Dataset Information

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

ABSTRACT: This study examines why the lower likeability of bullying perpetrators does not deter them from engaging in bullying behavior, by testing three hypotheses: (a) bullying perpetrators are unaware that they are disliked, (b) they value popularity more than they value likeability, (c) they think that they have nothing to lose in terms of likeability, as they believe that their targets and other classmates would dislike them anyway, regardless of their behavior. The first two hypotheses were examined in Study 1 (1,035 Dutch adolescents, M _age ?=?14.15) and the third hypothesis was examined in Study 2 (601 Dutch adolescents, M _age ?=?12.92). Results from regression analyses showed that those higher in bullying were not more likely to overestimate their likeability. However, they were more likely than others to find being popular more important than being liked. Moreover, those higher in bullying were more likely to endorse the belief that the victimized student or the other classmates would have disliked a bullying protagonist (in vignettes of hypothetical bullying incidents) before any bullying started. These findings suggest that adolescent bullying perpetrators may not be deterred by the costs of bullying in terms of likeability, possibly because they do not value likeability that much (Hypothesis 2), and because they believe they hardly have any likeability to lose (Hypothesis 3).

SUBMITTER: Garandeau CF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6590429 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

Garandeau Claire F CF Lansu Tessa A M TAM

Aggressive behavior 20190201 3

This study examines why the lower likeability of bullying perpetrators does not deter them from engaging in bullying behavior, by testing three hypotheses: (a) bullying perpetrators are unaware that they are disliked, (b) they value popularity more than they value likeability, (c) they think that they have nothing to lose in terms of likeability, as they believe that their targets and other classmates would dislike them anyway, regardless of their behavior. The first two hypotheses were examined ...[more]

PMID: 30706945

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBullying is an understudied global social problem. While school-level factors are a recognized influence on bullying victimization, the elements of a 'girl-friendly' school that may reduce the risk of bullying victimization among girls and prevent dropout is understudied in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study used baseline data from the evaluation of the Room-to-Read (RtR) Girls' Education Program (GEP) in Nepal to assess the relationship of a conceptually grounded gender-equitable school (GES) index with girls' risk of direct and relational bullying victimization, adjusted for potential confounders at the individual and school levels.MethodsThe school sample included all 24 RtR GEP schools and 25 community schools attended by girls in a comparison cohort, representing 729 grade six girls with complete outcome data. We employed multilevel negative binomial regression to assess the relationship between the GES score (higher scores indicate greater support for girls), and girls' risk of peer victimization, controlling for individual- and school-level covariates.ResultsOn average, girls reported 2.84 direct victimizations and 0.27 relational victimizations in the prior week. The first component of the GES index, a generalized measure of school-level support for girls, showed a significant negative relationship with weekly relational bullying victimization in models with all school- and individual-level covariates. In the full model, a one-point higher score on the generalized GES component accounted for a 26% lower risk of relational bullying victimization in the prior week.ConclusionSchool-level policies, practices, and pedagogy designed to support girls may reduce their exposure to relational aggression, a form of bullying that girls most often perpetrate. In LMICs, the school may be an ideal place to raise awareness about the types and effects of peer bullying and to promote prosocial bystander behavior. Further research is needed to identify factors related to other forms of bullying.

Project description:BackgroundsVarious family factors have been identified in association with school bullying and the involvement of children and adolescents in bullying behaviors.MethodsA total of 11,919 participants (female = 6671, mean age = 15) from 22 middle schools in Suzhou City, China completed the questionnaire. The associations between structural family factors (family socio-economic status, living arrangement, number of siblings, whether they were local residents/migrants, had an urban/rural hukou [a household registration system in China], parental and maternal education levels, and other various bullying-related constructs (i.e. bullying witnessing, bullying involvement, bystander intervention, and fear of being bullied) were all examined. Odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for covariates were calculated for the four bullying-related constructs (bullying witness, bullying involvement, bystander intervention, and reactions to being bullied) using structural family factors.ResultsThe result showed that all demographic household characteristics were associated with bullying at school except for being from a single-child family. Adolescents from rural families witnessed more bullying incidents than those from local families (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: [1.09, 1.68]). Adolescents who come from migrant families (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: [1.07, 1.43]) with a rural hukou (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: [1.00, 1.74]) and low parental education levels (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: [1.01, 2.57]) were more likely to be bullies. Adolescents who came from migrant families (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: [1.03, 1.82]), with low maternal education levels (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: [1.06, 1.91]) engaged in more negative bystander intervention behaviors. Furthermore, adolescents with less educated mothers experienced a higher fear of being bullied (never versus sometimes: OR = 1.33, 95% CI: [1.00, 1.85]; never versus usually OR = 1.39, 95% CI: [1.01, 1.20]).ConclusionsA systematic examination of the relationship between school bullying and demographic household characteristics may be used to inform school policies on bullying, such as training management on the importance of paying attention to adolescents from disadvantage household backgrounds. Identifying demographic factors that may predict bullying can also be used to prevent individuals from becoming involved in bullying and reduce the related negative consequences from being bullied.

Project description:BackgroundSchool bullying is a destructive behaviour common among adolescents that can sometimes escalate to criminal activity. This study aimed to examine the association between four types of school bullying (i.e., physical, verbal, relational, and cyber) and murderous ideation and behaviours (i.e., ideation, plans, preparation, and attempts) among adolescent students.MethodsData were collected from 5726 middle and high school students using self-administered questionnaires in December 2013. The participants were selected using a 3-stage random cluster-sampling strategy. The participants were asked about the frequency of their bullying experiences in the past two months and the frequencies of their murderous ideation and behaviours in the past six months. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to explore the association between school bullying and murderous ideation and behaviours.ResultsEach type of school bullying perpetration was associated with murderous ideation and behaviours, as was each type of bullying victimization. Students who experienced more types of school bullying perpetration and victimization were more likely to report murderous ideation and behaviours. Moreover, the number of types of bullying perpetration and victimization had a dose-response association with murderous ideation and behaviours (aOR min = 1.45, aOR max = 2.72), as did the frequency of involvement in bullying perpetration and victimization (aOR min = 1.33, aOR max = 2.00). Being a bully-victim was a risk factor for murderous ideation and behaviours (aOR min = 3.88, aOR max = 7.24).ConclusionsEach type of school bullying was associated with an increased risk for murderous ideation and behaviours among adolescents. Dose-response relationships between the frequency of bullying and number of bullying types experienced and murderous ideation and behaviours were found in this study. Future studies are warranted to confirm our findings and explore the mechanisms underlying the relationship between school bullying and murderous ideation and behaviours.

Dataset Information

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

Publications

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets