Upload
dinhphuc
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Perceived Parent-Child Relationship and the Effect on the
Child’s Pattern of Negative Peer Interactions
A dissertation submitted
by
RANDIE O’NEIL FIELDER
to
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPELLA
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
General Psychology
This Prospectus is being reviewed by the faculty of
Capella University, Harold Able School of Psychology by
Dr. Phylis Acadia
Chair
Dr. Barry Trunk
Advisor
Dr. Rojeanne Jean
Advisor
Parenting style of bullies
iii
iii
THE PERCEIVED PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE EFFECT ON THE
CHILD’S PATTERN OF NEGATIVE PEER INTERACTIONS
by
Randie ONeil Fielder
has been approved
January, 2006
APPROVED:
PHYLLIS ACADIA , Ph.D., Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
BARRY TRUNK, Ph.D., Committee Member
ROJEANNE JEAN, Committee Member
ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:
__________________________________________
Dr. Phyllis Acadia, Mentor Ph.D.
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY
Parenting style of bullies
iv
iv
ABSTRACT
The Perceived Parent-Child Relationship and the Effect on the
Child’s Pattern of Negative Peer Interactions
by Randie O’Neil Fielder
Chairperson of the Supervisory Committee:
Professor Dr. Phyllis Acadia
Dept. of Psychology
Many current studies indicate that incidents of bullying are on the rise. One in six
students now report being bullied on a regular basis. Over half of the students in middle
school report being involved in bullying during their schooling. Dan Olweus(1993)
suggested that incidents of bullying have become routine in the middle school in the
United States. Until recently, little attention was focused on the parental influence of
bullying behavior. This study will seek to uncover a connection between patterns of
bullying behavior and parenting style. Surveys will be used to gather data regarding the
parent-child relationship to determine if there is a connection between parenting style and
the child’s acts of bullying. The parent-child relationship of bullies will be compared to
the parent child relationship of non bullies.
Parenting style of bullies
v
v
Dedication
The author wishes to acknowledge my husband, Earl, for his support during this
process.
Parenting style of bullies
vi
vi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................8
Background of the Study .............................................................................................8
The Impact of Bullying on a School..........................................................................12
Origins of Bullying Behavior ....................................................................................14
Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................20
Purpose ......................................................................................................................21
Research Question .....................................................................................................21
Nature of the Study....................................................................................................22
Significance ...............................................................................................................23
Rationale....................................................................................................................24
Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................24
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................26
Assumptions ..............................................................................................................26
Limitations.................................................................................................................27
CHAPTER II: RELEVANT INFORMATION REGARDING BULLYING ...................29
Overview ...................................................................................................................29
Theoretical Orientation..............................................................................................39
Synthesis of Literature...............................................................................................52
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................54
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................54
Research Design ........................................................................................................54
Target Population ......................................................................................................54
Selection of Participants ............................................................................................55
Variables....................................................................................................................57
Procedures .................................................................................................................61
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................61
Data Analysis Plans ...................................................................................................64
Expected Findings .....................................................................................................66
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS.................................................................................................67
Research Design and Methodology Summary ..........................................................67
Question 1..................................................................................................................73
Question 2..................................................................................................................78
Question 3..................................................................................................................79
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSError! Bookmark not defined.
Summary and Discussion of Results .........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusions ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Recommendations for Future Research.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................99
APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................107
Parenting style of bullies
vii
vii
PARENTAL CONSENT FORM ............................................................................107
APPENIX B.....................................................................................................................108
STUDENT COSENT FORM..................................................................................108
8
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Americans like to regard themselves as members of a cultural melting pot, a place where
diversity is able to blend and cultures successfully mix. If a person were to observe any
elementary school playground or middle school cafeteria, they would however, most likely be
left with a different impression.
Bullying has entwined itself as an element of our society for many years (Li, 2001).
While significant amounts of information has been gathered on the issues of bullying, much
needs to be learned about why or how such behaviors exist or even the long term-effects of
bullying. In order to determine the reasons for and the long-term implications of these negative
interactions, bullying and its origins need to be explored. To understand bullying, an individual
must first examine the dynamics of this type of interaction. For every act of peer-to-peer
bullying, there is a bully, a victim, and often several bystanders. The bully wants to win or
impress the bystanders at the expense of someone else: the victim (Smith, 2003). Bullies are
compelled to dominate or control another child in order to bolster their self-esteem. The bully is
then able to feel better by being in control of someone else and having power over that person
(Olweus, 1993).
