- Email: [email protected]
Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children
Accepted Manuscript Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children
Ylva Bjereld, Kristian Daneback, Max Petzold PII: DOI: Reference:
S0190-7409(17)30052-X doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.012 CYSR 3212
To appear in:
Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
18 October 2016 13 January 2017 13 January 2017
Please cite this article as: Ylva Bjereld, Kristian Daneback, Max Petzold , Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children. The address for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Cysr(2017), doi: 10.1016/ j.childyouth.2017.01.012
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children
Ylva Bjereld, MSc (Corresponding author) Department of Social Work at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden
PT
Department of Social Work, P.O. Box 720, SE 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden
RI
Phone: +46 (0)707-208717
SC
Fax: +46 (0)31 69 17 77
NU
Email: [email protected]
Kristian Daneback, Professor
MA
Department of Social Work at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden
PT E
Max Petzold, Professor
D
Email: [email protected]
Centre for Applied Biostatistics at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
CE
Email: [email protected]
AC
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Petra Löfstedt, Maria Corell and the Swedish National Institute of Public Health for granting us access to the HBSC database.
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
RI
PT
Abstract: Parents and teachers play an important role in helping victims of bullying to prevent, cope with and end bullying. Despite that, victims' relationships with adults have often been overlooked in previous research. The aim of this study was to investigate bullied and not bullied children's perception of the quality of their relationship with teachers and parents and to examine if there were any differences in the perception associated with bullying frequency or type of victimization. Data came from the Swedish Health Behavior in Schoolaged Children (HBSC) survey from 2013/14, which included 7867 students aged 11, 13 and 15. A multi-level multinomial logistic regression model was created to estimate association between the type of bullying victimization and the quality of relationships with parents and teachers. The result showed that bullied children had poorer relationships with parents and teachers than nonvictims. Victims had higher odds of finding it difficult to talk to parents about things bothering them, of feeling that the family was not listening to what they had to say, and of having low confidence in their teacher. Frequent cyber victims had the highest AdjOR (2.09-3.37) compared with non-victims to have poor quality relationships with teachers and parents.
AC
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
Keywords: Bullying; Cyberbullying; Victimization; Social relations; HBSC
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children
PT
1. Introduction
RI
Experiences from bullying, independently of whether they are direct, indirect or through various technological devices, have a damaging impact on the majority of victims (Ortega et
SC
al., 2012). There is not yet a universally agreed definition of traditional bullying (Tokunaga,
NU
2010) or cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2012; Li et al., 2012). One of the most commonly used descriptions of traditional bullying is that a child is considered bullied when he or she
MA
repeatedly and over time is exposed to negative actions from one or more other persons from which the bullied child has trouble defending him/herself (Olweus, 1993). One way to
PT E
online mode (Ybarra et al., 2012).
D
conceptualize cyberbullying is to define it as traditional bullying, communicated through the
CE
Previous research shows that more children and adolescents are involved in traditional bullying than in cyberbullying (Olweus and Breivik, 2013). However, there is an overlap
AC
between the groups of victims since cybervictims are often bullied in traditional ways as well (Cross et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2008; Olweus and Breivik, 2013; Tokunaga, 2010). Many studies on traditional bullying report that boys generally are more likely to be bullied than girls (Scheidt et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993; Boulton and Underwood, 1992), but newer findings on gender differences have been mixed for both traditional and cyberbullying, finding gender no longer a strong predictor of victimization (Tokunaga, 2010; Hong and Espelage, 2012; Bjereld et al., 2015; Craig et al., 2009). Recent studies in Sweden indicate a change in pattern,
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT identifying girls as being cyberbullied more frequently than boys (Beckman et al., 2013; Låftman et al., 2013; Friends., 2015).
Both adults in the home and teachers have a dramatic impact on youth (Swearer and Espelage, 2010). The adult-child relationship influences the ability of children to manage bullying
PT
situations (Mishna, 2012). Regardless of if children are bullied in traditional ways or through
RI
cyber technology, parents and teachers play an important role in helping the victim cope with,
SC
prevent and end bullying (Siyahhan et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2008). Findings from recent studies have suggested that while children that rarely communicate with their parents are
NU
more likely to be bullied (Wang et al., 2012; Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2015), two-way communication between victim and parents has a buffering function against both bullying
MA
(Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2015) and the negative psychological effect of bullying (Ledwell and King, 2015). High parental support has been associated with fewer symptoms of depression
D
among the victims (Conners-Burrow et al., 2009) and lower prevalence of victimization
PT E
(Wang et al., 2009). However, much more is known about families of children and adolescents who bully others than families of children who are victimized (Swearer and
CE
Espelage, 2010) and victims’ relationships with teachers and family as predictor of positive adjustment have often been overlooked in the literature (Nation et al., 2008; Sapouna and
AC
Wolke, 2013).There is a lack of understanding for the quality of relationships between bullied children and adults.
Due to the harmful consequences of bullying, several strategies have been developed with intentions to stop bullying. But to end bullying has been found to be difficult and there is not yet a universal solution to the problem. Although disclosing bullying victimization to an adult not always mean that the bullying come to an end (Bjereld, 2016), telling parents and teachers
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT about bullying victimization is often an effective help-seeking strategy (Smith et al., 2008; Dowling and Carey, 2013). Children are thus encouraged, both in schools and from information available online, to disclose victimization (Black et al., 2010; www.umo.se; www.friends.se). The encouragement is logical from a rational choice perspective, where actors (in this case the victims) are considered to have meaningful goals to seek (Archer and
PT
Tritter, 2000). Individuals seek to achieve the best outcomes for themselves and when faced
RI
with a choice an actor will seek the best decision (Graziano, 2012). From an outside
SC
perspective, a rational choice for a victim would be to tell a parent or teacher as an attempt to end the bullying (goal) since adults often can provide help and support. But rationality is the
NU
right use of reason to make choices in the best possible way (Graziano, 2012) and from the
MA
victims’ perspective; the rational choice is not always to tell about the bullying.
Regardless of the encouragement to tell, and the possibility of help and support, a large
D
proportion of victims do not tell an adult about the victimization (Waasdorp and Bradshaw,
PT E
2015), and cybervictims have been less likely to tell than traditional victims (Smith et al., 2008; Waasdorp and Bradshaw, 2015). Previous research that includes children’s own
CE
perceptions of telling is scarce (deLara, 2012), but suggests that victims do not disclose victimization of reasons such as the ubiquitous nature of bullying, concern over adult
AC
response, a sense of autonomy and shame (deLara 2012). An interview study with bullied youth showed that victim’ strategies to disclose bullying could not only be understood as a matter of tell or not to tell. It was a matter of whether to continue disclosing victimization or not. Continuing to disclose victimization was closely associated with adults’ reactions after finding out about the bullying. Victims who felt they had not been listened to or taken seriously, or who had lost confidence in adults did not continue to disclose bullying (Bjereld, 2016). To disclose victimization to an adult could be seen as a victim’s last resort (deLara,
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2008) since telling has been associated with more serious bullying experiences (Smith, Shu, and Madsen 2001). Frequently bullied children have been more likely to tell their parents or teacher about bullying than children bullied less regularly (Fekkes et al., 2005; Hunter and Borg, 2006).
