Understanding the Relationship between Resiliency and Bullying in Adolescence: An Assessment of Youth Resiliency from Five Urban Junior High Schools

Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am 16 (2007) 449–471

Understanding the Relationship between Resiliency and Bullying in Adolescence: An Assessment of Youth Resiliency from Five Urban Junior High Schools Tyrone Donnon, PhDa,b,*, Wayne Hammond, PhDc a

Medical Education and Research Unit, G705, Undergraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive N.W., Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1 b Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Heritage Research Building, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1 c Resiliency Canada, 116 Hidden Creek Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T3A 6J3

The occurrence of child and adolescent bullying in our society has been a persistent concern since the early 1970s. This concern has spurred a search for an understanding of the dynamics of bullying, which has increased dramatically with the recent lethal and fatal shootings of students and teachers from secondary schools across Western societies. There has been a growing consensus that acts of youth aggression are becoming more violent and unpredictable. We now know that the profile of an aggressor is not limited to stereotypical youth from low socio-economic status communities; an assailant can just as easily originate from well respected families and affluent neighorhoods. In addition, researchers have demonstrated that there are resilient youth who are able to demonstrate the ability to overcome and survive exposure to stress-related and adversarial conditions (eg, poverty, family dysfunction, and neighborhood violence) to lead normal and productive lives into adulthood [1–3]. Although there has been considerable interest in understanding the factors that lead to resiliency, only recently have researchers begun to look at the process of resiliency as an integral part of human development [4,5]. The purpose of this article is to present

* Corresponding author. Medical Education and Research Unit, G705, Undergraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive N.W., Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Donnon). 1056-4993/07/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2006.11.007 childpsych.theclinics.com

450

DONNON & HAMMOND

a theoretical framework for the construct of adolescent resiliency that is based on a comprehensive youth developmental strengths (DS) model. Using Resiliency Canada’s Youth Resiliency: Assessing Developmental Strengths (YR: ADS) questionnaire, we demonstrate the importance of promoting and understanding how youth resiliency factors contribute to adolescents’ ability to refrain from risk behaviors patterns, such as bullying and other acts of aggression. In particular, we examine why some youth are susceptible to bullying and fighting while similarly situated children and adolescents are resilient to this and other risk behaviors. Concurrently, we illustrate how the cumulative effects of DS support youth in their efforts to engage in more productive or positive behavior patterns. We define youth resiliency as the ability of children and adolescents to cope successfully in the face of stress-related, at-risk or adversarial situations. Resiliency Canada’s primary goal is to provide an understanding through applied and scientific research of why some children and adolescents are more resilient than others in the face of adversity. Based on this research and on the literature on resiliency and adolescent development, the DS model identifies the resiliency factors that encourage and enhance the well being and development of all youth in our communities. Finally, as opposed to the problem–focus approach of dealing with specific risk behaviors, the purpose of Resiliency Canada’s YR: ADS questionnaire is to provide a statistically sound and research-based approach to understanding the strengths that are related to long-term resiliency. The concept of protective or resiliency factors has been prevalent in the social science and healthrelated research communities for decades. Working from this strength-based model of understanding youth development, we emphasize the positive aspects of individual differences in understanding what extrinsic and intrinsic strengths contribute to optimal child and adolescent development. How resiliency factors contribute to adolescent development A long history of research into the factors that contribute to an understanding of the maladaptive behaviors of atypical youth generated considerable interested in identifying the forces that would lead to healthy adaptive lifestyles [5–8]. Initiated by Werner’s longitudinal studies in Hawaii [3], a systemic search for the prevalent elements of resiliency adaptation has expanded to include research into a multitude of individual characteristics and contextual settings. In particular, personal or intrinsic characteristics of resilient children have been studied to determine the importance of such qualities as self-esteem [9–11], self-efficacy [12], and intellectual functioning [13,14]. Equally, there was acknowledgment from researchers that a variety of contextually related extrinsic variables were associated with stress-resilient children and their immediate environment. A major focus has been placed on youth in low socio-economic conditions [3,6,15], dysfunctional family settings [11,16–18], and multifaceted constructs such as

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

451

competency [19] and coping skills [9]. A review of the research into the protective factors of stress-resistant children [10,20] outlined three main areas of focus in identifying variables of influence: (1) personal attributes; (2) family characteristics; and (3) other external support systems such as peers, school, and the community [3,4,19]. The literature outlines sufficient support for two broad sets of factors that are related to a general framework for understanding the development of resiliency: (1) intrinsic strengths, which are personality characteristics or attributes of the individual (eg, empathy, self-esteem, and self-efficacy), and (2) extrinsic strengths, which are interpersonal settings or environments (eg, supportive family, positive peer influence, and caring school and community environments). As researchers strive to identify potential solutions to specific problembased diagnoses, little effort has been placed on the cumulative effects that protective or resiliency factors may play in allowing youth to lead healthy and productive lifestyles [21]. Consequently, there is a concern that young people are not provided with appropriate social support systems that promote personal development and adequate caring and supportive relationships with families, peers, schools, and communities [22–25]. Particularly in large urban areas, it has become difficult to establish adequate guidance or positive opportunities for youth to receive constant and consistent nurturing of the values, beliefs, and competencies they need to become independent, contributing members of society [21,26–28]. During the past decade, research has shown that policies and programs for youth that focus on preventing specific youth behavior problems (eg, vandalism and drug abuse) generally are unable to report long-term benefits [29–34]. With the expectations of heightened resilience strengths in youth, various efforts have shifted toward the development of a resiliency framework and model that would have implications for determining social and psychologic well-being in children and adolescents [35]. Concurrently, practitioners in the fields of education, psychology, and social work have adopted the concept of youth resiliency as it pertains to identifying potential services and prevention programs in a community [25,36–38]. From an applied research perspective, the focus on a comprehensive framework for understanding the development of youth resiliency has enabled community stakeholders to focus on a strength-based approach to addressing child and youth developmental issues, such as bullying and aggressive behaviors [21,39]. Finally, there seems to be a consensus that a framework for understanding resiliency must be comprehensive and contextually relevant to the everevolving individual and collective developmental progressions [18]. Efforts to develop a framework for the construct of resiliency will be hampered by the heterogeneity of resiliency functioning across different conditions or settings [40,41]. Grounded in research on resilience, protective factors, prevention, and adolescent development, the YR: ADS questionnaire introduces a multidimensional resiliency framework that defines the DS model used to understand and promote the conditions for optimal healthy, caring,

