullying incident to a friend or an adult.

A suggestion is made to construct a policy that develops guidelines on campus when such incidents occur, and conclusions are recommended to suggest concrete methods for dealing with future cyberbullying incidents on a college campus.

ATTITUDES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

TO CYBERBULLYING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The use of electronic and information technology is a form of communication that manifests itself in several ways, namely, social online communication, instant messaging and texting. Instead of people communicating in the traditional manner, using eye-to-eye contact, social networking sites have become places to reinforce friendships and to make new friends. However, when social communication sites become misused by an individual, after one places private information on the Internet, this can be mishandled by others; especially where someone unknowingly chats with a person who might be a predator; or when people can post mean, intimidating rumors about someone. In these cases, this communication is unwelcome and dangerous.

Consider the following scenarios:

Ann is a freshman at college. Many of the male students in her class find her attractive and some of the female students in Ann’s class are jealous of the attention Ann receives from the opposite sex. One of the jealous females in Ann’s class, takes a picture of Ann speaking to a male student on her cell and places this picture on FaceBook, with the headline Ann is a slut. The captions go viral and appear on major social networking sites.

John receives innuendos about his sexuality on instant messaging from other people whom John assumes are his friends.

Two student staff members at a college from different administrative departments are good friends. One day during lunch, an adult staff member from a different department takes a picture with his IPad of the two friends. The picture is posted later on Twitter. The administrative supervisor of one of the student staff members hears about the picture and verbally censures the student staff member, for talking administrative college business to another student staff member working in another administrative department at the college.
Student X is taking an acting class and creates a video of himself- – acting out a scene from a popular movie. He then shares this video with some students in his acting class.
These students post the video online without the permission of student X, where the video is seen all over the world. Then someone living in another continent creates a website of this movie and adds clips of the video of Student X amongst other material from this movie.

What is Cyberbullying?

Cyberbullying is bullying through technology by using email, instant messaging, chat room exchanges, websites, text messages, or images sent to a cellular phone or any digital technology. It takes various forms (Kowalski, Limber & Agatson, 2012; Cassidy, Faucher & Jackson, 2014).

Flaming which deals with online fights where people send or post messages that are angry and vulgar, e.g., Bob and Jim are texting to one another, insulting words of anger. Bob says that he “will get” Jim at the college tomorrow.
Harassment which deals with online messages that are repeatedly offensive, rude and insulting, e.g., Bob finds when he gets home that Jim sent him 25 offensive texts on his cell. In addition Bob receives anonymous, cruel messages over the next couple of days from Jim’s friends.
Impersonation which deals with pretending to be someone else by breaking into a person’s account and sending messages on that person’s profile in order to damage that person’s reputation e.g., Bob watched carefully as Jim logged into his email account and discovered Jim’s password. Later in the evening, Bob logged onto Jim’s email account and sent an offensive message to Jim’s brother, from Jim’s email account.
Denigration which deals with sending or posting gossip or rumors about a person in order to damage the person’s reputation, e.g., Bob decides to create a “We Hate Jim” website where Bob and his friends post pictures, gossip, etc. that embarrass Jim.
Cyberstalking which deals with repeated online messages that include threats of harm, violence and intimidation which make a person afraid for his safety e.g., Bob posts a sexually suggestive picture of Jim on a “We Hate Jim” website along with Jim’s email address and phone number so that Jim feels he doesn’t want to attend college anymore.
Outing which deals with sharing someone’s personal information that should not be shared with others, e.g., Jim takes a picture of Bob in their exercise class as Bob struggles to do push-ups, and within seconds this picture of Bob is in everyone’s cellphone at the college.
Trickery which deals with convincing someone to reveal secret or embarrassing information, and placing this information online, e.g., Jim works in the student government office at the college, and hears privately, that someone in the office was sexually abused as a child. Bob at one point claims to be Jim’s friend and asks Jim lots of questions about the people working in the student government office. Bob then forwards a message in his email to many mutual friends on campus about the personal information Jim gave him about people working in the student government office.
Exclusion which deals with intentional exclusion of someone from an online group, e.g., Bob becomes part of a college student online group and tells the coordinator of the online group to not accept Jim. Now Jim is blocked from attending the college student online group.

