Cause and effect of bullying in school pdf

Posted on Tuesday, June 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM Posted by Reynaldo G. - 08.06.2021 and pdf, with pdf 1 Comments

cause and effect of bullying in school pdf

File Name: cause and effect of bullying in school .zip

Size: 2590Kb

Published: 08.06.2021

School bullying , like bullying outside the school context, refers to one or more perpetrators who have greater physical or social power than their victim and act aggressively toward their victim by verbal or physical means.

The Psychological Effects of Bullying on Kids & Teens

Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. Bullying, long tolerated by many as a rite of passage into adulthood, is now recognized as a major and preventable public health problem, one that can have long-lasting consequences McDougall and Vaillancourt, ; Wolke and Lereya, Those consequences—for those who are bullied, for the perpetrators of bullying, and for witnesses who are present during a bullying event—include poor school performance, anxiety, depression, and future delinquent and aggressive behavior.

Federal, state, and local governments have responded by adopting laws and implementing programs to prevent bullying and deal with its consequences. However, many of these responses have been undertaken with little attention to what is known about bullying and its effects. Even the definition of bullying varies among both researchers and lawmakers, though it generally includes physical and verbal behavior, behavior leading to social isolation, and behavior that uses digital communications technology cyberbullying.

Bullying behavior is evident as early as preschool, although it peaks during the middle school years Currie et al. It can occur in diverse social settings, including classrooms, school gyms and cafeterias, on school buses, and online. Bullying behavior affects not only the children and youth who are bullied, who bully, and who are both bullied and bully others but also bystanders to bullying incidents.

Given the myriad situations in which bullying can occur and the many people who may be involved, identifying effective prevention programs and policies is challenging, and it is unlikely that any one approach will be ap-.

Commonly used bullying prevention approaches include policies regarding acceptable behavior in schools and behavioral interventions to promote positive cultural norms. Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, a group of federal agencies and private foundations asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study of what is known and what needs to be known to further the field of preventing bullying behavior.

The full statement of task for the committee is presented in Box Although the committee acknowledges the importance of this topic as it pertains to all children in the United States and in U. Also, while the committee acknowledges that bullying behavior occurs in the school. The author described bullying behavior, attempted to delineate causes and cures for the tormenting of others, and called for additional research Koo, Nearly a century later, Dan Olweus, a Swedish research professor of psychology in Norway, conducted an intensive study on bullying Olweus, The efforts of Olweus brought awareness to the issue and motivated other professionals to conduct their own research, thereby expanding and contributing to knowledge of bullying behavior.

Over the past few decades, venues where bullying behavior occurs have expanded with the advent of the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication. These modes of communication have provided a new communal avenue for bullying. Several studies, however, have demonstrated an association between bullying involvement and suicide-related ideology and behavior see, e.

Department of Health and Human Services requested that the Institute of Medicine 1 and the National Research Council convene an ad hoc planning committee to plan and conduct a 2-day public workshop to highlight relevant information and knowledge that could inform a multidisciplinary.

Content areas that were explored during the April workshop included the identification of conceptual models and interventions that have proven effective in decreasing bullying and the antecedents to bullying while increasing protective factors that mitigate the negative health impact of bullying.

The discussions highlighted the need for a better understanding of the effectiveness of program interventions in realistic settings; the importance of understanding what works for whom and under what circumstances, as well as the influence of different mediators i. Currently, there is no comprehensive federal statute that explicitly prohibits bullying among children and adolescents, including cyberbullying.

However, in the wake of the growing concerns surrounding the implications of bullying, several federal initiatives do address bullying among children and adolescents, and although some of them do not primarily focus on bullying, they permit some funds to be used for bullying prevention purposes. The program is administered by the U. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice to prevent youth violence and promote the healthy development of youth.

The program has provided grantees with both the opportunity to benefit from collaboration and the tools to sustain it through deliberate planning, more cost-effective service delivery, and a broader funding base Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, In addition to the S3 grants program, the group administered a number of interagency agreements with a focus on but not limited to bullying, school recovery research, data collection, and drug and violence prevention activities U.

Department of Education, A collaborative effort among the U. Led by the U. Department of Education, the FPBP works to coordinate policy, research, and communications on bullying topics. The FPBP Website provides extensive resources on bullying behavior, including information on what bullying is, its risk factors, its warning signs, and its effects.