452

DONNON & HAMMOND

Table 1 List and description of the 31 developmental strengths Resiliency factors

Developmental strength and description

Parental support and expectations

Caring family: The family provides a nurturing, caring, loving home environment. Family communication: The child can communicate with family openly about issues/concerns. Adult family members as role models: The family provides responsible role models. Family support: The family provides trust, support, and encouragement regularly. Parental involvement in schooling: The family is active in provide help/support. High expectations: The family encourages youth to set goals and do the best he/she can. Positive peer relationships: Friendships are respectful and viewed positively by adults. Positive peer influence: Friendships are trustworthy and based on positive outcomes. Caring neighborhood: Youth live in a caring and friendly neighborhood. Community values youth: Adults in the community respect youth and their opinions. Adult relationships: Adults try to get to know the youth and are viewed as trustworthy. Neighborhood boundaries: Neighbors have clear expectations for youth. Achievement: Youth works hard to do well and get the best grades in school. School engagement: Youth is interested in learning and working hard in the classroom. School work: Youth works hard to complete homework and assignments on time. School boundaries: School has clear rules and expectations for appropriate behaviors. Bonding to school: Youth cares about and feels safe at school. Caring school climate: School environment and teachers provide a caring climate. High expectations: School/teacher encourages goal setting and to do the best they can. Cultural awareness: Youth has a good understanding and interest in other cultures. Acceptance: Youth respects other’s beliefs and is pleased about cultural diversity. Spirituality: Youth has strong spiritual beliefs/values that play an important role in life. Restraint: Youth believes that it is important for him/her to restrain from the use of substances. Resistance skills: Youth is able to avoid or say ‘‘no’’ to people who may place them at risk.

Peer relationships

Community cohesiveness

Commitment to learning at school

School culture

Cultural sensitivity

Self-control

(continued on next page)

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

453

Table 1 (continued ) Resiliency factors

Developmental strength and description

Empowerment

Safety: Youth feels safe and in control of their immediate environment. Planning and decision-making: Youth is capable of making purposeful plans for the future. Self-efficacy: Youth believes in his/her abilities to do may different things well. Self-esteem: Youth feels positive about hin/herself and the future. Empathy: Youth emphasizes with others and cares about other people’s feelings. Caring: Youth is concerned about and believes it is important to help others. Equity and social justice: Youth believes in equality and that it is important to be fair to others.

Self-concept

Social sensitivity

and productive youth (Table 1). To ensure theoretical continuity to the assessment of the resiliency domains, various subsets of youth are compared and have been shown to reflect adaptive risk or constructive behavior patterns that correspond to corresponding categories of measured DS. In the next section, we present the psychometric properties and predictive relevance of the YR: ADS questionnaire as a viable, self-reported research instrument for measuring Grade 7 to 12 adolescents’ resiliency factors or DS. To introduce a theoretical framework for understanding the factors that promote the development of youth resiliency, the focus is on illustrating the potential utility of the instrument by presenting the findings from a large urban sample of junior high school students (n ¼ 2,291). Assessing youth bullying and the Youth Resiliency: Assessing Developmental Strengths questionnaire Bullying and related aggressive behaviors are recognized in most Western societies, including Australia [42], Great Britain [43], Scandinavia [44,45], and the United States [46–48]. There are various methods of assessing the extent of youth aggression and bullying problems within schools. Teachers’ perceptions of youth bullying and direct interviews are effective in addressing specific problem behaviors of individual students [49]. To make generalizations about the extent of bullying on a large scale, the anonymous self-report questionnaire is the most reliable and valid method. Initiated by the work of Olweus [44,50] in Norway, this methodologic approach has been adopted in many other European countries, the United States, England, Japan, and Canada. For example, from self-reports of students in Toronto, 49% of the students in Grades 4 to 8 indicated that they had been bullied at least once or twice during the term, and 8% of the youth indicated that they were being bullied on a weekly basis [51]. Thirty-nine percent of these students indicated that they had bullied another person at least