Impact of Cyberbullying

It is known that bullying leads to physical and psychological damage for the one who is bullied (Wajngurt, 2014; Gradinger, Strohmeier & Spiel, 2009). Specifically bullying leads to issues involving self-esteem, anxiety, anger, depression, avoidance sometimes violence and suicide (Pappas, 2015). In addition, physical effects can include trouble sleeping at night, unexpected stomach aches, headaches, unexplained weight gain or weight loss (Cassidy, Faucher, Jackson, 2014). However with technology there is no escape from those who cyberbully – victimization is ongoing, the images/posts can be distributed world-wide and cannot be changed; and the cyberbullies are anonymous. A student (or adult) who has been cyberbullied may exhibit some of the following signs in addition to the psychological and physical signs of one who is bullied (Kowalski & Limber, 2013):

Appears upset about sharing texts with others about online activity
Appears anxious about receiving texts/emails, or walking away from the computer during while using the computer
Deletes accounts or blocks others online suddenly
Exhibits visual changes after using social media e.g., face appearance, mood swings, etc.
Spends less time on the phone or the computer
Seems uncomfortable about attending college courses, or pretends to be ill
Withdraws from friends and family, and shows a lack of interest in social activities
Experiences a decline in academic performance

Why Do People Cyberbully?

Cyberbullying behavior is aggressive behavior that is repetitive, intentional and occurs between individuals with unequal power. (Camodeca & Goossens, 2008). It includes a wide audience on the Internet and its effects are irretrievable. This means that in a regular face-to-face bullying situation, the one who is bullied can escape the uncomfortable situation by physically not appearing “on the scene.” (Minor, Smith & Brashen, 2013). In a cyberbullying context, texts/pictures appear online, for people anywhere in the world to view. When people use the Internet, people can create anonymous accounts and they appear “invisible.” Hence any bystanders of cyberbullying do not worry about punishment nor exposure, like in face-to-face bullying. Also the one who cyberbullies does not necessarily receive Internet feedback from the one who is cyberbullied nor from any of the observers of the post/email/text, so there are no observable consequences. Feinberg and Robey (2008) mention that “cyberbullies and victims are as likely to be female as male and more likely to be older, rather than younger adolescents. Some cyberbullies and victims are strangers, but most often they know each other (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012). Some cyberbullies remain anonymous or work in groups, making it difficult to identify the abuser.” According to Kowalski, Limber and Agatson (2012), “it is reasonable to assume that children (adults) who cyberbully share some of the characteristics traditional face-to-face bullies exhibit (pg.78). The cyberbullies are characteristic of dominant and assertive personalities, those who exhibit low impulse control or unstable tempers, people with little empathy or compassion, those who exhibit aggressiveness to others, or those having difficulty following rules (Bowers, 2014).

Cyberbullying Statistics

The following summarizes web tables from the U. S. Department of Education, Student Reports of Bullying and Cyberbullying:

The results from the 2013 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, April 2015 state the following cyberbullying statistics, as described in this table of percentages:

Percentages

Sex	# of Students	Cyberbullied	Received Hurtful Information on Internet	Purposely Shared Private Information
Male	12,844.00	5.2	1.2	.4
Female	12,141.00	8.6	4.5	1.5

Percentages

Sex

Received unwanted contact via email

Received unwanted contact via Instant Messaging

Received unwanted contact

via Text messaging

Male

1.0

1.6

Female

1.7

3.4

4.9

Percentages

Sex

Cyberbullied once or twice during school year

Cyberbullied once or twice

a month

Notified an Adult

Male

75.2

9.3

10.5

Female

71.9

18.8

31.6

Of approximately 25,000,000 students ages 12-18, across the country during the 2015 school year, more women than men reported cyberbullying incidents through the internet, instant messaging, email, and texting. Even though more men reported cyberbullying incidents once or twice during the school year, more women than men reported cyberbullying incidents once or twice a month. Adults were notified three times as much by women than by men.

These patterns seems to continue into college (Kraft & Wang, 2010), and this has become an issue of concern for university administrators (Johnson et al, 2016).

Method

Participants

A total of 60 undergraduate students in a community college in northeastern United States (22 males, 38 females) participated in the study. All students were enrolled in one of four remedial mathematics course taught by the same professor. The participants’ ages ranged from 18-68 years old. There were 53 students in the 18-23 age range, 3 students in the 24-29 age range, 2 students in the 41-45 age range and 2 students were ages 52 and above.