PT
The contradiction between a) parents and teachers as a source of help and b) bullied children
RI
not telling about the victimization, gives rise to questions regarding the quality of the
SC
relationship between the victims and their parents and teachers. Have victims the same quality of relationship with parents and teachers as non-victims? If not, is the difference in quality
NU
related to how often the bullying occurs and whether the bullying is traditional or cyber? The aim of this study was to investigate bullied and not bullied children’s perception of the quality
MA
of their relationship with teachers and parents and to examine if there were any differences in
D
the perception associated with bullying frequency or type of victimization.
PT E
2. Method
The data in the present study comes from the Swedish Health Behaviour in School-aged
CE
Children (HBSC) survey, which was carried out in winter 2013/14. The HBSC is a World Health Organization (WHO) collaborative study based on a cross-sectional survey. The
AC
questionnaire was distributed to randomly sampled students aged 11, 13 and 15, using a stratified cluster probability sampling scheme with school class as the sampling unit. The questionnaires were administered anonymously to all students present in class on the day of the surveys. The questionnaire was answered by 7867 children with an overall response rate of 69.4% (Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2014). Appropriate ethical consent for the HBSC study was obtained in individual schools.
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.1. Measures 2.1.1. Bullying victimization The survey included a common definition of bullying, followed by the question used for measuring traditional victimization: “How often have you been bullied at school in the past
PT
couple of months?” Cybervictimization was measured with the question “How often have you been bullied in school the following ways?” with two following items: “someone took
RI
embarrassing or inappropriate pictures of you and put them online against your will” and
SC
“someone wrote nasty instant messages, posts, emails and text messages, or created a web
NU
page that humiliated you”. Possible responses for each item were: I haven't been bullied in the past couple of months/it has only happened once or twice/two or three times a month/about
MA
once a week/several times a week. Children who answered that they had been bullied once or twice in the past two months at any of the questions were considered to be occasional victims
D
and children who had been bullied more often were considered to be frequent victims. This
PT E
categorization of victims was used since both the psychological outcomes of bullying (Tokunaga, 2010) and the reluctance to disclose bullying (Fekkes et al., 2005; Hunter and
CE
Borg, 2006) are associated with the frequency. Similar categorization has been used in
AC
previous research (Ortega et al., 2012; Molcho et al., 2009; Chester et al., 2015).
Initially, cybervictims were divided into the outcomes “solely cybervictims” and “cybervictims who were also traditionally bullied”. The analysis showed minor differences between these categories and they were combined into the groups as shown in table 1. The first group was named occasional cybervictims, including children that were only cyberbullied and children that were both cyberbullied and traditionally bullied. The second group was named frequent cybervictims, including children that were frequently cyberbullied 7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT or both frequently traditional bullied and cyberbullied. Finally, children were divided into five groups – occasional traditional victims, occasional cybervictims, frequent traditional victims, frequent cybervictims and non-victims. Table 1. The composition of the groups occasional and frequent cybervictims. Frequent cybervictims
Occasional cyberbullied
Frequent cyberbullied
Occasional cyberbullied+ Occasional traditional bullied
Frequent traditional bullied+ Occasional cyberbullied
RI
PT
Occasional cybervictims
SC
Frequent traditional bullied+ Frequent cyberbullied
NU
2.1.2. Quality of relationships with parents and teachers
MA
Confidence in teacher was measured by three items: “I feel that my teachers accept me as I am”, “I feel that my teachers care about me as a person” and “I feel trust in my teachers” with
D
possible responses; strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree.
PT E
The items form a composite scale, with an internal consistency of α=.86 (Cronbach's alfa). A sum-score was generated from the responses to the three items ranging from 3 to 15. Children
CE
with scores below the 90th percentile were considered to feel confidence in the teacher while
teacher.
AC
children above or equal to the 90th percentile were considered to not feel confidence in the
The quality of relationship with parents was measured with three single items regarding listening, talk and understanding. The first item was “In my family: When I speak someone listens to what I say”. Children who answered that they strongly agreed/agreed were considered to have a listening family while children answering that they neither agreed nor disagreed/disagreed/strongly disagreed were coded to family not listening. The second item 8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT was “How easy is it for you to talk to mother/father about things that really bother you?” Children answering that it was very easy or easy to talk to at least one parent were coded as finding it easy to talk to parent. Children answering that it was difficult/very difficult were coded as difficult talk to parents. The third item was “My mother/father understands my problems and worries”. Children with at least one parent who almost always understood were
PT
considered to have understanding parents, while children with no such parents were
SC
RI
considered to not have understanding parents.
NU
2.2.Analysis
Frequencies for the prevalence of bullying victimization were estimated and chi-square
MA
analysis was used to determine potential gender differences. Data used in the study had a multi-level structure with school classes as sampling units. Thus, a multi-level analysis was
D
performed to estimate association between type of bullying victimization and quality of
PT E
relationships with parents and teachers. School classes were used as second-level unit. The analysis was performed using SPSS statistics 24 and the GENLINMIXED procedure. The
CE
final multi-level multinomial logistic regression model simultaneously included exposure to five different outcomes of the dependent variable bullying victimization, using non-victims as
AC
the reference category. Age and gender were included in the model as potential confounding factors. All variables were statistically significantly associated with the measure of bullying victimization, but the variable not have understanding parents did not remain significant after adjusting for the other variables and were thus excluded from the model. Children with missing information on variables included in the model or who did not have any parents/had no contact with any parent were omitted from the analysis (11.4%).
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3. Result Of the 6971 children included in the study, 1239 (17.8%) reported being bullied in the past couple of month (Table 2). Occasional victimization was most prevalent with 853 (12.2%) children reported being occasionally bullied. Frequent victimization was reported by 386
PT
(5.5%) children. Victimization was most prevalent among 13-year olds (21.4%) and least prevalent among 11-year olds (14.9%). Cybervictims, including both solely cybervictims and
RI
cybervictims who were also traditionally bullied, was the largest group of victims. Traditional
SC
victimization alone was more common than solely cybervictimization. Within the group of occasional cybervictims, the majority were solely cybervictims who had not been traditionally
NU
bullied (4.7% vs 1.8%). Unlike occasional cybervictims, the majority of the frequent
MA
cybervictims were not solely cyberbullied, but were also traditionally bullied (1.0% vs 1.9%). While the gender distribution was equal among traditional victims, almost twice as many girls
PT E
D
as boys were cyberbullied (p<0.001).
3.1. The quality of child – adult relationships
CE
The results of the multi-level multinomial logistic regression model are shown in table 3.
AC
Occasional victims had higher odds than non-victims to experience that their family did not listen to what they had to say and of not feel confidence in teachers, with Adj OR varying between 1.69 and 2.46. Initially, occasional victims also had higher odds of finding it difficult to talk to their parents about things that bothered them, but the difference was only statistically significant for cybervictims and did not remain after adjusting for the other variables in the model.