454

DONNON & HAMMOND

once during the past term, and from within this group, 15% admitted to more frequent bullying. This information was corroborated by teacher reports of bullying in their classrooms. These findings are supported by data on national trends of bullying and victimization collected from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children [52], which found that a comparable proportion of children aged 4 to 11 in Canada are victims (5%) or bullies (14%). The YR: ADS questionnaire has been used similarly on a large scale to establish a statistically sound and reliable instrument that has demonstrated consistency between schools. The emphasis placed on anonymity during the administration of the questionnaire has been an important strategy in encouraging students to respond truthfully (based on their own perceptions), and extra care is taken to monitor for extreme outliers in the initial data entry process. All of the items that were developed for use in the YR: ADS questionnaire were primarily drawn and formulated from the wealth of research literature on child and adolescent development. A comprehensive list of demographic and behavioral indicator items was modified from various standardized instruments and provides a broad item bank for future research. For example, many of the demographic and behavioral items are selected from and compared with the regularly administered National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth [53]. Designed for students at a Grade 7 reading level, the questionnaire has been found to be suitable for adolescents in Grades 7 to 12 but also has been used successfully with a large sample of Grade 6 students. The YR: ADS questionnaire is designed to allow for the flexibility of use in various applied and scientific-based research studies. The instrument consists of three sections: (1) Ninety-four items are used to measure the 10 factor or 31 development strengths subscales associated with the resiliency framework, (2) several items are used to measure frequencies that are considered to reflect potentially negative- (eg, substance abuse and antisocial behavior) and positive-related behaviors (eg, achieving success in school, valuing diversity, maintaining good health, and exhibiting leadership), and (3) a section with various demographic questions to identify independent or extraneous variables (eg, school/community, gender, age, grade, family setting, language, and mother’s/father’s level of education). The ability to manipulate the demographic and behavioral indicators has been attractive to other researchers interested in studying the relationships between the resiliency framework and the specificity of other conditions (eg, gambling and youth gangs) or concepts (eg, attachment and self-concept). For applied purposes in community settings, the DS have been presented in comprehensive reports to various community stakeholders (ie, community members, school personnel, and service sector representatives) as dichotomous variables. In generating a report that would best meet the communication needs of community members, the data are presented in anonymous, aggregated percentages that reflect whether the youth ‘‘have’’ or ‘‘don’t have’’ the particular strength. By initially comparing the

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

455

continuous distributions arrived at for items on each subscale, youth are defined as having the strength if their combined score is less than 2.50 on a 1- (strongly agree) to 5-(strongly disagree) point scale. The benefit of this approach is that the face validity of an individual’s response is not lost by the establishment of an arbitrary line, for example, at the mean or a standard deviation point from the sample data. Although report appendices provided more detailed information regarding the statistical breakdown of items by mean, median, mode, and standard deviation, the use of the dichotomous reporting format in the main text by percentages has allowed for an easy interpretation of youth DS by sex, grade, and total sample.

Psychometric properties of the Youth Resiliency: Assessing Developmental Strengths questionnaire One of the primary focuses in the development of the YR: ADS questionnaire has been to find a balance between the use of the questionnaire in community settings while maintaining the psychometric integrity of the instrument so that it has utility in applied and scientific research applications. An emphasis has been placed on ensuring that the YR: ADS questionnaire demonstrates valid and reliable measures, indicative of a sound psychometric tool, while allowing for flexibility in meeting the needs of various service-related sector institutions and organizations. Validity and reliability Because there is considerable literature that supports the factors identified previously, the configuration of the resiliency framework is based to some extent on the face and content validity of the items or variables. An exploratory factor analysis on the 94 strength-related items was conducted using the principal components method of extraction with an orthogonal varimax rotation. The resulting 10 factor solution accounts for 57% of the variance, and the salient loadings for the items were found to range from 0.30 to 0.81. The reliability coefficients of the resiliency factors are family a ¼ 0.96, community a ¼ 0.92, peers a ¼ 0.85, school (commitment to learning) a ¼ 0.88, school (culture) a ¼ 0.86, social sensitivity a ¼ 0.87, cultural sensitivity a ¼ 0.80, self-concept a ¼ 0.82, empowerment a ¼ 0.75, and self-control a ¼ 0.82. The factors were identified as conceptual from the respective loadings and were grouped around specific development strengths subscales accordingly. Each strengths subscale falls within one of the 10 factors solutions derived from the YR: ADS questionnaire resiliency framework. For example, the School Culture factor corresponds to four of the 31 DS (ie, school boundaries, bonding to school, caring school climate, and high expectations from school). Therefore, the separate strengths are psychometrically related to the resiliency factors identified from the 94 core items in the YR: ADS questionnaire. The

456

DONNON & HAMMOND

strengths subscales within any one factor represent items that contextually and conceptually fit together. For example, the Cultural Sensitivity factor has a ‘‘cultural awareness’’ subscale with an item that reads, ‘‘I have a good understanding of other races or cultures’’ and a ‘‘spirituality’’ subscale with an item that reads, ‘‘I feel that I have strong spiritual beliefs and values.’’ As defined through statistical analysis, the relationships between DS are directly associated with a specific extrinsic (eg, family, school, and community) or intrinsic (eg, self-control and social sensitivity) factor. All of the DS are measured by two or more items on a five-point Likert scale from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ The reliability of the scales of the YR: ADS questionnaire were determined using Cronbach’s a coefficient or Spearman-Brown prophecy formula for two-item strength subscales. Of the 31 subscales used to measure the DS, 28 (90%) of the strengths subscales demonstrate reliability coefficients above 0.60, and three (10%) are between 0.48 and 0.59 (Table 2). As part of the ongoing development and research into the resiliency framework, items are continually tested and retested to optimize the construct measures and improve the internal reliability of the scales. Youth resiliency profile from five urban junior high schools The first large-scale administration of the YR: ADS questionnaire was conducted in five junior high schools in Calgary near the end of the fall term of 2001. This work was sponsored through the United Way of Calgary by the Calgary Children’s Initiative and involved the collaborative efforts of a number of other representatives from nonprofit agencies (Aspen Family and Community Services, Boys and Girls Club, Communities in Action for Children and Youth, and the YMCA), municipal organizations (City of Calgary, Calgary Health Region), and the tremendous support of educators from the Calgary Board of Education. The intent of using the questionnaire was to enable community service sector agencies, organizations, and institutes to use the results to engage and mobilize community-member stakeholders to address potential youth-related issues and concerns. What was most attractive about the youth resiliency questionnaire to these community representatives who worked in the area was that the results were focused on a comprehensive, strength-based approach to understanding youth development. In particular, the extrinsically and intrinsically defined DS model provided a theoretical and holistic framework for understanding the importance of youth resiliency to the development of risk and positive behavior patterns. The questionnaire administration is dependent on many people; however, the success of the process has been attributed largely to the commitment of the school teachers and administrators at the school level. Typically, the entire school participates in the completion of the questionnaire on the same date, and time is allowed for efficiency in administration and consistency in student responses (ie, biased responses occur if students who have

457

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

Table 2 Reliability coefficients for developmental strengths subscales (n ¼ 2,291) Resiliency factors

Strength scales

No. of items

a Coefficient

Parental support and expectations

Caring family

5

0.90

Family communication Adult family members as role models Family support Parental involvement in schooling High expectations Positive peer relationships Positive peer influence Caring neighborhood Community values youth Adult relationships Neighborhood boundaries Achievement

5 2

0.83 0.55

6 3

0.87 0.78

2 5 5 3 3 3 2 3

0.69 0.74 0.78 0.74 0.81 0.80 0.63 0.73

3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2

0.75 0.74 0.68 0.53 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.84 0.84 0.72 0.70 0.48

3 3 4 2 2

0.66 0.74 0.79 0.60 0.63

Peer relationships Community cohesiveness

Commitment to learning at school

School culture

Cultural sensitivity

Self-control Empowerment Self-concept

Social sensitivity

School engagement School work School boundaries Bonding to school Caring school climate High expectations Cultural awareness Acceptance Spirituality Restraint Resistance skills Safety Planning and decisionmaking Self-efficacy Self-esteem Empathy Caring Equity and social justice

Note: Cronbach’s a coefficient was used to assess reliability. For two-item subscales, the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was used to assess reliability.

completed the questionnaire have an opportunity to discuss the items with others who have not). There were 2,291 completed questionnaires, with a range of junior high school populations from 347 to 567 students (aggregated and not individual school results are reported in this article). There was a fairly even distribution between boys (n ¼ 1,121, 48.9%) and girls (n ¼ 1,170, 51.1%) and by grade levels (Grade 7: n ¼ 712, 31.1%; Grade 8: n ¼ 790, 34.5%; and Grade 9: n ¼ 789, 34.4%). Demographic questions provide specific information regarding the education level of parents, family

458

DONNON & HAMMOND

setting, and ethnicity. In summary, the schools are located in high-needs communities in the city where there are on average a much greater number of recent immigrants, double the percentage of visible minorities, a 50% higher unemployment rate, and generally lower scores on a number of socioeconomic indicators [54,55]. The results support other Canadian findings that bullying is prevalent with the youth in the schools and communities. Approximately 31% of the students reported being bullied at least once a month. This included 11% who indicated that they were being bullied once a week or more. Thirty-one percent of the students reported they had bullied another person at least once during the last month, including 9% who indicated they bullied one or more times a week. Girls (30%) were just as likely as boys (33%) to bully or pick on another person at least once a month. Overall, 10% of girls and 11% of boys reported bullying or picking on another person one or more times a week. By grade level, the results show that 36% of Grade 7, 30% of Grade 8, and 29% of Grade 9 students reported that they bullied another person at least once during the past month. Although these findings confirm the high incidence of youth bullying and victimization in our schools and communities, further information concerning the impact of youth resiliency factors will provide insight into determining what contributes to these and other related risk behavior patterns. We used the dichotomous protocol for the applied reporting process to determine the percentage of youth who experienced each of the strengths by total, sex, and grade (Table 3). In general, the majority of youth indicated that they had a relatively large number of the resiliency factors, with the average student having 21 out of a possible 31 DS. In total, 81% reported having a ‘‘caring family,’’ 67% had ‘‘positive peer relationships,’’ 81% believed their school has ‘‘high expectations,’’ and 88% reported high ‘‘self-efficacy.’’ Of particular concern to community stakeholders are the low values obtained for all four of the community strengths measures, with only 31% of the total indicating they have a ‘‘caring neighborhood’’ and 34% believing that the ‘‘community values youth.’’ By grade, this downward trend becomes even more apparent: The percentage of youth in Grade 7 who indicated they have strengths like ‘‘adult relationships’’ or ‘‘community values youth’’ dropped from 45% to 28% and 42% to 26% by Grade 9, respectively. Although the reduction in the number of reported strengths by increased grade level is not surprising, future planned studies will investigate these trends further with adolescents up to Grade 12. Using developmental strengths to predict bullying and aggressive behavior patterns The behavioral section is flexible to accommodate any number of items that would provide specific information concerning the frequency of risk and constructive behaviors. Most of the indicators used in community-based

459

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

Table 3 Percentage of strengths by sex, grade, and total for an aggregated sample of youth (n ¼ 2,291) Sex

Grade

Strength scales

Total

Male

Female

7

8

9

Caring family Family communication Adult family members as role models Family support Parental involvement in schooling High expectations (parents) Positive peer relationships Positive peer influence Caring neighborhood Community values youth Adult relationships Neighborhood boundaries Achievement School engagement School work School boundaries Bonding to school Caring school climate High expectations (school) Cultural awareness Acceptance Spirituality Restraint Resistance skills Safety Planning and decision-making Self-efficacy Self-esteem Empathy Caring Equity and social justice

81 73 81 84 81 84 67 61 31 34 37 35 90 65 60 79 74 61 81 58 77 67 88 76 62 74 88 83 72 70 83

83 74 81 84 84 84 64 59 31 34 41 36 89 64 56 79 71 58 79 53 74 64 87 71 65 73 90 84 63 64 79

79 71 80 85 79 84 71 64 31 33 33 34 91 66 64 79 78 64 84 63 80 70 89 80 59 74 86 81 81 77 87

87 77 85 88 86 88 71 66 37 42 45 41 94 71 66 85 78 68 86 61 77 73 92 80 62 74 88 85 75 70 83

84 75 83 86 86 85 69 63 31 34 38 36 90 65 59 81 74 62 81 61 81 68 91 78 65 73 88 81 75 72 83

73 66 75 79 73 80 63 56 26 26 28 29 87 60 55 72 71 55 78 53 73 62 82 70 59 73 88 81 67 70 82

Note: Data were collected in the fall of 2001 from five urban junior high schools in close proximity to each other.

administration are designed to provide information concerning the frequency of behaviors during the past week, month, or year. As such, the association of risk and positive behavior patterns is defined based on how often (eg, weekly, monthly, or yearly) and frequently (eg, never, once, twice, –three or four times, or five or more times) youth engage in any one particular activity. Using the dichotomous split to determine whether or not a youth reports having a particular developmental strength, a sum total number of strengths out of a possible 31 is tabulated for each youth. From the aggregated sample data presented in this article, 5% have zero to five strengths, 6% have 6 to 10 strengths, 11% have 11 to 15 strengths, 18% have 16 to 20 strengths, 28% have 21 to 26 strengths, and 32% have

460

Table 4 Relation of the six developmental strengths (DS) categories to risk and positive behavior patterns (n ¼ 2,291) Risk and positive behavior patterns

Percentage of youth within DS category

Definition

0–5 DS

6–10 DS

11–15 DS

16–20 DS

21–25 DS

26–31 DS

Alcohol

Has used alcohol in the past month Has consume enough alcohol to get drunk in the past year Has used tobacco products in the past month Has used illegal drugs at least once in the past year Has skipped school at in the past month Has stolen something

57 53

41 41

36 33

24 19

15 11

10 5

43

27

19

12

6

3

40

28

20

12

4

3

48 50

33 37

28 27

17 15

10 10

5 7

57

45

38

26

12

6

72

54

45

36

26

16

39

35

28

17

9

6

35

37

19

15

9

6

Tobacco Illegal drugs School issues Antisocial behavior

Gambling

Has vandalized property at least once during the past year Has bullied another person at least once in the past month Has carried a weapon to protect oneself at least once in past year Has gambled or played the lottery once during the past month

DONNON & HAMMOND

Domain

Volunteers Physical activity Healthy diet Delayed gratification Personal development

Persistence Spiritual activities Academic excellence

10

22

23

23

26

40

44

53

57

59

57

62

17 21

27 26

30 36

36 39

43 40

55 53

28

25

33

39

45

52

18

18

26

32

33

41

30

34

36

36

44

51

28

33

37

42

50

56

16

25

49

55

60

69

18

28

40

45

56

62

Note: Data were collected in the fall of 2001 from five urban junior high schools in close proximity to each other.

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

Social development

Has volunteered in the community at least once in the past week Does physical activities for the body at least 1 h/d Stays healthy by eating good foods Saves money for something special rather than spending it right away Reads for pleasure at least three times per week Knows a lot about people from different cultures Does not give up when things become difficult Attends spiritual/religious/faith activities at least once a week Has completed at least 3 h of homework in the past week In comparison with other students, is above average in course subjects

461

462

DONNON & HAMMOND

26 to 31 strengths. The two extreme DS categories each have six possible options (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), whereas the four middle categories have five possible options (6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). It is not uncommon for some youth to self-report that they have do not have any of the DS. The relation between the six developmental strength categories to the percentage of youth who engage in risk and constructive behavior patterns is apparent (Table 4). The risk behavior patterns show a 4.5- to 15-fold increase in participation between the two extreme strength categories. For example, 57% of the youth in the 0 to 5 strengths category have vandalized property at least once in the past year, in comparison to 6% of the 26 to 31 strengths category (a 10-fold difference between groups). In contrast, youth who have greater numbers of strengths are almost 1.5 to 4 times more likely to engage in positive or constructive behavior patterns. There are a number of behavior indicators that are used and available for each administration of the YR: ADS questionnaire depending on the interests and needs of the agency, organization, or institute. The incident of victimization (bullied or picked on three or more times a month) reported by the youth from this sample population is depicted in Fig. 1. In support of the findings described previously, on average boys (11%) reported being bullied or picked on as often as girls (10%). Girls (16%) and boys (23%) who had the fewest number of DS (0–5) were over two times more likely to be victims of bullying. In Fig. 2, the differences by gender for level of bullying (at three or more times per month) for boys and girls are illustrated by the respective 10- and 40-fold differences in frequency rates between the two extreme strength

Level of Being Picked On or Bullied (≥3 Times/Mth)

0.25 Male (M=0.11) 0.23

Female (M=0.10)

0.20 0.19

0.16

0.15

0.14 0.13

0.14 0.13

0.12

0.10

0.09

0.09

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.00 0-5 DS

6-10 DS

11-15 DS 16-20 DS 21-25 DS 26-31 DS

Developmental Strengths Category Fig. 1. The effect of Sex  Strengths (DS) on being picked on or bullied (R3 times/mo).

463

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

0.50 Male (M=0.11)

0.46

Level of Bullying (≥3 Times/Mth)

0.45

Female (M=0.08)

0.40 0.35

0.38

0.30 0.28

0.25 0.20

0.19 0.16

0.15 0.12

0.10 0.09

0.05

0.08

0.07 0.03

0.04 0.01

0.00 0-5 DS

6-10 DS

11-15 DS 16-20 DS 21-25 DS 26-31 DS

Developmental Strengths Category Fig. 2. The effect of Sex  Strengths (DS) on bullying (R3 times/mo).

categories. This is replicated by grade because youth who have fewer DS are consistently more likely to engage in risk behavior patterns (Fig. 3). Gender differences become apparent when comparisons are made between other aggressive risk activities. Adolescent boys (17%) on average are more than twice as likely as girls (8%) to hit or beat up another person (Fig. 4). Youth in the highest DS category are 4 (boys) to 8 (boys) times less likely to physically strike another person than individuals in the lowest category. These

0.50

Level of Bullying (≥3 Times/Mth)

0.45

Grade 7 (M=0.08)

0.45

Grade 8 (M=0.08) Grade 9 (M=0.10)

0.40 0.35

0.34

0.33

0.30

0.28

0.25 0.23

0.20

0.18

0.15 0.14

0.10

0.08

0.05

0.13 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.03

0.00 0-5 DS

6-10 DS

0.03 0.02 0.01

11-15 DS 16-20 DS 21-25 DS 26-31 DS

Developmental Strengths Category Fig. 3. The effect of Grade  Strengths (DS) on bullying (R3 times/mo).