Procedure

A survey instrument containing fourteen questions on cyberbullying feelings, attitudes, behaviors and frequency of victimization was administered in class. The survey is a subset of questions found randomly in the literature by Qing Li (March 2010), who researched cyberbullying in the high schools. Students were informed that they were not obligated to complete the survey. A definition of cyberbullying was placed on top of the survey instrument. Anonymity was guaranteed with instructions not to record student names on the survey. Each student taking the survey was given a number and the surveys were kept confidentially by the instructor.

Results

Results are summarized and explained by the following tables:

Ia Victimization

How often have you been cyberbullied? (Question #1)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Never	20	22	36	2			2		2
Once/twice	2	8	10
A few times		8	7	1

Table Ia tells us that although 70% (=42/60) students, have never been cyberbullied, 30% (=18/60) have been cyberbullied, while approximately 27% (=16/60) female and 32% (=19/60) in the age range of 18-29 have been cyberbullied at least once.

Ib How many cyberbullied others? (Question #2)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Never	18	33	44	3			2		2
Once/twice	4	4	8
A few times		1	1

Table Ib tells us 15% (=9/60) students have cyberbullied others with most of these students in the 18-23 age range.

IIa Feelings and Beliefs

About Cyberbullying? (Question #3)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
No big deal	5	2	6						1
Live with it	2	4	5	1
Upset	7	14	18	2			1
Very upset	4	17	19				1		1
No opinion	4	1	5

Table IIa indicates that in general 70% (=42/60) of students are upset by the existence of cyberbullying with approximately 82% more females reacting (=31/38) than 50% males (=11/22). This is also demonstrated by approximately 70% (=37/53) of students ages 18-23 being upset by cyberbullying incidents.

IIb About Witnessing Cyberbullying (Question #5)

Gender Age Range

18-23

24-29

30-35

36-40

41-45

46-51

52+

Nothing we can do about it

It’s a very serious problem

and we need to stop it

Table IIb further indicates that 85% (=51/60) of the students in the sample felt that

cyberbullying was a serious problem and we need to stop it.

IIIa Experiences

If you experienced cyberbullying what would you do? (Question #11)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Do nothing		2	2
Tell the cyberbully to stop	2	7	9
Get away from the cyberbullying	11	13	18	3			1		2
Tell an adult	8	10	17				1
Tell a friend	1	6	7

Table IIIa shows that 40% = (24/60) of the students walked away from the one who cyberbullied while only 13% (=9/60) would confront the cyberbully directly. We also noticed that almost equal percentages of women, i.e., approximately 42% (=16/38) would share the cyberbullying incident with an adult or friend as opposed to males 41% (=9/22) doing the same thing.

IIIb If someone you know is cyberbullied would you report the cyberbullying to a college counselor, professor or administrator? (Question # 8)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Probably yes	12	28	35	2			1		2
Probably no	9	10	17	1			1
Not applicable	1		1

Table IIIb demonstrates that approximately 2/3 of our sample would report cyberbullying to a college counselor, professor or administrator if someone they know is cyberbullied and many of these students who would report such a cyberbullying incident are 18-23 years of age.

IV. Bystander

How frequently have you been a witness to cyberbullying incidents? (Question # 7)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Never	13	12	19	3			1		2
Once/twice	4	7	11
A few times	3	13	15				1
Many times	2	4	6
Almost every day		2	2

According to table IV approximately 58% (=35/60) in the total sample as opposed to 15% (=9/60)

of the men and approximately 43% (=26/60) females have been bystanders of cyberbullying incidents.

Va. Behaviors

Methods people use for cyberbullying (Question #12)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Looking in your cellphone	1	11	10	1			1
Looking in your email		1	1
Sending you harassing emails	8	15	20	1			1		1
Sending you harassing pictures	5	6	11
Texting	8	4	10	1					1
Other/Social media		1	1

Table Va indicates that female cyberbullying is demonstrated approximately 43% (= 26/60)

of the time by looking at one’s cell phone or by sending someone harassing emails. Male cyberbullying is demonstrated approximately 26% (=16/60)of the time by sending someone harassing emails or through texting.