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Frequent victims had higher odds than non-victims of having poor relationships with adults on all variables included in the model; of not feel confidence in teachers, of experience that their family did not listen to what they had to say, and of finding it difficult to talk with their parents about things that bothered them. For frequent traditional victims the AdjOR varied between 1.87 and 2.22, frequent cyber victims had the highest AdjOR compared to non-
SC
RI
PT
victims, varying between 2.09 and 3.37.
NU
4. Discussion
Bullied children in this study were more likely to have poor relationships with parents and
MA
teachers than non-victims. The poorer quality of the relationships is a concern since parents and teachers are important to help victims to cope with, prevent and end bullying (Siyahhan et
D
al., 2012). If victimization is disclosed, adults could provide help and support, which makes it
PT E
rational for adults to encourage children to tell a parent or teacher about victimization. Despite that, previous research has illuminated that a significant proportion of bullied children,
CE
particularly cybervictims, do not tell adults about the victimization (Smith et al., 2008; Waasdorp and Bradshaw, 2015). Previous research points out obstacles for children to
AC
disclose victimization, such as the ubiquitous nature of bullying, concern over adult response and a sense of autonomy and shame (deLara 2012). One more part of the explanation as to why many children do not disclose bullying could be what was shown in the present study, that victims had poor relationships with parents and teachers.
Both occasional and frequent victims had higher odds of feeling that their family was not listening to what they had to say and of not feel confidence in their teacher, compared to non11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT victims. Besides that, frequent victims also had higher odds of finding it difficult to talk to parents about things that bother them. When a decision is the result of what the actor wants and the chances of obtaining it (Graziano 2012) it is a rational decision for children to not disclose being bullied if they find it difficult to talk about the victimization with their parents, are not expecting to be listened to or to not feel confidence in the teacher. In such
PT
circumstances, the rational action from the victim’s point of view is to manage the
RI
victimization without adult involvement since there is not a trustworthy parent or teacher to
NU
SC
confide in.
In this study, it was the frequent victims, especially cybervictims, who had the highest odds of
MA
having poor relationships with parents and teachers compared to non-victims. Previous research has identified frequent victims as more likely to have mental health problems
D
(Tokunaga, 2010) and to not tell adults about the victimization (Fekkes et al., 2005; Hunter
PT E
and Borg, 2006). This study adds that frequent victims also have higher odds of having poor relationships with parents and teachers. One challenging question for future research is how
CE
this group of victims with poor relationships could best be included in the work against bullying. The general encouragement given to victims to disclose bullying (Black et al., 2010;
AC
www.friends.se; www.umo.se) is suitable for children with reliable relationships with parents and teachers, but for children with poor relationships such encouragement might not be the best or sufficient solution.
Boys and girls in this study were traditionally bullied to a similar extent, but cyberbullying were more prevalent among girls. This result is in line with more recent findings on gender
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT differences, where the main part of Swedish studies has identified girls as cyberbullied more frequently than boys (Beckman et al., 2013; Låftman et al., 2013; Friends., 2015).
The survey used in this study did not include any questions as to whether the victims had told
PT
anyone about the victimization. It was thus not possible to measure how much parents or teachers were aware of the bullying, and if that was associated with the quality of the
RI
relationship. In a previous study, bullied youth that experienced that they had not been
SC
listened to or not been taken seriously had finally lost confidence in adults (Bjereld, 2016),
NU
which could indicate that the quality of the relationships between victim, parents and teachers is associated with the experience of adults’ action and reaction after finding out about
MA
bullying. Future research should study the causality and find out if the quality of the relationship is poor as a related consequence of the bullying, if the poor quality is both a cause
D
and a consequence of the bullying, or if it the relationships were poor even before bullying
CE
4.1 Limitations
PT E
occurred.
AC
One limitation of this study was the item measuring bullying. The respondents answered questions regarding how often they had been bullied in school. The problem is that not all bullying is acted out solely inside or solely outside the school setting. For example, an embarrassing photo could be taken in school but posted and spread online after school hours. Another limitation with this study was the cross-sectional design. It was possible to draw the conclusion that bullied children had poorer relationships with parents and teachers than nonvictims, but it was not possible to establish the direction of the association. Finally, the assertion "In my family: When I speak someone listens to what I say", does not solely 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT measure parental listening. Siblings might listen even if parents do not. Thus, the measurement did not capture if victims was not listened to by parents but instead by a sibling.
5. Conclusions
PT
The present study shows that bullied children have poorer relationships to teachers and
RI
parents than non-victims. Regardless of what comes first, the poor relationships or the
SC
victimization, the poorer relationships with adults is a dilemma for the work against bullying. Previous research has shown that telling parents and teachers about victimization is effective
NU
(Dowling & Carey, 2013; Smith et al., 2008) and a central part in the work against bullying is thus built on the encouragement for children to disclose victimization. But this study has
MA
shown that victims’ relations are poor with the adults who potentially could help managing bullying. An important area for future research is to present ways to improve relationships
D
between victims and adults, as well as interact with and include victims with poor
AC
CE
PT E
relationships to teachers and parents in the work against bullying.
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Sample characteristics of the study population in n (%) Participants Non -victims Occasional victimization Traditional Cyber Frequent victimization Traditional Cyber Total
11 2160 (85.1)
Age group 13 1646 (78.6)
15 1926 (82.3)
399 (5.7) 454 (6.5) 331 (4.7)/123 (1.8)*
95 (3.7) 174 (6.9)
123 (5.9) 180 (8.6)
181 (7.7) 100 (4.3)
182 (2.6) 204 (2.9) 70 (1.0)/134 (1.9)* 6971(100)
39 (1.5) 70 (2.8)
57 (2.7) 87 (4.2)
86 (3.7) 47 (2.0)
2538 (100)
2093 (100)
5732 (82.2)
Girl 2833 (79.2)
U N
2899 (85.5)
210 (5.9) 300 (8.4) + 220 (6.1)/ 80 (2.2)*
T P
189 (5.6) 154 (4.5) + 111 (3.3)/43 (1.3)*
97 (2.7) 139 (3.9) + 48 (1.3)/91 (2.5)* 3579 (100)
85 (2.5) 65 (1.9) + 22 (0.6)/43 (1.3)* 3392 (100)
I R
C S
2340 (100)
Boy
A
*Frequencies of the groups of cybervictims, divided on cybervictimization alone vs combined cyber- and traditional victimization +
Girls were cyberbullied significantly more often than boys p<0.001, compared to non-victims.