464

DONNON & HAMMOND

Level of Hitting or Beating Up (≥3 Times/Year)

0.45 Male (M=0.17)

0.40

0.41

Female (M=0.08)

0.35 0.33

0.32

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.21

0.20

0.22

0.15 0.13

0.111

0.10 0.07

0.10

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.00 0-5 DS

6-10 DS

11-15 DS 16-20 DS 21-25 DS 26-31 DS

Developmental Strengths Category Fig. 4. The effect of Sex  Strengths (DS) on hitting or beating someone (R3 times/yr).

similar effects are repeated for gender and strengths on the frequency (three or more times per year) of vandalism (on average, 7% of boys and 4% of girls) and the carrying of a concealed weapon for protection (9% of boys and 4% of girls). These findings support other research that shows that boys are generally more likely to be physical in their approaches to aggression than girls, who may lean more toward psychologicl forms of bullying [49,56]. Regarding the relationship between bullying and other acts of aggression, significant correlations were found with a number of other risk behavior patterns. For example, fair to moderate correlations were found between bullying and alcohol consumption (r ¼ 0.40, P!.001), skipping school (r ¼ 0.39, P!.001), stealing from a store (r ¼ 0.40, P!.001), hitting or beating up someone (r ¼ 0.49, P!.001), vandalism (r ¼ 0.50, P!.001), and carrying a concealed weapon for protection (r ¼ 0.39, P!.001). We focus on highlighting the results from vandalism and the potential for using a weapon as other physical acts linked to aggressive behaviors. On average, Grade 9 students are about two times more likely to vandalize (ie, damage or deface property just for fun) or carry a concealed weapon for protection than their Grade 7 and 8 counterparts (Figs. 5 and 6). Regardless of grade level, less than 1% and 3% of the total number of students in the 26 to 31 DS category engaged in acts of vandalism and weapon concealment, respectively. Even most of the 21 to 25 DS category students were able to refrain from both of these activities (!4% from any one grade reported frequencies greater than three or more times in the past year). In comparison with the percentage of students from any other DS category, a consistently higher number of youth report engagement in the specific risk behaviors with corresponding

465

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

0.40

Level of Vandalism (≥3 Times/Year)

Grade 7 (M=0.05)

0.35

0.36

Grade 8 (M=0.04) Grade 9 (M=0.08)

0.32

0.30 0.25 0.23 0.20

0.20 0.15

0.16 0.13 0.11

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.05

0.10 0.07 0.04 0.02

0.03 0.01

0.00 0-5 DS

6-10 DS

0.01 0.00

11-15 DS 16-20 DS 21-25 DS 26-31 DS

Developmental Strengths Category Fig. 5. The effect of Grade  Strengths (DS) on vandalism (R3 times/yr).

lower numbers of strengths. Based on these findings, it can be inferred that youth are in a more favorable position to develop better resiliency profiles if they are provided with an opportunity to have as many strengths as possible.

Level of Concealed Weapon Carried for Protection (3+ Times/Year)

0.30 Grade 7 (M=0.04)

0.28 0.27

Grade 8 (M=0.05) Grade 9 (M=0.10)

0.25 0.23

0.20 0.18

0.17 0.15

0.15 0.13

0.11

0.10

0.11

0.10 0.05

0.05

0.04 0.01

0.00 0-5 DS

6-10 DS

0.03 0.02 0.01

11-15 DS 16-20 DS 21-25 DS 26-31 DS

Developmental Strengths Category Fig. 6. The effect of Grade  Strengths (DS) on concealed weapon carried for protection (R3 times/yr).

466

DONNON & HAMMOND

How to encourage youth resiliency in our schools and communities This article presents the YR: ADS questionnaire results from five urban junior high schools. These five schools represent a specific region known for its cultural diversity and comparative lower socioeconomic status within the city (the impact of these variables is discussed elsewhere). As illustrated by the results featured in this article, there are specific trends between the number of developmental strengths youth have and their corresponding levels of specific risk (and conversely positive) behaviors. There is also consistency between developmental strengths categories that show that, despite sex or grade, youth who have a greater number of strengths tend to participate in more positive or constructive activities and are less likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors. There is clearly support for a comprehensive framework that looks at the role of strengths in promoting the development of youth resiliency. There seems to be a fairly high number of adolescents involved in bullying, violence, and victimization. The incidents of antisocial and other risk behavior patterns in adolescence are reflected in the six developmental strength categories by corresponding non-existent or low levels of protective or resiliency factors. As the results show, support involves a multilateral collaboration of families, schools, community members, and the adolescents themselves to work toward common solutions at resolving bullying and victimization. Various interventions that focused exclusively on targeted individuals or their families have meet with little success [21,55]. As Olweus [45] explains, the optimal intervention method to addressing the issue of bullying must come from a comprehensive approach that includes the collaborative efforts of teachers, parents, and students. As such, an ecologic perspective or whole school approach would involve acknowledgment and open discussion about preconceived notions of bullying and victimization in schools and communities [51]. This approach should also work collaboratively with other members of the community [57]. This combination of internal and external partnerships will enhance any initiative and help to ensure a greater likelihood of success. A large part of this process involves developing an understanding of the broader context within which the school and the students operate and how this affects what happens in the school in the present and the longer term. The YR: ADS questionnaire assists this process by providing schools with an easy-to-administer tool that helps pinpoint key information needed to understand students within the greater community and within the learning environment. The questionnaire results are compiled into a comprehensive report that is shared by the initial community stakeholders and educators from the schools. Initial presentations and discussions of the findings were conducted with community representatives and school personnel to share common understandings before a plan for the release of the results to the general public is scheduled. To encourage participation of family and community

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

467

members, an emphasis is placed on presenting and supporting the development of strengths that, through commonly shared efforts, promote youth resiliency. In the comprehensive report, for example, the data on the students focus on the positive aspect of the results, such as 90% of youth having a high commitment to ‘‘achievement’’ at school, 88% having strong personal ‘‘restraint’’ strengths, and 90% having not used tobacco products in the past month. The emphasis becomes less on identifying specific problems or laying blame on particular individuals than on understanding how the cumulative effect of developmental strengths and the promotion of youth resiliency encourage adolescents to adapt to the adversity they face daily. Summary Youth resiliency can be defined as the capacity of children and adolescents to adapt successfully in the face of high stress or adverse conditions. The ability of youth to negotiate risk during stressful situations has shifted the focus of research from the identification of protective factors to an understanding of how resiliency strengths and processes allow some individuals to cope more effectively than others [5]. Because variations in resiliency development are a function of the individual, the identification of resilient children and adolescents has largely been defined by the effectiveness of adaptation outcomes to risk exposure severity [6,11,41]. From a strength-based approach to understanding resiliency development, we demonstrate that low- and high-risk behavior patterns (eg, bullying, vandalism, and alcohol consumption) reflect corresponding strong and weak resiliency profiles, respectively. In general, the children and adolescents in Canada are growing up in communities that support healthy lifestyles and the well-being of youth. From time to time, however, most youth experience considerable stress, hardship, and misfortune as a result of various personal or situational experiences. Although some of these youth may develop serious and long-term educational, psychologic, and social problems, a greater number grow up to lead healthy and productive lives in adulthood. In a review of the literature and research on the development of resiliency, stress-resistant or resilient youth have common resiliency factors operating as two broad sets of developmental strengths that encourage and support the coping skills of children and adolescents: (1) extrinsic factors (eg, family, peers, school, and community), and (2) intrinsic factors or personality characteristics (eg, empowerment, self-control, cultural sensitivity, self-concept, and social sensitivity). The developmental strengths that contribute to resiliency exist within the individual and through the situational and relational experiences related to family, peers, school, and community. The additive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic strengths have shown that youth are able to cope with adversity more effectively than those who experience few of the developmental strengths. This becomes apparent when developmental

468

DONNON & HAMMOND

strengths are compared with individual attitudes and behaviors. Higher categories of combined intrinsic and extrinsic strengths experienced by youth correspond to more positive or constructive use of time and less engagement in risk behaviors such as bullying and aggression. Teachers and school administers are confronted daily with the task of establishing and maintaining a safe and caring school environment that is conducive to learning for all students. One of the major challenges in dealing with any incident that may have direct consequences in the school system is that many of the problems faced by our youth are beyond the control or responsibility of educators alone. The incidence of youth aggression does not begin or end within the period of time a child or adolescent spends under the supervision of the education system. The youth who bully others and engages in aggressive behaviors is influenced by a multitude of confounding extrinsic and intrinsic factors that are only partially related to how any one particular school operates or functions. Schools play a critical role in the process of child and adolescent development by providing the components or strengths they need to be caring and productive citizens in adulthood; nevertheless, a focus strictly on intervention or prevention strategies from within the school ignores the broader environment and the roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders in the lives of the youth and restricts measurements of outcome success to within the confines of the operating hours and physical boundaries of the school. For example, conscious efforts to promote social empathy in the classroom or the introduction of surveillance cameras in areas where bullying occurs frequently may reduce the overall number of reports of youth aggression in school but may have little impact on youth attitudes or behaviors once they are outside of school. A wide range of personal, social, cultural, and economic influences can hinder or support the development of youth resiliency. The developmental strengths model takes a holistic approach that looks at the resiliency factors that support and encourage youth to adopt positive attitudes and healthy lifestyle choices. By acknowledging the strengths that exist within youth, their families, schools, and communities, the key is to strive toward working collaboratively to build the capacity of everyone to nurture the development of youth resiliency. References [1] Werner EE. High-risk children in a young adulthood: a longitudinal study from birth to 32 years. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1989;59(1):72–81. [2] Werner EE. Risk and resilience in individuals with learning disabilities: lessons learned from the Kaui longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 1993; 8(1):28–34. [3] Werner EE, Smith RS. Vulnerable, but invincible: a longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982. [4] Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev 2000;71(3):543–62.