Vb. Dealing with cyberbullying (Question #14)

Gender Age Range

	M	F	18-23	24-29	30-35	36-40	41-45	46-51	52+
Get parents and educators involved to talk about this	7	18	24	1			1
Have the administration discuss this	1	3		2			2
Introduce a policy for cyberbullying on campus	13	17	28						2
Other/eliminate internet	1		1

Table Vb suggests that 50% (=30/60) believe that a possible way to deal with cyberbullying is by introducing a policy for cyberbullying on campus and 41% (=25/60) believe that educators

should be involved in dealing with this issue.

Discussion

Several concerns have been exemplified by the results. First, we recognize that cyberbullying is a higher education issue, and that college and university administrators should work on a policy that develops guidelines for dealing with this issue on campus and at home. Secondly, there is a concern that more than half of the students would walk away from someone who cyberbullies, and that in this case more females than males would report the incident to friend or adult. In general students do not want to be identified with the cyberbullying incident nor with the person who cyberbullies. There is a fear of involvement and fear of possible punishment on the part of the observer of the cyberbullying incident. Sometimes the culture at the university is to step back when someone is cyberbullied. Students don’t want to be blamed for online issues and perhaps female students do not want to be blamed for being part of cyberbullying events, which could deal with situations of power and attitudes, perhaps instead females would rather gossip about these situations. We found that women tended to be cyberbullied more than men in this study, and perhaps women tended to be involved in aggression that deals with more subtle day to day language and relationships like name calling, exclusion or rumor spreading rather than aggression, which males could exhibit, and is specifically more physical nature. Women as a result pick up cyberbullying threats more than males from their cell phones, specifically harassing emails sent to their cell phones where the intimidation is thought to be more verbal.

Limitations of the Study

The study is a pilot study that was limited to a community college in the Northeastern United States. The survey was administered to four classes of a particular instructor. The survey was subjective as it was based on the memories of an individuals’ experiences. Hence the validity of the survey is questioned and its reliability is not exactly determined. Specifically, the students in the study, over age 23, may have had to rely on their memories for cases of cyberbullying, if these situations occurred in high school or before. Therefore we need to increase the sample size and allow for various geographic locations and different age groups. The age range groups were not equal in size nor were the quantity of male participants in the study proportional to the quantity of female participats in the study. Also not discussed in detail was the incidence of cyberbullying on social media which is accessed by many of our college students.

Conclusion

This research signifies that cyberbullying is indeed a problem amongst students in our colleges and universities. With this in mind there are several possible solutions to consider:

Develop a policy on cyberbullying with specific guidelines for your campus.
Colleges need to educate faculty and staff about the existence of cyberbullying through webinars, conferences, and forums.
Counseling departments should review periodically mental health treatment interventions or support networks for students who are cyberbullied.
Create a help desk or anonymous email address for students who are cyberbullied or for students who cyberbully.
Colleges need to promote and confirm proper uses of technology on campus and at home.
Develop college programs, seminars, etc. for students so that the university is proactive in fighting cyberbullying on campus.

REFERENCES

Bowers, J. (2014). Understanding bystander behavior in cyberbullying encounters: An application of bystander effect theory. Retrieved from: https://asllabouthrtypos.files.woodpress.com/2014/07bowers-research-proposal-final-draft-fb-pdf

Camodeca, M. & Goossens, F. A. (2008). Children’s opinions on effective strategies to cope with bullying: The importance of bullying role and perspective, Educational Research, 47:1, 93-105. DOI:10.1080/0013188042000337587

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C. & Jackson, M. (2017). Adversity in university: Cyberbullying and its impacts on students, faculty and administrators, International Journal Environment Research Public Health, 14 (8), 888.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C. & Jackson, M. (2014). The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbullying of university faculty and teaching personnel, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60 (2), 279-299.

Eskey, M. T. & Eskey Jr. M. T. (2014). Cyber-bullying in the online classroom: faculty as the victims. Retrieved by: www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/waoe/eskey3.pdf

Feinberg, T. & Robey, N. (2008). Cyberbullying school leaders cannot ignore cyberbullying but rather must understand its legal and psychological ramifications. Principle Leadership, 9, 10-14.