D E
M
T P
E C
C A
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CIs) of the quality of child – adult relationships presented separately for four types of bullying victimization in a multi-level multinomial regression model Traditional Adj OR
Cyber Adj OR
p <0.001 <0.001 0.914
<0.001 <0.001 0.346
2.46 (1.93-3.12) 1.71 (1.28-2.28) 0.98 (0.72-1.35)
2.22 (1.50-3.30) 1.87 (1.21-2.88) 1.98 (1.28-3.06)
<0.001 0.005 0.002
3.00 (2.16-4.17) 3.37 (2.38-4.78) 2.09 (1.45-3.01)
IP
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
AC
CE
PT
ED
M
AN
US
N=6971 Adj OR modelled simultaneously, adjusted for age and gender. *Ref= Have confidence in the teacher **Ref= Family listening ***Ref= Easy to talk to parent
T
1.69 (1.26-2.26) 1.84 (1.34-2.53) 1.18 (0.83-1.68)
CR
Occasional victimization Low confidence in teachers* Family not listening** Difficult talk to parents*** Frequent victimization Low confidence in teachers* Family not listening** Difficult talk to parents***
p
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT References
AC
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Archer MS and Tritter JQ. (2000) Rational choice theory: resisting colonisation, London: Routledge. Beckman L, Hagquist C and Hellstrom L. (2013) Discrepant gender patterns for cyberbullyiyng and traditional bullying-An analysis of swedish adolescent data. Comput Hum Behav 29: 1896 1903. Bjereld Y. (2016) The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim’s point of view. Journal of Health Psychology. Bjereld Y, Daneback K and Petzold M. (2015) Differences in prevalence of bullying victimization between native and immigrant children in the Nordic countries: a parent‐reported serial cross‐sectional study. Child: Care, Health and Development 41: 593-599. Black S, Weinles D and Washington E. (2010) Victim Strategies to Stop Bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8: 138-147. Boulton MJ and Underwood K. (1992) Bully/victim problems among middle school children British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 73-87. Chester KL, Callaghan M, Cosma A, et al. (2015) Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 to 2010. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 25: 61-64. Conners-Burrow NA, Johnson DL, Whiteside-Mansell L, et al. (2009) Adults matter: Protecting children from the negative impacts of bullying. Psychology in the Schools 46: 593-604. Craig W, Harel-Fisch Y, Fogel-Grinvald H, et al. (2009) A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health 54: 216-224. Cross D, Lester L and Barnes A. (2015) A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of cyber and traditional bullying victimisation. International Journal of Public Health 60: 207-217. deLara E. (2008) Developing a Philosophy about Bullying and Sexual Harassment: Cognitive Coping Strategies Among High School Students. Journal of School Violence 7: 72-96. deLara E. (2012) Why Adolescents Don't Disclose Incidents of Bullying and Harassment. Journal of School Violence 11: 288-305. Dowling MJ and Carey TA. (2013) Victims of bullying: whom they seek help from and why: an Australian sample. Psychology in the Schools 50: 798-809. Fekkes M, Pijpers FIM and Verloove-Vanhorick SP. (2005) Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research 20: 81-91. Friends. (2015) Friends Online Report 2015. http://friends.se/en/facts-research/reports/friendsonline-report-2015/. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM and Ortega-Ruiz R. (2015) Parenting styles and bullying. The mediating role of parental psychological aggression and physical punishment. Child Abuse and Neglect. Graziano M. (2012) Epistemology of Decision: Rational Choice, Neuroscience and Biological Approaches: Elektronisk resurs. Hong JS and Espelage DL. (2012) A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 17: 311-322. Hunter S and Borg M. (2006) The Influence of Emotional Reaction on Help Seeking by Victims of School Bullying. Educational Psychology 26: 813-826. Ledwell M and King V. (2015) Bullying and Internalizing Problems: Gender Differences and the Buffering Role of Parental Communication. Journal of Family Issues 36: 543-566. Li Q, Smith PK and Cross D. (2012) Research Into Cyberbullying: Context. In: Li Q, Cross D and Smith PK (eds) Cyberbullying in the global playground: research from international perspectives Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 3-12. Låftman SB, Modin B, Ostberg V, et al. (2013) Cyberbullying and subjective health A large-scale study of students in Stockholm, Sweden. Children and Youth Services Review 35: 112-119. 17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Mishna F. (2012) Bullying: a guide to research, intervention, and prevention / [Elektronisk resurs], Oxford;New York;: Oxford University Press. Mishna F, Khoury-Kassabri M, Gadalla T, et al. (2012) Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth Services Review 34: 63-70. Molcho M, Craig W, Due P, et al. (2009) Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994 - 2006: Findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health 54: S225S234. Nation M, Vieno A, Perkins DD, et al. (2008) Bullying in school and adolescent sense of empowerment: an analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 18: 211-232. Olweus D. (1993) Bullying at School: what we know and what we can do, Oxford: Blackwell. Olweus D and Breivik K. (2013) Plight of victims of school bullying: The opposite of well-being. Handbook of child well-being: Theories, Methods and Policies in Global Perspective. Ortega R, Elipe P, Mora‐Merchán JA, et al. (2012) The Emotional Impact of Bullying and Cyberbullying on Victims: A European Cross‐National Study. Aggressive Behavior 38: 342-356. Public Health Agency of Sweden (2014). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC), results from Sweden of the 2013/14 WHO study [Skolbarns hälsovanor i Sverige 2013/14: grundrapport]. Sapouna M and Wolke D. (2013) Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 37: 997-1006. Scheidt P, Ruan WJ, Pilla RS, et al. (2001) Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment. JAMA 285: 2094-2100. Siyahhan S, Aricak OT and Cayirdag-Acar N. (2012) The relation between bullying, victimization, and adolescents' level of hopelessness. Journal of Adolescence 35: 1053-1059. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, et al. (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49: 376-385. Smith, P.K., S. Shu, and K. Madsen, Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills, in Peer Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized, J. Juvonen and S. Graham, Editors. 2001, Guilford Press: New York. p. 332-351. Swearer SM and Espelage DL. (2010) A Social-Ecological Model for Bullying Prevention and Intervention In: Jimerson SR, Swearer SM and Espelage DL (eds) Handbook of Bullying in Schools Oxon: Routledge, 61-73. Tokunaga RS. (2010) Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 26: 277-287. Waasdorp TE and Bradshaw CP. (2015) The Overlap Between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 56: 483-488. Wang H, Zhou X, Lu C, et al. (2012) Adolescent Bullying Involvement and Psychosocial Aspects of Family and School Life: A Cross-Sectional Study from Guangdong Province in China: e38619. PLoS One 7. Wang J, Iannotti RJ and Nansel TR. (2009) School Bullying Among Adolescents in the United States: Physical, Verbal, Relational, and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health 45: 368-375. www.friends.se. Accessed 2015.11.26. Retrieved from http://friends.se/fakta-forskning/ommobbning/vanliga-fragor-om-mobbning/ www.umo.se. Accessed 2015.11.26. Retrieved from http://www.umo.se/Vald-krankningar/Mobbning/Om-du-blir-mobbad/ Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, et al. (2012) Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health 51: 53-58.
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Bullied children had poorer relationships with parents and teachers than non-victims Victimization was associated with the feeling that the family was not listening Victims had higher odds than non-victims of not feel confidence in the teacher Frequent victimization was associated with finding it difficult to talk to parents
AC
19
Ylva Bjereld, Kristian Daneback, Max Petzold PII: DOI: Reference:
S0190-7409(17)30052-X doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.012 CYSR 3212
To appear in:
Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
18 October 2016 13 January 2017 13 January 2017
Please cite this article as: Ylva Bjereld, Kristian Daneback, Max Petzold , Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children. The address for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Cysr(2017), doi: 10.1016/ j.childyouth.2017.01.012
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children
Ylva Bjereld, MSc (Corresponding author) Department of Social Work at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden
PT
Department of Social Work, P.O. Box 720, SE 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden
RI
Phone: +46 (0)707-208717
SC
Fax: +46 (0)31 69 17 77
NU
Email: [email protected]
Kristian Daneback, Professor
MA
Department of Social Work at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden
PT E
Max Petzold, Professor
D
Email: [email protected]
Centre for Applied Biostatistics at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
CE
Email: [email protected]
AC
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Petra Löfstedt, Maria Corell and the Swedish National Institute of Public Health for granting us access to the HBSC database.
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
RI
PT
Abstract: Parents and teachers play an important role in helping victims of bullying to prevent, cope with and end bullying. Despite that, victims' relationships with adults have often been overlooked in previous research. The aim of this study was to investigate bullied and not bullied children's perception of the quality of their relationship with teachers and parents and to examine if there were any differences in the perception associated with bullying frequency or type of victimization. Data came from the Swedish Health Behavior in Schoolaged Children (HBSC) survey from 2013/14, which included 7867 students aged 11, 13 and 15. A multi-level multinomial logistic regression model was created to estimate association between the type of bullying victimization and the quality of relationships with parents and teachers. The result showed that bullied children had poorer relationships with parents and teachers than nonvictims. Victims had higher odds of finding it difficult to talk to parents about things bothering them, of feeling that the family was not listening to what they had to say, and of having low confidence in their teacher. Frequent cyber victims had the highest AdjOR (2.09-3.37) compared with non-victims to have poor quality relationships with teachers and parents.
AC
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
Keywords: Bullying; Cyberbullying; Victimization; Social relations; HBSC
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Do bullied children have poor relationships with their parents and teachers? A cross-sectional study of Swedish children
PT
1. Introduction
RI
Experiences from bullying, independently of whether they are direct, indirect or through various technological devices, have a damaging impact on the majority of victims (Ortega et
SC
al., 2012). There is not yet a universally agreed definition of traditional bullying (Tokunaga,
NU
2010) or cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2012; Li et al., 2012). One of the most commonly used descriptions of traditional bullying is that a child is considered bullied when he or she
MA
repeatedly and over time is exposed to negative actions from one or more other persons from which the bullied child has trouble defending him/herself (Olweus, 1993). One way to
PT E
online mode (Ybarra et al., 2012).
D
conceptualize cyberbullying is to define it as traditional bullying, communicated through the
CE
Previous research shows that more children and adolescents are involved in traditional bullying than in cyberbullying (Olweus and Breivik, 2013). However, there is an overlap
AC
between the groups of victims since cybervictims are often bullied in traditional ways as well (Cross et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2008; Olweus and Breivik, 2013; Tokunaga, 2010). Many studies on traditional bullying report that boys generally are more likely to be bullied than girls (Scheidt et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993; Boulton and Underwood, 1992), but newer findings on gender differences have been mixed for both traditional and cyberbullying, finding gender no longer a strong predictor of victimization (Tokunaga, 2010; Hong and Espelage, 2012; Bjereld et al., 2015; Craig et al., 2009). Recent studies in Sweden indicate a change in pattern,
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT identifying girls as being cyberbullied more frequently than boys (Beckman et al., 2013; Låftman et al., 2013; Friends., 2015).
Both adults in the home and teachers have a dramatic impact on youth (Swearer and Espelage, 2010). The adult-child relationship influences the ability of children to manage bullying
PT
situations (Mishna, 2012). Regardless of if children are bullied in traditional ways or through
RI
cyber technology, parents and teachers play an important role in helping the victim cope with,
SC
prevent and end bullying (Siyahhan et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2008). Findings from recent studies have suggested that while children that rarely communicate with their parents are
NU
more likely to be bullied (Wang et al., 2012; Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2015), two-way communication between victim and parents has a buffering function against both bullying
MA
(Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2015) and the negative psychological effect of bullying (Ledwell and King, 2015). High parental support has been associated with fewer symptoms of depression
D
among the victims (Conners-Burrow et al., 2009) and lower prevalence of victimization
PT E
(Wang et al., 2009). However, much more is known about families of children and adolescents who bully others than families of children who are victimized (Swearer and
CE
Espelage, 2010) and victims’ relationships with teachers and family as predictor of positive adjustment have often been overlooked in the literature (Nation et al., 2008; Sapouna and
AC
Wolke, 2013).There is a lack of understanding for the quality of relationships between bullied children and adults.
Due to the harmful consequences of bullying, several strategies have been developed with intentions to stop bullying. But to end bullying has been found to be difficult and there is not yet a universal solution to the problem. Although disclosing bullying victimization to an adult not always mean that the bullying come to an end (Bjereld, 2016), telling parents and teachers
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT about bullying victimization is often an effective help-seeking strategy (Smith et al., 2008; Dowling and Carey, 2013). Children are thus encouraged, both in schools and from information available online, to disclose victimization (Black et al., 2010; www.umo.se; www.friends.se). The encouragement is logical from a rational choice perspective, where actors (in this case the victims) are considered to have meaningful goals to seek (Archer and
PT
Tritter, 2000). Individuals seek to achieve the best outcomes for themselves and when faced
RI
with a choice an actor will seek the best decision (Graziano, 2012). From an outside
SC
perspective, a rational choice for a victim would be to tell a parent or teacher as an attempt to end the bullying (goal) since adults often can provide help and support. But rationality is the
NU
right use of reason to make choices in the best possible way (Graziano, 2012) and from the
MA
victims’ perspective; the rational choice is not always to tell about the bullying.
Regardless of the encouragement to tell, and the possibility of help and support, a large
D
proportion of victims do not tell an adult about the victimization (Waasdorp and Bradshaw,
PT E
2015), and cybervictims have been less likely to tell than traditional victims (Smith et al., 2008; Waasdorp and Bradshaw, 2015). Previous research that includes children’s own
CE
perceptions of telling is scarce (deLara, 2012), but suggests that victims do not disclose victimization of reasons such as the ubiquitous nature of bullying, concern over adult
AC
response, a sense of autonomy and shame (deLara 2012). An interview study with bullied youth showed that victim’ strategies to disclose bullying could not only be understood as a matter of tell or not to tell. It was a matter of whether to continue disclosing victimization or not. Continuing to disclose victimization was closely associated with adults’ reactions after finding out about the bullying. Victims who felt they had not been listened to or taken seriously, or who had lost confidence in adults did not continue to disclose bullying (Bjereld, 2016). To disclose victimization to an adult could be seen as a victim’s last resort (deLara,
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2008) since telling has been associated with more serious bullying experiences (Smith, Shu, and Madsen 2001). Frequently bullied children have been more likely to tell their parents or teacher about bullying than children bullied less regularly (Fekkes et al., 2005; Hunter and Borg, 2006).
