2.5.1 Psychosocial risk factors
Much research has focused on the personal characteristics of victims in an effort to identify those at risk. Such factors as physical weakness, internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression, withdrawal and somatic complaints) and externalizing behaviours (e.g., aggression and defiance), lack of pro-social skills, low self-worth, hyperactivity and emotional dys-regulation have, amongst others, been cited to irritate peers and thereby to incite aggression (Felix & McMahon, 2006; Olweus, 1993; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). Other research has suggested that nonassertive behavioural styles may precede becoming a target of victimization, which is then further amplified by the experience of being bullied, creating a vicious cycle of abuse and worsening psychological problems in the victims (Dill, et al., 2004).
Neser (2006) conducted a study investigating the psychosocial attributes of school- going victims and non-victims of bullying. This research operationalised psychosocial attributes as feelings about school, peer relationships, individual characteristics and family background. Significant differences were found across all variables between the victim and non-victim groups. Victims of bullying reported much higher feelings of loneliness, lack of safety and school avoidance than did the non-victims. In
addition, this group indicated much higher levels of social isolation and difficulties in gaining social acceptance and making new friends. The victim-group reported lower self-esteem, higher depression and higher levels of anxiety than the non-victim group and also were more likely to be religious, only children in families that did not regularly share meals together, and experiencing less adult supervision at home after school (i.e. lower levels of „parental watchfulness‟). Neser (2007), who reported
similar findings in a study on the relationship between school connectedness and peer victimization, recommends that more research needs to be done to understand victims and non-victims of peer victimization in order to facilitate the identification of risk and protective factors in this phenomenon.
There is still much controversy over the nature of children who bully; are they self- assured individuals who calmly plan their cruel campaign, or are they actually anxious, depressed, insecure or psychiatrically disordered? Different studies have reached completely different conclusions on this issue (Wolke et al., 2000). Sprott and Doob (2000) announced research findings to show that a sample of the most aggressive children in middle childhood (aged 10 and 11 years) in Canada: “are unhappy children. The notion that they believe themselves to be „better than other people‟ or, in a more colloquial sense, are happy-go-lucky children who enjoy their aggressive lives is simply not supported by data…” (p. 131).
With regard to family variables in bullying and victimization, Smith et al., (2005) state that bullies tend to:
…come from homes where aggression is a favoured problem-solving method, negative emotional attitudes (e.g., lack of warmth and involvement) are common, and the children are encouraged to fight back when
harassed…Furthermore, research indicates that chronically victimized children may have histories of insecure parental attachments in infancy and are subject to intrusive and overprotective parenting…Conversely, parents who
communicate love and warmth, monitor their children, set age-appropriate limits, and use non-physical punishment to deal with misbehaviour constitute and important protective factor against involvement in bully/victim problems (p. 742).
In addition, Cullerton-Sen, Murray-Close, Cassidy, Cicchetti, Crick and Rogosch (2008) found that childhood maltreatment is positively associated with relational aggression amongst girls and physical aggression amongst boys. More specifically, sexual abuse predicted relational aggression in girls, but not in boys.
Scholte, van Lieshout, de Wit and van Aken (2005) conducted a study on adolescent personality types and sub-types in relation to psychosocial adjustment and found that
personality type is closely tied to the use of aggression, and acceptance or rejection by peers. Smit (2003a) asserts that bullying is a learned behaviour, and therefore children need to be taught healthier ways of relating to others, in order to unlearn it. Vogel, Seaberry, Barnes and Kelley (2003) point out that the issue of conflict is an inevitable part of life and relationships, and emerges out of the process of individuals becoming socially interdependent. Therefore, they say, rather than suppress or avoid it (which is the non-verbal message many adults convey to children), adults need to confront it and to teach children the skills that they need to deal with conflict, thereby
empowering them in their social lives to communicate effectively, manage their anger, negotiate, and attempt to understand the perspective of the other.
2.5.2 Cognitive risk factors
Dill et al. (2004) propose the idea that cognitive mediators play an important role in the pathway from being a victim towards being the bully, due to the negative effect of victimization on the developing capacity of children to attribute mental states to others: “… experiencing that one‟s own mental states are of little concern to one‟s peers might contribute to the development of relational strategies that similarly pay scant regard to the subjective states of others…” (pp. 170-1). This transactional model of aggression is also supported by the work of Prinstein et al. (2001) and Hoffman (1970).
Van Shoiack-Edstrom, Frey and Beland (2002) state that research has found that hostile attribution biases (a tendency to interpret another‟s malevolent plans within an ambiguous social context) seem to be characteristic of relationally (and physically) aggressive children. Neurological factors, such as stress hormones could play an integral role here (L. Lachenicht, Personal communication, 17 November 2009).
Social cognition affects the individual‟s choice of response in a particular scenario.