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D. & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems, Journal of Psychology, 217 (4), 205-213.

Johnson, L., Haralson, A., Batts, S., Brown, E., Collins, C., Travis, A. & Spencer, M. (2016). Cyberbullying on social media among college students.

Retrieved from: https://www.cpounseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/article_03b0bf24f16116603abcacff0000bee5e7pdf?sfvsn=4

Kowalski, R. M. & Limber, S. P. (July 2013). Psychological, physical and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying, Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (1),

s13-s20.

Kowalski, R., Limber, S. & Agatstor, P. (April 2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons: Retrieved by: DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01431_5.x

Kraft, E. & Wang, J. (October 2010). An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and cyberstalking experiences and factors related to victimization of students, International Journal of Technoethics. Retrieved from: DOI: 104018/jte.2010100106. source:DBLP

Li, Q. (March 2010). Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students’ behaviors and beliefs about this new phenomenon, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19 (4),

372- 392.

Minor, M., Smith, G. & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education, Journal of Educational Research and Practice; 3(1), 15-29.

Pappas, S. (2015). Cyberbullying on social media linked to teen depression. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/51294-cyberbullying-social-media-teen-depression.html

Schenk, A. M. & Fremouw, W. J. (2012). Prevelance, psychological impact,and coping of cyberbully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence, 11 (1), 21-37.

US Department of Education (2015). Students reports of bullying and cyberbullying. Retrieved from: https://nces.edu.gov/pubs2015/2015056.pdf

Wajngurt, C. (May-June 2014). Prevention of bullying on campus. Academe, 100 (3),

39-41.

Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress, Research Press. Retrieved from: https://www.researchpress.com/books/495/cyberbullying-and-cyberthreats

APPENDIX I

Definition of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others. In cyberbullying experiences, the identity of the bully may or may not be known. Cyberbullying can occur through electronically-mediated communication at school; however, cyberbullying behaviors commonly occur outside school as well.

This is an anonymous survey. Please do not put your names anywhere.

Perceptions of Cyberbullying in College Age Students.

Gender:

Male
Female

What is your age?

18 – 23
24 – 29
30 – 35
36 – 40
41 – 45
46 – 51
52 or older

How often have you been cyberbullied? Check one that applies.

Never
Once/Twice
A few times
Many times
Almost every day

2. How often have you cyberbullied others?

Never
Once/Twice
A few times
Many times
Almost every day

3. On the following scale, check your reaction to cyberbullying

No big deal
Live with it
Upset
Very upset
No opinion

If you have been cyberbullied, what happened after you told someone?

It got better
It got worse
Nothing changed
I never told anyone

5. What is your feeling about people being cyberbullied?

They deserve it
It’s too bad, but there is nothing we can do about it
It is a very serious problem and we need to stop it

6. I have friends who (check all that apply)

Have bullied others
Have been bullied by others
Have cyberbullied others
Have been cyberbullied by others
I have no friends

7. How frequently have you been a witness to cyberbullying incidents?

Never
Once/twice
A few times
Many times
Almost every day

8. If you or someone you know were cyberbullied at school or at home, would you report the cyberbullying to a college counselor, professor or administrator?

Probably yes
Probably no

Please indicate your opinion to the following statements:

9. Cyberbullying is a normal part of the online world. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

10. I know of someone who has been really hurt by cyberbullying.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree

Fill in and pick the best choice.

11. What do you do when you are cyberbullied? ______________________

Possible answer choices

Do nothing
Tell the cyberbully to stop
Get away (e.g., log off) from the cyberbully
Cyberbully other people
Bully other kids
Tell an adult

Tell a friend

12. What are some methods that people can use for cyberbullying?______________________

Possible answer choices

Looking in your cell phone
Looking in your email
Sending you harassing emails
Sending you harassing pictures
Texting

13. Why do people cyberbully?_________________________

Possible answer choices

Low academic performance
Low self-esteem
High anxiety

14. What can we do to stop cyberbullying. _______________________

Possible answer choices

Get parents and educators involved to talk about this
Have the administration discuss this
Introduce a policy for cyberbullying on campus

Permanent link to this article: http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/attitudes-college-students-cyberbullying-higher-education/