Evidence supports an increase in aggressive behavior among peers at an age when
children are looking for new friendships, especially as they enter adolescence (APA Monitor,
1999). In fact, a study conducted by the APA Monitor (1999) cited as many as 75% of the
students having been bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year. Another study
sampled 331 students attending a British secondary school (Maynard, 2000) using The Peer
9
Victimization Scale. Of the 136 respondents, 40% reported that they had been bullied during
their time at school. This indicates that bullying has become a common experience for many
children. As indicated by other studies, 10 out of 15 victims of bullies reported that such
incidence occur on a regular basis (Newquist, 1979). Once shrugged off as “kids will be kids,”
acts of bullying have in recent years drawn increasing amounts of attention. Incidents such as
the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School have lead to a heightened interest in the dynamics
of the bullying process.
Children who experience persistent bullying may become depressed or fearful
(Eslea,1998). A child who was once confident might, after being bullied, question what was
wrong with himself that caused him/her to be victimized. In this way, the child then suffers from
lower self-esteem. Furthermore, it is essential not to mistake bullying for normal childhood
conflicts or acts of anger. Some conflicts are to be anticipated. For example, children during a
baseball game may express emotion based on their interpretation of a decision by the umpire.
Bullies, on the other hand, may call or tease a child for missing a play or striking out.
Bullying may be a component of a cycle of abuse since bullies often have their origins in
families where parents chose physical forms of discipline. Thus, a victim of parental abuse goes
to school and has an opportunity to become aggressive (Smith, 2003). Bullies are usually not
model students, and often do not perform well academically. Even though bullies may appear to
be well-liked, they often cannot maintain close relationships (Olweus, 1993). Subsequently, they
become even more insecure, which can then escalate their frequency of bullying and their
victims become trapped in a hell they fear they cannot escape.
10
Not all acts of peer-to-peer violence are overt, and some may be very subtle (Simmons,
2002). For instance, young female adolescents tend to resort to more subtle forms of bullying,
such as exclusion, starting rumors, and gossiping. They tend to be exclusive and may target
another student simply because they do not like what a person is wearing or eating for lunch.
The situation can escalate as these young females attempt to influence others to exclude that
person, as well. The victim, often, has no insight as to what action or actions may have
antagonized her peers.
Electronic messaging on the Internet has evolved into a convenient tool for a wide range
of bullies. An otherwise innocuous incident during the school day could quickly escalate into a
school-wide event often due to the frequent use of the Internet and the so called “buddy list.” A
girl, upset with another student, could easily Email many other students secretly spreading
rumors (Smith, 2003).
Victims are found in all shapes and sizes. They may be children who wear braces or stand
out in some way by not conforming to popular styles or fashion and stand out in the eyes of the
bully who then makes them a target (Olweus, 1993)). Bullies want power and control and they
search for those they consider weaker (Beane, 1998). Ironically, both the bully and the victim
can share common allies or friends. For this reason, bystanders actually become co-conspirators,
essentially aiding the bully by not coming to the victim’s rescue. Many of these peers go along
with the crowd even though they are uncomfortable with the bully’s behavior (APA Monitor,
2000).
The effects of bullying can be dramatic. Many acts of bullying occur in seclusion and
many acts go unnoticed until the victims of bullying begin to show symptoms or signs that their
11
lives are not all right (Beane, 1998). Inconsistent school attendance may be an indication of
bullying, as victims tend to suffer from frequent illnesses or just don’t want to come to school to
avoid the acts of bullying they’re exposed to at school. Victims elect to become isolated from
their peers and will chronically arrive late, and leave early from school or abstain from recess.
Victims might prefer the company of adults and may talk about running away. Academic
performance may also be affected as their grades decline. They usually don’t eat or sleep well;
some will become potentially suicidal (Maynard, 2000).
Escalation in the number of acts of bullying has not gone unnoticed in the legislative
bodies. Elected officials on all levels of government have adopted legislation to ensure that the
rights of children are protected and enforced. One such statute is the Dignity for All Students
Act (Montgomery, 2002) that authorized the New Jersey State Legislature to establish policies to
combat harassment and discrimination because of race, gender, religion, disability, or sexual
orientation. Much of the bullying that occurs has been identified as having strong bias
motivation, comprising about 50% of bias crimes committed by young people between the ages
11 to 20 (Montgomery, 2002).
New Jersey Statue (NJSA) 18A:37-13-19 (2002) is specific anti-bullying legislation,
which mandates that all schools to have an anti-bullying programs. This statute was signed into
law on September 6, 2002, by then Governor, James McGreevey. The law is intended to ensure
the physical and emotional safety of all students. The initiative called, “New Jersey Cares about
Bullying,” will be overseen by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice Office of Bias Crime
and Community Relations, which is overseen by the Office of the Attorney General.
12
The Impact of Bullying on a School
As we examine the components and dynamics of bullying, we also begin to understand
the effect such negative acts can have on an individual, group, or an entire facility. The effects
of the bullying behavior appear to have a dramatic affect on the academic climate and overall
functioning of the school. The bullying behavior impacts all areas of a student’s life including
their individual self-esteem, overall well-being, socialization, even academic performance
(Perry, Hodges, Egan, 1999).