More research needs to be conducted in this area with respect to relational aggression.
2.5.3 Environmental risk factors
Goffman (1967) states that society needs certain „rules of conduct‟, according to which people regulate their behaviour. When the rules of conduct are adhered to, society is bound together and social order predominates. He discusses the terms
„deference‟ (appreciation shown to another) and „demeanour‟ (an expression of self as
being desirable or undesirable), which are both components of the rules of conduct, and through which the „self‟ is defined. Aggressive behaviour violates both the rules of deference and demeanour by attacking an individual‟s positive and/or negative face needs (the need to feel accepted/to belong and the need to be independent and in control of one‟s own life respectively) (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and therefore has negative implications for both victims and perpetrators in terms of the general moral order as well as self-definition.
Merrell et al., (2006) argue that relational aggression can be best understood from the perspective of Bronfenbrenner‟s (1977, as cited in Merrell et al., 2006) ecological theory. They believe that it is essential to consider this phenomenon within the context and interaction of the microsystems most significant to the functioning of children, such as families, peer-groups and schools. In the limited studies conducted on cultural and family risk factors for relational aggression thus far, it has emerged that the patterns are similar to those found in studies on physical aggression. Various variables such as parenting (for example, inconsistent supervision, harsh
punishment/intimidating style, failure to set limits, neglecting to reward prosocial behaviour), social factors (for example poverty), the nature of the institutions within which children interact as „closed‟ (e.g. boarding schools and prisons) or „open‟
(where there are more outside relationships) and biological factors (for example, innate temperament, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) may be considered risk factors, especially in interaction with each other (Merrell et al., 2006).
Rodkin and Hodges (2003) have also investigated the peer ecology of bullies and victims in an attempt to understand the nature of children‟s social relations within the framework of Bronfenbrenner‟s (1979, as cited in Rodkin & Hodges, 2003)
ecological model. They argue that the social structures in peer ecologies (the microsystems within which children interact, socialize and influence each other) determines children‟s behaviour horizontally (across social relationships of
friendships, peer groups and mutual enemies, that are relatively equal in power) and vertically (within relationships of differing social power, social status and social influence). These authors identify different categories of bullies; some are low status, hostile and are often victims of abuse themselves. Others, however, may experience high social status, being perceived as “cool” by their peers. Popular-aggressive
children are therefore more likely to be supported by their peers, according to Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl and Acker (2006), than are non-popular but aggressive children. The fact that such children enjoy such support is an important factor to be taken into consideration in intervention strategies (ibid).
2.5.4 Friendships
Interpersonal characteristics are also crucial in determining whether or not a child becomes chronically victimized by his/her peers (Rodkin & Hodges, 2003) or the perpetrator of relational aggression. Duncan and Owen-Smith (2006) posit a social contextual explanation for the use of indirect aggression; they assert that in both males and females: “...lack of power in same gender friendships (defined as anxiety about one‟s status in friendships) was associated with greater use of indirect
aggression strategies” (p. 493).
Friendships can provide a protective function, but do not necessarily do so, state Rodkin and Hodges (2003). A victim‟s friends may also be victimized or categorized as „low status‟, due to their own personal characteristics that make them more
vulnerable, and therefore fail to be supportive. Alternatively, friendship with a child who is well-adjusted may serve to model healthy and protective ways of interacting.
Therefore, both the quantity and quality of friendships is crucial in determining whether peer relationships are protective against victimization (ibid). According to these authors: “Nothing can be as powerful an obstacle or as effective a tool in preventing bullying as the forces children create by socializing one another” (p. 396).
Harris (1995) holds the firm opinion that peers are the most essential social force in shaping a child, saying that socialization effects are realized via the peer group rather than the parents. Harris and Tseng (1957) concur with this view indicating through their research that children are increasingly influenced by the peer group as they reach adolescence, whilst parental influence decreases accordingly.
2.5.4.1 Hierarchy and social status
It is important to be aware warn Rodkin and Hodges (2003), that popular children are not necessarily pro-social and non-aggressive, and rejected children are not
necessarily all aggressive. The determining factor in this equation is the variable of social status which is tightly linked to factors such as likeability, influence,
dominance and control over others. Therefore bullies may have two possible positions within the peer ecology: that of disconnection or that of engagement, depending on their social status within the group. On the other hand, victims clearly experience disconnection and poor relationships within the peer ecology. As such it is clear that all the different role-players need positive intervention in order to enable them to develop into healthy adults. Rodkin and Hodges (2003) say:
The peer ecology approach brings attention to all children, not just those who are bullies or victims. Children who are neither bullies nor victims can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Non-aggressive children can contribute to the social success of some bullies, fail to intervene against bullying when they could, contribute to victim blame, and become more aggressive
themselves if aggression seems normative to them (p. 395).