Aug 03

College Athletes’ Views on Sports Bullying and Hazing

Filed under Bullying
August 3, 2018

Dr. Martha Mendez-Baldwin

Brian DeLaurentis

Manhattan College

Volume 1, Number 1, 2018

Abstract

In order to understand bullying and hazing in sports more research is needed. The goal of this study was to obtain information about college athletes’ attitudes about sports hazing and bullying. Participants were 103 Division 1 athletes. They completed a survey assessing attitudes about sports hazing and bullying as well as the prevalence of behaviors related to the belief that sports hazing is a part of the sports culture. Results demonstrate that athletes have mixed attitudes about sports hazing and bullying; while many believe that sports hazing can cause negative damage to an athlete, many also believe that a little hazing is okay as long as no one gets hurts. Furthermore, the results reveal that many behaviors and attitudes about sports bullying and hazing are related to the belief that hazing is a part of the sports culture. Implications for athletes and coaches are discussed.

Keywords: hazing, sports bullying, sports culture, college athletes.

Hazing is any action or situation created by a group to intentionally produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule among those wishing to join the group. Hazing is a form of bullying, but the two differ in the following ways: (1) bullying excludes the victim from a group whereas hazing is a ritual imposed on a person who wants to join a group; and (2) bullies often act alone or in small groups, but hazing commonly involves an entire group or team.

According to the British Journal of Sports Medicine, hazing in sports is quite common. At the college level, 80 percent of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes say they have experienced some form of hazing throughout their college athletic career while 42 percent reported a history of also being hazed in high school. Despite a large number of highly publicized cases of hazing in which team members experienced brutal treatment many still hold the belief that hazing is a rite of passage and part of being on a team. Many claim that it improves team spirit.

Waldron (2015) conducted a study examining predictors of hazing acts and positive initiation rituals in high school and college athletes as a follow-up to the body of literature demonstrating the psychological, emotional, and physical harm associated with hazing as well as the multiple factors related to the occurrence of hazing, Waldron’s study examined the influence of competition level (high school v. college), gender, athletic identity, sport type, and team norms on severity of hazing and prevalence of hazing and positive initiations among athletes. Participants included high school athletes as well as college athletes from all three NCAA divisions. Results revealed that 50% of athletes in the study had participated in either mild or severe hazing and 42% had participated in at least one severe hazing activity. Waldron’s study (2015) also revealed that college athletes were 6.5 times more likely than high school athletes to engage in positive initiation rituals. College athletes also reported greater team norms for positive initiation rituals than high school athletes.

In addition, the results of Waldron’s 2015 study revealed that collegiate athletes were at greater risk for participating in hazing than high school athletes. Waldron suggests that college athletes were more likely to experience hazing because when competitive levels increase, the stakes for the team and individual members are also higher. Furthermore, there may be an expectation for hazing to occur at the college level, because many college athletes were hazed as high school athletes. This notion is supported by the results showing that team norms for experiencing hazing were the strongest predictor of participating in hazing. Waldron concludes that when team norms for hazing exist, many athletes will adjust their behavior to meet this norm even if they do not agree with it. One may reasonably conclude that one must decrease the team norm for hazing in order to reduce the prevalence of hazing acts. To do so, parents, coaches, and other sport leaders must be proactive in educating athletes about the norms of sports and the consequences of hazing through team discussion, workshops, and others efforts to instill positive initiation rituals.

Kowalski and Waldron (2010) conducted a study examining athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ involvement and influence on hazing. The study examined the perceptions of coaches’ responses to hazing. The participants consisted of 21 (11 males and 10 females) current or former high school or collegiate athletes who attend a Midwestern University. Participants responded to questions regarding coaches’ role and responses to hazing and other team cohesion activities in the form of an interview. The interview contained questions regarding the participants’ definition of hazing and how it defines a team, personal involvement with hazing experience, coaches’ awareness of hazing on the team, and coaches’ responses to and views on hazing. The results indicate that athletes believed that their coaches allow hazing to occur on their teams, with many believing this to be especially true as long as the hazing “remained under control”. Only a small number of the athletes examined believed their coaches took a proactive stance against hazing; however, a large number believed that coaches should be more proactive in preventing hazing on sports teams. In addition, the study revealed that a large number of athletes believe that their coaches were not aware of the hazing rituals occurring within the team.