Students being bullied also indicated that their self-esteem had dropped after being
bullied. They claimed that they could not function effectively with peers as a result of the
treatment by bullies (Eslea, 2003). In this way, students tend to become introverted and lose
self-confidence. Most reported feeling helpless and powerless and didn’t want to interact with
any of their peers. This increase in anxiety even affects the physical well-being of the student, as
exhibited by increased reports of illnesses and absences on the part of the victim (Perry, Hodges,
Egan, 1999).
These findings were supported in a related study conducted by Bond, Carlin, Thomas,
Rubin, and George (2001) involving an Australian secondary school. In this cohort study, 2,680
students were studied at two times over a five-year time period and surveyed using a depression
and anxiety victimization scale. In this study, peer victimization was defined as being bullied at
either or both designated survey periods and the bullying could have occurred within an eight-
year period of time of the survey. Recurrent victimization was a predictor of self-reported
symptoms of anxiety or depression. Victims were those that had responded “yes” to having been
teased, having rumors spread about them, having been deliberately excluded from groups,
13
receiving physical threats, or suffering violence. Bullying was considered recurrent if the victim
reported “yes” in both surveys.
Studies also indicated that bullying behavior could affect a person’s overall health and
well-being. The investigation by LaFlamme et. al, (2003) concluded that students that had been
bullied felt that they had little control of their lives, and that their lives were controlled by
external factors. Those involved with incidents of bullying felt hopeless and that their lives were
controlled by others, specifically the bullies, and that they had little power over events in their
own lives. Those experiencing feelings of helplessness also tended to suffer poor health, as a
result. They generally reported a decline in overall well-being.
Students who are exposed to repeated acts of violence, such as bullying, leads to feeling
of being rejected by their peers, teachers and even parents (Boulter, 2004). These students often
feel less attached to their school. As a result, their overall academic performance may decline.
Often, they will dread attending school since they do not feel safe and are more likely to miss
school. Olweus (1993) estimates that 1 out of every 11 students have been absent from school
because of bullying. Students who are victims of violence tend to be more anxious and insecure
during an otherwise routine day.
These negative affects of bullying do not disappear over time. In fact, levels of
depression and poor self-esteem continue into adulthood. The victims of bullying have been
linked to serious emotional problems later in life. They are at an increased risk of suicide,
depression, anxiety, and are more likely to commit crimes (Perry, Hodges, Egan, 1999). In this
way, the effects of bullying are felt long after the bullying stops.
14
Bullies also have a pattern of traits that set them apart from their peers (Olweus, 1993).
Bullies will often surround themselves with one or two of their peers who support their behavior.
Although narcissistic with a strong positive view of themselves, they can be popular with their
peers. Bullies often have a positive attitude about violence and tend to work to dominate others.
This need to control is used to mask feelings of insecurities and is used to bolster their self
esteem. They often can demonstrate hostile or negative attitudes towards teachers and other
authority figures generally having negative feelings towards school. Their need to dominate
combined with a general lack of empathy towards others can make bullies a formidable force in
any school.
Since the impact of bullies may result in long lasting implications on those involved, it
becomes crucial to pinpoint the nature of bullying to truly develop effective strategies for
deterring future acts. Since most acts of bullying occur at school, much of the literature designed
to reduce the incidence of bullying focus on the school (Olweus, 1993).
Origins of Bullying Behavior
Whether a parent chooses to recognize it or not, what they do and say will ultimately
impact what their children do and say. Their child’s success (or lack of it) in a variety of areas
depends, in-part, on the lessons they learn at home. In this section, parental interaction, conflicts
in the home, and parenting styles that may affect children’s future peer-to-peer interactions will
be explored (Armsden, 2000).
A parent’s style of interaction is critical for the emotional well-being of a growing child.
The anger displayed by authoritarian parents becomes one component of the equation, yet, does
not sufficiently explain all incidents of bullying (Rifken, nd) since not all bullies grow up in a
15
conflicted family where parents openly argue or are consistently abusive. Therefore, the
parenting style of the parents needs to be considered in order to further identify the patterns that
place a child at risk for demonstrating future bullying behavior.
Family members are crucial to emotional socialization (DeBaryshe, 1998) whether
residing in a single parent home of traditional two-parent home. Such emotional responses start
to develop early in a child’s life. Even as an infant, the child learns what responses to expect
from its caretakers. A parent who is quick to respond to the needs of their children can quickly
soothe a fearful child. Bowlby, as reviewed by DeBaryshe (1998), believed that attachments are
formed between child and caregiver that can affect a child’s view of the world in later
development. If a mother does not respond to her infant’s cries in times of stress, the child will
learn not to depend on its caretaker in times of stress. If the parent is inconsistent in their
responses to their child, the infant becomes difficult to soothe and console. Secure attachments
will lead to more positive peer interaction with more pro social skills.