To improve school climate and reduce rates of bullying nationwide, FPBP has sponsored four bullying prevention summits attended by education practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and federal officials. In , the National Institute of Justice—the scientific research arm of the U. The funds are to be used for rigorous research to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students, including bullying prevention.

The initiative is carried out through partnerships among researchers, educators, and other stakeholders, including law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system professionals National Institute of Justice, In , the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama, reauthorizing the year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is committed to providing equal opportunities for all students.

Although bullying is neither defined nor prohibited in this act, it is explicitly mentioned in regard to applicability of safe school funding, which it had not been in previous iterations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There are several other federal initiatives that address student bullying directly or allow funds to be used for bullying prevention activities. Although some of these terms have been used interchangeably in the literature, peer victimization is targeted aggressive behavior of one child against another that causes physical, emotional, social, or psychological harm.

Sibling conflict and aggression falls under the broader concept of interpersonal aggression, which includes dating violence, sexual assault, and sibling violence, in addition to bullying as defined for this report. Olweus noted that bullying, unlike other forms of peer victimization where the children involved are equally matched, involves a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the target, where the target has difficulty defending him or herself and feels helpless against the aggressor.

This power imbalance is typically considered a defining feature of bullying, which distinguishes this particular form of aggression from other forms, and is typically repeated in multiple bullying incidents involving the same individuals over time Olweus, Bullying and violence are subcategories of aggressive behavior that overlap Olweus, There are situations in which violence is used in the context of bullying.

However, not all forms of bullying e. The committee also acknowledges that perspective about intentions can matter and that in many situations, there may be at least two plausible perceptions involved in the bullying behavior. In , the FPBP Steering Committee convened its first summit, which brought together more than nonprofit and corporate leaders,. Discussions at the summit revealed inconsistencies in the definition of bullying behavior and the need to create a uniform definition of bullying.

Subsequently, a review of the CDC publication of assessment tools used to measure bullying among youth Hamburger et al. Those inconsistencies and diverse measurements make it difficult to compare the prevalence of bullying across studies Vivolo et al. A uniform definition can support the consistent tracking of bullying behavior over time, facilitate the comparison of bullying prevalence rates and associated risk and protective factors across different data collection systems, and enable the collection of comparable information on the performance of bullying intervention and prevention programs across contexts Gladden et al.

The CDC and U. Department of Education collaborated on the creation of the following uniform definition of bullying quoted in Gladden et al. 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. This report noted that the definition includes school-age individuals ages and explicitly excludes sibling violence and violence that occurs in the context of a dating or intimate relationship Gladden et al.

This definition also highlighted that there are direct and indirect modes of bullying, as well as different types of bullying. The direct forms of violence e. Examples of direct bullying include pushing, hitting, verbal taunting, or direct written communication. A common form of indirect bullying is spreading rumors. Four different types of bullying are commonly identified—physical, verbal, relational, and damage to property. Some observational studies have shown that the different forms of bullying that youths commonly experience may overlap Bradshaw et al.

Godleski et al. The four types of bullying are defined as follows Gladden et al. Cyberbullying may take the form of mean or nasty messages or comments, rumor spreading through posts or creation of groups, and exclusion by groups of peers online.

While the CDC definition identifies bullying that occurs using technology as electronic bullying and views that as a context or location where bullying occurs, one of the major challenges in the field is how to conceptualize and define cyberbullying Tokunaga, The extent to which the CDC definition can be applied to cyberbullying is unclear, particularly with respect to several key concepts within the CDC definition.

Third, cyberbullying can involve a less powerful peer using technological tools to bully a peer who is perceived to have more power.

In this manner, technology may provide the tools that create a power imbalance, in contrast to traditional bullying, which typically involves an existing power imbalance. A study that used focus groups with college students to discuss whether the CDC definition applied to cyberbullying found that students were wary of applying the definition due to their perception that cyberbullying often involves less emphasis on aggression, intention, and repetition than other forms of bullying Kota et al.

Many researchers have responded to this lack of conceptual and definitional clarity by creating their own measures to assess cyberbullying.

It is noteworthy that very few of these. Although the formulation of a uniform definition of bullying appears to be a step in the right direction for the field of bullying prevention, there are some limitations of the CDC definition. For example, some researchers find the focus on school-age youth as well as the repeated nature of bullying to be rather limiting; similarly the exclusion of bullying in the context of sibling relationships or dating relationships may preclude full appreciation of the range of aggressive behaviors that may co-occur with or constitute bullying behavior.