The belief that hazing enhances team cohesiveness is another important factor related to hazing. Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, & Brewer (2007) note that even though hazing in sports is no longer considered acceptable, hazing is still commonly found in sports; claiming that one of the asserted reasons for hazing is that it promotes team cohesiveness which in turn enhances team performance. They surveyed 167 athletes from six colleges/ universities from the United States. Of those 167 athletes 66 were female and 98 were male, while 3 did not reveal their gender. Athletes from track and field, swimming and diving, gymnastics, ice hockey, and basketball participated in this study. The athletes responded to questions regarding hazing and team cohesion. In addition, athletes were asked to rate the appropriateness of several activities. Activities which were rated as appropriate included skill development activities (such as preseason practices), required positive behaviors (such as maintaining a specific GPA), and team socialization activities (such as attending a team roast). The following acts were deemed inappropriate and labeled as acts of hazing: tattooing, head shaving, consuming alcohol, simulating sex acts, passive victim abuse, coerced self-abuse or degradation, and coerced abuse of others.

Van Raalte, Cornelius, Linder, & Brewer’s study (2007) does not support the claim that hazing serves to enhance team cohesion. The pattern of correlation showed that hazing was negatively related to team cohesiveness, while appropriate team building activities were positively related to team cohesiveness.

Sports hazing and bullying in sports has not received as much research attention as the other forms of bullying. The goal of this study was to obtain information about college athletes’ attitudes about sports hazing and bullying in order to gain a better understanding of bullying and sports hazing.

Methods

Participants

This study included 103 Division 1 athletes from Manhattan College, a private Roman Catholic Liberal Arts college in Riverdale, New York. The following sports teams participated: men’s and women’s lacrosse, basketball, and soccer as well as women’s volleyball. All participants were over the age of 18 years.

At the request of the IRB, demographic information for the individual participants was not collected. Demographic information for the entire Manhattan College athletic population was collected. Manhattan College has 19 Division 1 teams, all of whom participate in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference. During the 2015-2016 academic year, the college had 365 active student-athletes, 181 females, 184 males. The athletes at Manhattan College are not required to participate in a sports hazing or hazing awareness program; however, team coaches discuss this issue with the athletes.

Materials

A 25 item questionnaire, Attitudes toward Sports Bullying and Hazing, which was created by the researchers was used in this study. The questionnaire included Likert Scale items assessing athletes’ attitudes about sports, bullying and hazing. Sample questions included “sports hazing and bullying are different “, “as long as no one gets hurt, a little harmless bullying is fine” and ” I have been negatively affected by hazing”.

Procedure

IRB approval was obtained for the study. The Director of Athletics and the Athletic Advisors assisted with the recruitment of participants. All participants completed an informed consent document prior to participation. Participants completed the questionnaires either in the library before study hall or after practice in the locker room. The participants took about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Debriefing forms were distributed after the questionnaires were completed. Participants were informed of the availability of the counselors at the Counseling Center in case they were feeling any stress or emotional upset as a result of completing the questionnaire.

Results

Attitudes Toward Bulling and Hazing

79.6% of the participants believe that hazing is a form of bullying and 67.9% believe that hazing can cause serious damage to an athlete. In addition, 54.4% believe hazing has a negative impact on a team and 57.2% agree that athletes should be punished for hazing but almost half (42.7%) of the participants believe that as long as no one gets hurt, a little hazing is okay. Furthermore, more than half of the participants (68.9%) do not believe hazing improves team spirit and cohesiveness and 62.1% believe most athletes go along with hazing for fear of being isolated by their teammates. Lastly, 38.8% believe that hazing is a part of sports culture.

Views about NCAA Policies, Coaches and Team Captains

59.2% of the participants believe that the NCAA should have stricter rules against bullying and 41.7 % believe athletes should be required to take an anti-bullying and anti-hazing program. Furthermore, 70% believe team captains should be responsible for making sure hazing and bullying does not occur.

Athletes’ Experiences & Proposed Actions

31% of the participants reported being hazed during their athletic career. In addition, 57.3% would intervene if they witnessed a teammate being hazed and 69.9% would take a strong position against hazing if they were a coach.