PT
The contradiction between a) parents and teachers as a source of help and b) bullied children
RI
not telling about the victimization, gives rise to questions regarding the quality of the
SC
relationship between the victims and their parents and teachers. Have victims the same quality of relationship with parents and teachers as non-victims? If not, is the difference in quality
NU
related to how often the bullying occurs and whether the bullying is traditional or cyber? The aim of this study was to investigate bullied and not bullied children’s perception of the quality
MA
of their relationship with teachers and parents and to examine if there were any differences in
D
the perception associated with bullying frequency or type of victimization.
PT E
2. Method
The data in the present study comes from the Swedish Health Behaviour in School-aged
CE
Children (HBSC) survey, which was carried out in winter 2013/14. The HBSC is a World Health Organization (WHO) collaborative study based on a cross-sectional survey. The
AC
questionnaire was distributed to randomly sampled students aged 11, 13 and 15, using a stratified cluster probability sampling scheme with school class as the sampling unit. The questionnaires were administered anonymously to all students present in class on the day of the surveys. The questionnaire was answered by 7867 children with an overall response rate of 69.4% (Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2014). Appropriate ethical consent for the HBSC study was obtained in individual schools.
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.1. Measures 2.1.1. Bullying victimization The survey included a common definition of bullying, followed by the question used for measuring traditional victimization: “How often have you been bullied at school in the past
PT
couple of months?” Cybervictimization was measured with the question “How often have you been bullied in school the following ways?” with two following items: “someone took
RI
embarrassing or inappropriate pictures of you and put them online against your will” and
SC
“someone wrote nasty instant messages, posts, emails and text messages, or created a web
NU
page that humiliated you”. Possible responses for each item were: I haven't been bullied in the past couple of months/it has only happened once or twice/two or three times a month/about
MA
once a week/several times a week. Children who answered that they had been bullied once or twice in the past two months at any of the questions were considered to be occasional victims
D
and children who had been bullied more often were considered to be frequent victims. This
PT E
categorization of victims was used since both the psychological outcomes of bullying (Tokunaga, 2010) and the reluctance to disclose bullying (Fekkes et al., 2005; Hunter and
CE
Borg, 2006) are associated with the frequency. Similar categorization has been used in
AC
previous research (Ortega et al., 2012; Molcho et al., 2009; Chester et al., 2015).
Initially, cybervictims were divided into the outcomes “solely cybervictims” and “cybervictims who were also traditionally bullied”. The analysis showed minor differences between these categories and they were combined into the groups as shown in table 1. The first group was named occasional cybervictims, including children that were only cyberbullied and children that were both cyberbullied and traditionally bullied. The second group was named frequent cybervictims, including children that were frequently cyberbullied 7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT or both frequently traditional bullied and cyberbullied. Finally, children were divided into five groups – occasional traditional victims, occasional cybervictims, frequent traditional victims, frequent cybervictims and non-victims. Table 1. The composition of the groups occasional and frequent cybervictims. Frequent cybervictims
Occasional cyberbullied
Frequent cyberbullied
Occasional cyberbullied+ Occasional traditional bullied
Frequent traditional bullied+ Occasional cyberbullied
RI
PT
Occasional cybervictims
SC
Frequent traditional bullied+ Frequent cyberbullied
NU
2.1.2. Quality of relationships with parents and teachers
MA
Confidence in teacher was measured by three items: “I feel that my teachers accept me as I am”, “I feel that my teachers care about me as a person” and “I feel trust in my teachers” with
D
possible responses; strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree.
PT E
The items form a composite scale, with an internal consistency of α=.86 (Cronbach's alfa). A sum-score was generated from the responses to the three items ranging from 3 to 15. Children
CE
with scores below the 90th percentile were considered to feel confidence in the teacher while
teacher.
AC
children above or equal to the 90th percentile were considered to not feel confidence in the
The quality of relationship with parents was measured with three single items regarding listening, talk and understanding. The first item was “In my family: When I speak someone listens to what I say”. Children who answered that they strongly agreed/agreed were considered to have a listening family while children answering that they neither agreed nor disagreed/disagreed/strongly disagreed were coded to family not listening. The second item 8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT was “How easy is it for you to talk to mother/father about things that really bother you?” Children answering that it was very easy or easy to talk to at least one parent were coded as finding it easy to talk to parent. Children answering that it was difficult/very difficult were coded as difficult talk to parents. The third item was “My mother/father understands my problems and worries”. Children with at least one parent who almost always understood were
PT
considered to have understanding parents, while children with no such parents were
SC
RI
considered to not have understanding parents.
NU
2.2.Analysis
Frequencies for the prevalence of bullying victimization were estimated and chi-square
MA
analysis was used to determine potential gender differences. Data used in the study had a multi-level structure with school classes as sampling units. Thus, a multi-level analysis was
D
performed to estimate association between type of bullying victimization and quality of
PT E
relationships with parents and teachers. School classes were used as second-level unit. The analysis was performed using SPSS statistics 24 and the GENLINMIXED procedure. The
CE
final multi-level multinomial logistic regression model simultaneously included exposure to five different outcomes of the dependent variable bullying victimization, using non-victims as
AC
the reference category. Age and gender were included in the model as potential confounding factors. All variables were statistically significantly associated with the measure of bullying victimization, but the variable not have understanding parents did not remain significant after adjusting for the other variables and were thus excluded from the model. Children with missing information on variables included in the model or who did not have any parents/had no contact with any parent were omitted from the analysis (11.4%).
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3. Result Of the 6971 children included in the study, 1239 (17.8%) reported being bullied in the past couple of month (Table 2). Occasional victimization was most prevalent with 853 (12.2%) children reported being occasionally bullied. Frequent victimization was reported by 386
PT
(5.5%) children. Victimization was most prevalent among 13-year olds (21.4%) and least prevalent among 11-year olds (14.9%). Cybervictims, including both solely cybervictims and
RI
cybervictims who were also traditionally bullied, was the largest group of victims. Traditional
SC
victimization alone was more common than solely cybervictimization. Within the group of occasional cybervictims, the majority were solely cybervictims who had not been traditionally
NU
bullied (4.7% vs 1.8%). Unlike occasional cybervictims, the majority of the frequent
MA
cybervictims were not solely cyberbullied, but were also traditionally bullied (1.0% vs 1.9%). While the gender distribution was equal among traditional victims, almost twice as many girls
PT E
D
as boys were cyberbullied (p<0.001).
3.1. The quality of child – adult relationships
CE
The results of the multi-level multinomial logistic regression model are shown in table 3.
AC
Occasional victims had higher odds than non-victims to experience that their family did not listen to what they had to say and of not feel confidence in teachers, with Adj OR varying between 1.69 and 2.46. Initially, occasional victims also had higher odds of finding it difficult to talk to their parents about things that bothered them, but the difference was only statistically significant for cybervictims and did not remain after adjusting for the other variables in the model.