As noted above, other researchers have raised concerns about whether cyberbullying should be considered a particular form or mode under the broader heading of bullying as suggested in the CDC definition, or whether a separate defintion is needed. Furthermore, the measurement of bullying prevalence using such a definiton of bullying is rather complex and does not lend itself well to large-scale survey research. The CDC definition was intended to inform public health surveillance efforts, rather than to serve as a definition for policy.

However, increased alignment between bullying definitions used by policy makers and researchers would greatly advance the field. Much of the extant research on bullying has not applied a consistent definition or one that aligns with the CDC definition.

As a result of these and other challenges to the CDC definition, thus far there has been inconsistent adoption of this particular definition by researchers, practitioners, or policy makers; however, as the definition was created in , less than 2 years is not a sufficient amount of time to assess whether it has been successfully adopted or will be in the future. The study committee members represented expertise in communication technology, criminology, developmental and clinical psychology, education, mental health, neurobiological development, pediatrics, public health, school administration, school district policy, and state law and policy.

See Appendix E for biographical sketches of the committee members and staff. The committee met three times in person and conducted other meetings by teleconferences and electronic communication. The committee conducted an extensive review of the literature pertaining to peer victimization and bullying. In some instances, the committee drew upon the broader literature on aggression and violence. The committee drew upon the early childhood literature since there is substantial evidence indicating that bullying involvement happens as early as preschool see Vlachou et al.

The committee also drew on the literature on late adolescence and looked at related areas of research such as maltreatment for insights into this emerging field. The committee used a variety of sources to supplement its review of the literature. The committee held two public information-gathering sessions, one with the study sponsors and the second with experts on the neurobiology of bullying; bullying as a group phenomenon and the role of bystanders; the role of media in bullying prevention; and the intersection of social science, the law, and bullying and peer victimization.

See Appendix A for the agendas for these two sessions. To explore different facets of bullying and give perspectives from the field, a subgroup of the committee and study staff also conducted a site visit to a northeastern city, where they convened four stakeholder groups comprised, respectively, of local practitioners, school personnel, private foundation representatives, and young adults.

The site visit provided the committee with an opportunity for place-based learning about bullying prevention programs and best practices. The committee also benefited from earlier reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine through its Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and the Institute of Medicine, most notably:.

Although these past reports and workshop summaries address various forms of violence and victimization, this report is the first consensus study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the state of the science on the biological and psychosocial consequences of bullying and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease bullying behavior and its consequences.

Bullying in Elementary Schools: Its Causes and Effects on Students.

During the last decade, bullying at work has gradually emerged as an important issue in organizational research. Bullying at work is defined as the exposure to persistent or recurrent oppressive, offensive, abusive behavior in the workplace in which the aggressor may be a superior or a colleague. This paper presents the main contributions of one of the pioneer research groups in this field, The Bergen Bullying Group. Research findings relating to the very nature of the concept of bullying in the workplace, the causes and the consequences of the problem are presented. The paper also presents a conceptual framework for future theory development in this field.

The findings of study highlights the nature and various causes of bullying which will help supportive school environment by justifying the effects of aggression, bullying

School bullying

The purpose of this paper is to present research exploring the pervasiveness and causes of cyberbullying, the psychological impact on students, and the responses to cyberbullying from students and administrators. The goal is to give school leaders a greater understanding of this phenomenon and suggest steps to deal with this challenging issue. Technological advances have created new challenges for schools in keeping students safe. This paper has implications for educational policy and practice, including steps school leaders can take to curtail cyberbullying.

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.

The classroom, where a group of kids repeatedly taunt the youngest child in the class for being stupid. From the vantage point of adulthood, bullying is mean-spirited and pointless, but it is unfortunately a regular part of childhood. Luckily, bullying has finally entered the media spotlight, and the public outcry is forcing parents, teachers, administrators and policy-makers to step up to the plate and do something. As with any public discourse, this inevitably means confusion, misunderstanding and misconception on the part of listeners. Oftentimes, when the topic of bullying crops up, people have more questions than answers.


  • Models for baseline psychopathologic behavior as a cause of bullying and baseline bullying as a cause of later psychopathologic behavior. Pelagia C. - 17.06.2021 at 02:03