Correlations:

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were performed. The results revealed a significant negative correlation (r=-.270; p <.05) between the belief that hazing is part of the sports culture and the belief that hazing has a negative impact on a team. Athletes who agreed that hazing was a part of the sports culture were less likely to agree that hazing has a negative impact on a team.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to learn about college athletes’ views about sports bullying and hazing. Results show that athletes have mixed views about sports bullying and hazing. While the majority of the participants believe that hazing is a form of bullying and that athletes should be punished for hazing, a fairly high number also believe that as long as no one gets hurt, a little hazing is okay. In addition, while the majority believe that hazing has a negative impact on an athlete, only a little more than half would intervene if a team mate was being hazed. Lastly, about a third of the athletes believe that hazing is a part of sports culture.

These findings are consistent with those obtained in an earlier version of this same study (Mendez-Baldwin & Fontaine, 2017) which examined attitudes about sports bullying and hazing using a sample of high school male athletes. The high school athletes shared the same views about sports bullying and hazing believing that bullying can have a negative impact on a team and individual team members but as long a no one gets hurt, a little hazing is okay. The attitudes expressed by both the high school and college athletes demonstrate the need for education about sports bullying and hazing for athletes.

It is possible that attitudes sports and appropriate behaviors within the sports culture develop early in life and that those attitudes persist through the college years. Such attitudes may be difficult to change and therefore significant education and training for athletes and coaches is imperative. Education may be the key to the prevention of bullying and hazing and to changes in views about sports and the sports culture. Education about sports hazing and bullying should occur before high school to ensure that healthy attitudes about the sports culture, including views about sports bullying and hazing develop early.

The athletes at Manhattan College are not required to participate in an anti-bullying/hazing program. Coaches speak to their team members about bullying and hazing in an informal format that is left to the discretion of the individual sports. Participation in comprehensive and formal anti-bullying and hazing program might help athletes develop healthier attitudes about bulling and hazing and to reduce the prevalence of bullying and sports hazing among athletes. Athletic directors and coaches are encouraged to consider mandatory participation in formal anti-bullying and hazing programs for athletes of all levels of competition. Coaches should also implement positive team building activities and begin positive and healthy sports traditions to help modify the culture of sports.

Coaches are also encouraged to modify their views about sports bullying and hazing and adopt a leadership style that conveys a strong stance against any type of bullying or hazing among the athletes they train/coach. A coach’s leadership style may contribute to the coach’s level of awareness of hazing as well as athletes’ comfort in speaking to coaches about hazing. Coaches and sport administrators, along with parents can begin to change the sports culture and team norms with respect to hazing and sports bullying. The belief that a little hazing as long as no one gets hurt can be replaced with a no tolerance view for hazing and sports bullying.

While the results of this study shed some light on college athletes’ views on sports bullying and hazing, the study is limited due to a small sample size and the fact that Manhattan College does not have a football, hockey, or equestrian team. Follow up studies should examine larger samples of college athletes, including football, hockey and equestrian athletes. In addition, studies should also continue to explore coaches’ views about sports bullying and hazing.

References

Kowalski, C., & Waldron, J. (2010). Looking the other way: Athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ responses to hazing. International Journal of Sport Science & Coaching, 5(1), 87-100. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.5.1.87.

Mendez-Baldwin, M.M. (2017). Mendez-Baldwin, M.M., Fontaine, A. & Consiglio, J. (2017).

An examination of high school athletes’ attitudes about bullying and hazing. Journal of

Bullying and Social Aggression. 2(2). (sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/high-school-athletes-attitudes-bullying-hazing/).

Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A. E., Linder, D. E., & Brewer, B. W. (2007). The relationship between hazing and team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(4), 491-507.

Waldron, J. J. (2015). Predictors of mild hazing, severe hazing, and positive initiation rituals in sport. International Journal of Sport Science & Coaching, 10(6), 1089-1101. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.10.6.1089.

Permanent link to this article: http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/college-athletes-views-sports-bullying-hazing/

Battling the Bullies: A Text Analysis of Student Interventions at University

Cyberbullying & Substance Abuse

An Interactive Bully Prevention Program: Using Story Time, Dolls & Pledges to Teach About Bullying

Attitudes of College Students to Cyberbullying in Higher Education

College Athletes’ Views on Sports Bullying and Hazing

Research Assistants