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Frequent victims had higher odds than non-victims of having poor relationships with adults on all variables included in the model; of not feel confidence in teachers, of experience that their family did not listen to what they had to say, and of finding it difficult to talk with their parents about things that bothered them. For frequent traditional victims the AdjOR varied between 1.87 and 2.22, frequent cyber victims had the highest AdjOR compared to non-
SC
RI
PT
victims, varying between 2.09 and 3.37.
NU
4. Discussion
Bullied children in this study were more likely to have poor relationships with parents and
MA
teachers than non-victims. The poorer quality of the relationships is a concern since parents and teachers are important to help victims to cope with, prevent and end bullying (Siyahhan et
D
al., 2012). If victimization is disclosed, adults could provide help and support, which makes it
PT E
rational for adults to encourage children to tell a parent or teacher about victimization. Despite that, previous research has illuminated that a significant proportion of bullied children,
CE
particularly cybervictims, do not tell adults about the victimization (Smith et al., 2008; Waasdorp and Bradshaw, 2015). Previous research points out obstacles for children to
AC
disclose victimization, such as the ubiquitous nature of bullying, concern over adult response and a sense of autonomy and shame (deLara 2012). One more part of the explanation as to why many children do not disclose bullying could be what was shown in the present study, that victims had poor relationships with parents and teachers.
Both occasional and frequent victims had higher odds of feeling that their family was not listening to what they had to say and of not feel confidence in their teacher, compared to non11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT victims. Besides that, frequent victims also had higher odds of finding it difficult to talk to parents about things that bother them. When a decision is the result of what the actor wants and the chances of obtaining it (Graziano 2012) it is a rational decision for children to not disclose being bullied if they find it difficult to talk about the victimization with their parents, are not expecting to be listened to or to not feel confidence in the teacher. In such
PT
circumstances, the rational action from the victim’s point of view is to manage the
RI
victimization without adult involvement since there is not a trustworthy parent or teacher to
NU
SC
confide in.
In this study, it was the frequent victims, especially cybervictims, who had the highest odds of
MA
having poor relationships with parents and teachers compared to non-victims. Previous research has identified frequent victims as more likely to have mental health problems
D
(Tokunaga, 2010) and to not tell adults about the victimization (Fekkes et al., 2005; Hunter
PT E
and Borg, 2006). This study adds that frequent victims also have higher odds of having poor relationships with parents and teachers. One challenging question for future research is how
CE
this group of victims with poor relationships could best be included in the work against bullying. The general encouragement given to victims to disclose bullying (Black et al., 2010;
AC
www.friends.se; www.umo.se) is suitable for children with reliable relationships with parents and teachers, but for children with poor relationships such encouragement might not be the best or sufficient solution.
Boys and girls in this study were traditionally bullied to a similar extent, but cyberbullying were more prevalent among girls. This result is in line with more recent findings on gender
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT differences, where the main part of Swedish studies has identified girls as cyberbullied more frequently than boys (Beckman et al., 2013; Låftman et al., 2013; Friends., 2015).
The survey used in this study did not include any questions as to whether the victims had told
PT
anyone about the victimization. It was thus not possible to measure how much parents or teachers were aware of the bullying, and if that was associated with the quality of the
RI
relationship. In a previous study, bullied youth that experienced that they had not been
SC
listened to or not been taken seriously had finally lost confidence in adults (Bjereld, 2016),
NU
which could indicate that the quality of the relationships between victim, parents and teachers is associated with the experience of adults’ action and reaction after finding out about
MA
bullying. Future research should study the causality and find out if the quality of the relationship is poor as a related consequence of the bullying, if the poor quality is both a cause
D
and a consequence of the bullying, or if it the relationships were poor even before bullying
CE
4.1 Limitations
PT E
occurred.
AC
One limitation of this study was the item measuring bullying. The respondents answered questions regarding how often they had been bullied in school. The problem is that not all bullying is acted out solely inside or solely outside the school setting. For example, an embarrassing photo could be taken in school but posted and spread online after school hours. Another limitation with this study was the cross-sectional design. It was possible to draw the conclusion that bullied children had poorer relationships with parents and teachers than nonvictims, but it was not possible to establish the direction of the association. Finally, the assertion "In my family: When I speak someone listens to what I say", does not solely 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT measure parental listening. Siblings might listen even if parents do not. Thus, the measurement did not capture if victims was not listened to by parents but instead by a sibling.
5. Conclusions
PT
The present study shows that bullied children have poorer relationships to teachers and
RI
parents than non-victims. Regardless of what comes first, the poor relationships or the
SC
victimization, the poorer relationships with adults is a dilemma for the work against bullying. Previous research has shown that telling parents and teachers about victimization is effective
NU
(Dowling & Carey, 2013; Smith et al., 2008) and a central part in the work against bullying is thus built on the encouragement for children to disclose victimization. But this study has
MA
shown that victims’ relations are poor with the adults who potentially could help managing bullying. An important area for future research is to present ways to improve relationships
D
between victims and adults, as well as interact with and include victims with poor
AC
CE
PT E
relationships to teachers and parents in the work against bullying.
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Sample characteristics of the study population in n (%) Participants Non -victims Occasional victimization Traditional Cyber Frequent victimization Traditional Cyber Total
11 2160 (85.1)
Age group 13 1646 (78.6)
15 1926 (82.3)
399 (5.7) 454 (6.5) 331 (4.7)/123 (1.8)*
95 (3.7) 174 (6.9)
123 (5.9) 180 (8.6)
181 (7.7) 100 (4.3)
182 (2.6) 204 (2.9) 70 (1.0)/134 (1.9)* 6971(100)
39 (1.5) 70 (2.8)
57 (2.7) 87 (4.2)
86 (3.7) 47 (2.0)
2538 (100)
2093 (100)
5732 (82.2)
Girl 2833 (79.2)
U N
2899 (85.5)
210 (5.9) 300 (8.4) + 220 (6.1)/ 80 (2.2)*
T P
189 (5.6) 154 (4.5) + 111 (3.3)/43 (1.3)*
97 (2.7) 139 (3.9) + 48 (1.3)/91 (2.5)* 3579 (100)
85 (2.5) 65 (1.9) + 22 (0.6)/43 (1.3)* 3392 (100)
I R
C S
2340 (100)
Boy
A
*Frequencies of the groups of cybervictims, divided on cybervictimization alone vs combined cyber- and traditional victimization +
Girls were cyberbullied significantly more often than boys p<0.001, compared to non-victims.
D E
M
T P
E C
C A
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CIs) of the quality of child – adult relationships presented separately for four types of bullying victimization in a multi-level multinomial regression model Traditional Adj OR
Cyber Adj OR
p <0.001 <0.001 0.914
<0.001 <0.001 0.346
2.46 (1.93-3.12) 1.71 (1.28-2.28) 0.98 (0.72-1.35)
2.22 (1.50-3.30) 1.87 (1.21-2.88) 1.98 (1.28-3.06)
<0.001 0.005 0.002
3.00 (2.16-4.17) 3.37 (2.38-4.78) 2.09 (1.45-3.01)
IP
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
AC
CE
PT
ED
M
AN
US
N=6971 Adj OR modelled simultaneously, adjusted for age and gender. *Ref= Have confidence in the teacher **Ref= Family listening ***Ref= Easy to talk to parent
T
1.69 (1.26-2.26) 1.84 (1.34-2.53) 1.18 (0.83-1.68)
CR
Occasional victimization Low confidence in teachers* Family not listening** Difficult talk to parents*** Frequent victimization Low confidence in teachers* Family not listening** Difficult talk to parents***
p
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT References
AC
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Archer MS and Tritter JQ. (2000) Rational choice theory: resisting colonisation, London: Routledge. Beckman L, Hagquist C and Hellstrom L. (2013) Discrepant gender patterns for cyberbullyiyng and traditional bullying-An analysis of swedish adolescent data. Comput Hum Behav 29: 1896 1903. Bjereld Y. (2016) The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim’s point of view. Journal of Health Psychology. Bjereld Y, Daneback K and Petzold M. (2015) Differences in prevalence of bullying victimization between native and immigrant children in the Nordic countries: a parent‐reported serial cross‐sectional study. Child: Care, Health and Development 41: 593-599. Black S, Weinles D and Washington E. (2010) Victim Strategies to Stop Bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8: 138-147. Boulton MJ and Underwood K. (1992) Bully/victim problems among middle school children British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 73-87. Chester KL, Callaghan M, Cosma A, et al. (2015) Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 to 2010. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 25: 61-64. Conners-Burrow NA, Johnson DL, Whiteside-Mansell L, et al. (2009) Adults matter: Protecting children from the negative impacts of bullying. Psychology in the Schools 46: 593-604. Craig W, Harel-Fisch Y, Fogel-Grinvald H, et al. (2009) A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health 54: 216-224. Cross D, Lester L and Barnes A. (2015) A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of cyber and traditional bullying victimisation. International Journal of Public Health 60: 207-217. deLara E. (2008) Developing a Philosophy about Bullying and Sexual Harassment: Cognitive Coping Strategies Among High School Students. Journal of School Violence 7: 72-96. deLara E. (2012) Why Adolescents Don't Disclose Incidents of Bullying and Harassment. Journal of School Violence 11: 288-305. Dowling MJ and Carey TA. (2013) Victims of bullying: whom they seek help from and why: an Australian sample. Psychology in the Schools 50: 798-809. Fekkes M, Pijpers FIM and Verloove-Vanhorick SP. (2005) Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research 20: 81-91. Friends. (2015) Friends Online Report 2015. http://friends.se/en/facts-research/reports/friendsonline-report-2015/. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM and Ortega-Ruiz R. (2015) Parenting styles and bullying. The mediating role of parental psychological aggression and physical punishment. Child Abuse and Neglect. Graziano M. (2012) Epistemology of Decision: Rational Choice, Neuroscience and Biological Approaches: Elektronisk resurs. Hong JS and Espelage DL. (2012) A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 17: 311-322. Hunter S and Borg M. (2006) The Influence of Emotional Reaction on Help Seeking by Victims of School Bullying. Educational Psychology 26: 813-826. Ledwell M and King V. (2015) Bullying and Internalizing Problems: Gender Differences and the Buffering Role of Parental Communication. Journal of Family Issues 36: 543-566. Li Q, Smith PK and Cross D. (2012) Research Into Cyberbullying: Context. In: Li Q, Cross D and Smith PK (eds) Cyberbullying in the global playground: research from international perspectives Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 3-12. Låftman SB, Modin B, Ostberg V, et al. (2013) Cyberbullying and subjective health A large-scale study of students in Stockholm, Sweden. Children and Youth Services Review 35: 112-119. 17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Mishna F. (2012) Bullying: a guide to research, intervention, and prevention / [Elektronisk resurs], Oxford;New York;: Oxford University Press. Mishna F, Khoury-Kassabri M, Gadalla T, et al. (2012) Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth Services Review 34: 63-70. Molcho M, Craig W, Due P, et al. (2009) Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994 - 2006: Findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health 54: S225S234. Nation M, Vieno A, Perkins DD, et al. (2008) Bullying in school and adolescent sense of empowerment: an analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 18: 211-232. Olweus D. (1993) Bullying at School: what we know and what we can do, Oxford: Blackwell. Olweus D and Breivik K. (2013) Plight of victims of school bullying: The opposite of well-being. Handbook of child well-being: Theories, Methods and Policies in Global Perspective. Ortega R, Elipe P, Mora‐Merchán JA, et al. (2012) The Emotional Impact of Bullying and Cyberbullying on Victims: A European Cross‐National Study. Aggressive Behavior 38: 342-356. Public Health Agency of Sweden (2014). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC), results from Sweden of the 2013/14 WHO study [Skolbarns hälsovanor i Sverige 2013/14: grundrapport]. Sapouna M and Wolke D. (2013) Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 37: 997-1006. Scheidt P, Ruan WJ, Pilla RS, et al. (2001) Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment. JAMA 285: 2094-2100. Siyahhan S, Aricak OT and Cayirdag-Acar N. (2012) The relation between bullying, victimization, and adolescents' level of hopelessness. Journal of Adolescence 35: 1053-1059. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, et al. (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49: 376-385. Smith, P.K., S. Shu, and K. Madsen, Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills, in Peer Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized, J. Juvonen and S. Graham, Editors. 2001, Guilford Press: New York. p. 332-351. Swearer SM and Espelage DL. (2010) A Social-Ecological Model for Bullying Prevention and Intervention In: Jimerson SR, Swearer SM and Espelage DL (eds) Handbook of Bullying in Schools Oxon: Routledge, 61-73. Tokunaga RS. (2010) Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 26: 277-287. Waasdorp TE and Bradshaw CP. (2015) The Overlap Between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 56: 483-488. Wang H, Zhou X, Lu C, et al. (2012) Adolescent Bullying Involvement and Psychosocial Aspects of Family and School Life: A Cross-Sectional Study from Guangdong Province in China: e38619. PLoS One 7. Wang J, Iannotti RJ and Nansel TR. (2009) School Bullying Among Adolescents in the United States: Physical, Verbal, Relational, and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health 45: 368-375. www.friends.se. Accessed 2015.11.26. Retrieved from http://friends.se/fakta-forskning/ommobbning/vanliga-fragor-om-mobbning/ www.umo.se. Accessed 2015.11.26. Retrieved from http://www.umo.se/Vald-krankningar/Mobbning/Om-du-blir-mobbad/ Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, et al. (2012) Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health 51: 53-58.
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights
CE
PT E
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
PT
Bullied children had poorer relationships with parents and teachers than non-victims Victimization was associated with the feeling that the family was not listening Victims had higher odds than non-victims of not feel confidence in the teacher Frequent victimization was associated with finding it difficult to talk to parents
AC
19