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

469

[5] Rutter M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In: Rolf J, Masten AS, Cicchetti D, et al (eds). Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 181–214 [6] Garmezy N. Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. Am Behav Sci 1991;34(4):416–30. [7] Radke-Yarrow M, Sherman T. Hard growing: children who survive. In: Rolf J, Masten AS, Cicchetti D, et al, editors. Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 97–119. [8] Rae-Grant N, Thomas BH, Offord DR, et al. Risk, protective factors, and the prevalence of behavioral and emotional disorders in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989;28(2):262–8. [9] Dumont M, Provost MA. Resilience in adolescents: protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. J Youth Adolesc 1999;28(3):343–63. [10] Masten AS, Garmezy N. Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in developmental psychology. In: Lahey B, Kazdin A, editors. Advances in clinical child psychology, vol. 8. New York: Plenum Press; 1985. p. 1–52 [11] Rutter M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1987; 57(3):316–31. [12] Masten AS, Coatsworth JD. The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: lessons from research on successful children. Am Psychol 1998;53: 205–20. [13] Freitas AL, Downey G. Resilience: a dynamic perspective. Int J Behav Dev 1998;22(2): 263–85. [14] Masten AS, Hubbard JJ, Gest SD, et al. Competence in the context of adversity: pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Dev Psychopathol 1999; 11:143–69. [15] Werner EE, Smith RS. Overcoming the odds: high risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; 1992. [16] Beardlee WR, Podorefsky D. Resilient adolescents whose parents have serious affective and other psychiatric disorders: importance of self-understanding and relationships. Am J Psychiatry 1988;145(1):63–9. [17] Ferguson DM, Lynsky MT. Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 1996;37(3):281–92. [18] Grossman FK, Beinashowitz J, Anderson L, et al. Risk and resilience in young adolescents. J Youth Adolesc 1992;21(5):529–50. [19] Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N. Resiliency and development: contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Dev Psychopathol 1990;2:425–44. [20] Garmezy N. Stress-resistant children: the search for protective factors. In: Stevenson JE, editor. Recent research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Book Supplement #4. Oxford (UK): Pergamon Press; 1985. p. 213–33. [21] Scales PC, Leffert N. Developmental assets: a synthesis of the scientific research an adolescent development. Minneapolis (MN): Search Institute; 1999. [22] Atkinson R. The development of purpose in adolescence: insights from the narrative approach. Adolesc Psychiatry 1987;14:149–61. [23] Jessor R, Van Den Bos J, Vanderryn J, et al. Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: moderator effects and developmental change. Dev Psychol 1995;31:923–33. [24] Kupersmidt JB, Coie JD. Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Dev 1990;61:1350–62. [25] Wolkow KE, Ferguson HB. Community factors in the development of resiliency: considerations and future directions. Community Ment Health J 2001;37(6):489–98. [26] Yates M, Youniss J. A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Soc Dev 1996;5:85–111.

470

DONNON & HAMMOND

[27] Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Klebanov P, et al. Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? Am J Sociol 1993;99:353–95. [28] Jessor R. Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings. Am Psychol 1993;48:117–26. [29] Benson PL, Leffert N, Scales PC, et al. Beyond the ‘‘village’’ rhetoric: creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science 1998;2: 138–59. [30] Brown JH, Horowitz JE. Deviants and deviance: why adolescent substance use prevention programs do not work. Eval Rev 1993;17:529–55. [31] Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychol Bull 1992;172:64–105. [32] Herman-Stahl M, Petersen AC. The protective role of coping and social resources for depressive symptoms among young adolescents. J Youth Adolesc 1996;25:733–53. [33] Scales PC. Developing capable young people: an alternative strategy for prevention programs. J Early Adolesc 1990;10:420–38. [34] Windle M. A longitudinal study of stress buffering for adolescent problem behaviors. Dev Psychol 1992;28:522–30. [35] Cowen EL, Work WC. Resilient children, psychological wellness, and primary prevention. Am J Community Psychol 1988;16(4):591–607. [36] Bartle EE, Couchonnal G, Canda ER, et al. Empowerment as a dynamically developing concept for practice: lessons learned from organizational ethnography. Soc Work 2002;47(1): 32–43. [37] Cameron G, Cadell S. Fostering empowering participation in prevention programs for disadvantaged children and families: lessons from ten demonstration sites. Can J Community 1999;18(1):105–21. [38] Grizenko N, Fisher C. Review of studies of risk and protective factors for psychopathology in children. Can J Psychiatry 1992;37(10):711–21. [39] Blyth DA, Leffert N. Communities as contexts for adolescent development: an empirical analysis. J Adolesc Res 1995;100:64–87. [40] Kaufman J, Cook A, Arny L, et al. Problems defining resiliency: illustrations from the study of maltreated children. Dev Psychopathol 1994;6:215–29. [41] Luthar SS, Zigler E. Vulnerability and competence: a review of the research on resilience in childhood. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1991;61(1):6–22. [42] Rigby K, Slee PT. Bullying among Australian school children: reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. J Soc Psychol 1991;13(5):615–27. [43] Boulton MJ, Underwood K. Bully/Victim problems among middle school children. Br J Educ Psychol 1992;62:73–87. [44] Olweus D. Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: a review. Psychol Bull 1979; 86(4):852–75. [45] Olweus D. Annotation: bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 1994;35:1171–90. [46] Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987;53(6):1146–58. [47] Hollister-Wagner GH, Foshee VA, Jackson C. Adolescent aggression: models of resiliency. J Appl Soc Psychol 2001;31(3):445–66. [48] Stoiber KC, Good B. Risk and resilience factors linked to problems behavior among urban, culturally diverse adolescents. School Psych Rev 1998;27(3):380–97. [49] Smith PK, Sharp S. The problem of school bullying. In: Smith PL, Sharpe S, editors. School bullying: insights and perspectives. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 1–19. [50] Olweus D. Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipped boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere; 1978.

RESILIENCY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE

471

[51] Charach A, Pepler D, Ziegler S. Bullying at school: a Canadian perspective. Education Canada 1995;35:12–8. [52] Craig WM, Peters RD, Konarski R. Bullying and victimization among Canadian school children. W-98-28E. Hull (Canada): Applied Research Branch & Strategic Policy, HRDC; 1998. [53] Statistics Canada. National longitudinal survey of children and youth. Catalogue no. 89-550-MPE. Ottawa (Canada): Statistics Canada; 1996. [54] City of Calgary. Indices of community well-being for Calgary community districts. City of Calgary (Canada): Policy and Planning Division; 2000. [55] Coie JD, Watt NF, West SG, et al. The science of prevention: a conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. Am Psychol 1993;48:1013–22. [56] Olweus D. Victimization among school children. In: Baenninger, editor. Targets of violence and aggression. Oxford: North Holland; 1991. p. 45–102. [57] Braateen S. Creating safe schools: a principle’s perspective. In: Goldstein AP, Conoley JC, editors. School violence intervention: a practical handbook. New York: The Guilford Press; 1997. p. 46–57.