As children grow and develop, they need to believe that their parents empathize with
them. They want to know that they are cared for and that what they say matters (Crossman,
2002). Otherwise, they will be left in a state of distress that can create a physical arousal that
needs to be regulated, lest it develop into bullying. These children maintain a constant state of
alertness for being wronged and therefore, will lack empathy towards others because they are so
easily wounded. Such children have little tolerance for others. In this way, bullying could
develop into a pattern of an unregulated state of distress.
Parents who are more authoritative in their parenting tend to be fair with discipline and
are more likely to nurture the needs of their children (Baumrind, 1991). Since their children are
16
allowed to give input with regard to family matters, they tend to learn how to resolve conflicts in
a rational manner. Such behavior will then be carried into a child’s peer interactions.
Parental emotional attitude plays a large role in the development of the resilience of a
child, even before birth. Studies indicate that mothers who display less emotional warmth or
who suffer from their own emotional or behavioral problems are more likely to have children
with lower birth weights. Children with lower birth weights are, in turn, often at risk of
behavioral problems. They also demonstrate significantly higher rates of attention deficit
disorder (Caspi, 2004).
At the opposite end of the spectrum are parents that literally give too much by being very
permissive. While parental neglect has proven to develop negative pathology, permissive
parenting can similarly prove detrimental to childhood development (Peters, 2004). Parents
who allow their children too much freedom and few restrictions produce an overdeveloped sense
of entitlement in their children. A spoiled child begins to think that the world literally revolves
around them. They don’t suffer the consequences of their actions and begin to believe they
should have everything they want. Unfortunately, a parent giving in to a child’s demands is
establishing the basis for the child to have frustrations later in life (Walsh, 2003). Used to
having their own way, spoiled children will feel wronged and betrayed when they enter school
and are forced to interact with the many children who share their classroom.
Children of permissive parents become conditioned to having things their way and
become frustrated by the perceived shortcomings of others. So they are caught up in their own
sense of entitlement and they lack empathy for others (DeBaryshe, 1998). They tend to target
other children in order to establish themselves as superior. Girls, in particular, are likely to
17
spread rumors, become exclusive when considering who will participate in activities, and resort
to turning others against a victim (Wiseman, 2003). The victim may have no insight into what
actions led to such negative attention.
Parenting style thus seems to stand out as a factor that can have a significant effect on a
child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1991). Overly authoritarian parents, who try to wield absolute
control over their children at the same time displaying little warmth, can stifle a child’s ability to
express emotions (Thurber, 1997). Children of authoritarian parents find themselves lacking
spontaneity and curiosity. Social skills are therefore hindered, leading to what can become
extreme measures to gain acceptance by their peers. They may begin to feel that being feared is
better than being ignored.
Permissive parents will unwittingly encourage their children to be impulsive, since they
have not had proper boundaries enforced. Baumrind (1991), who studied parenting styles,
suggested that the children of such parents are unable to accept responsibility for their actions
and tend to have immature socio-emotional responses to situations (Thurber, 1997). This
impulsive behavior may prove detrimental during peer interactions especially since the children
are not considering the consequences of their behavior or the effect they will have on others.
Children learn best when exposed to healthy role models who provide healthy
expressions of emotion (DeBaryshe, 1998). Parents who are more authoritative allow children to
discuss feelings openly and without judgment. Children of authoritative parents tend to be more
independent and socially savvy. Wiseman (2003) agrees that parents that encourage
independent thought in order to increase the chances of their children making correct decisions in
18
social situations. Children need to be taught the appropriate techniques to navigate issues that
arise and not allow themselves to serve as an outlet for the frustrations of others.
Dealing with frustrations on a day to day basis, children can become conditioned by
recurring patterns of negative behavior and begin to model this negative behavior when they
interact with their peers (Chang, 2004). Not all families with conflicts perpetuate this pattern,
yet, a result of parents’ engaging in unresolved conflicts and display negative forms of
communication, they are, in fact, teaching their children a pattern of angry behavior that may
establish a pattern of socialization their children will carry with them to the playground and into
the classroom (Namka, 1997). As the children grow, they begin to perpetuate this pattern of
angry interaction. Such children may begin to display behavioral problems that result in low
academic performance (DeBaryshe, 1998). They may have difficulty empathizing with the other
students and become intolerant of individual differences. Individuals with this pattern of
interaction who are raised in an angry or negative household can develop an attitude in which
they attempt to get their needs met by developing a sense of entitlement (Namka, 1997).
Children in this situation have an attitude of “I want what I want when I want it,” and they will
act in any manner necessary to get it. This lack of empathy coupled with a lack of regard for
consequences, may cause them to develop a pattern of bullying behavior to satisfy their own
needs.
Many families have obstacles that they will have to overcome. Parents may be
experiencing difficulties including depression, substance abuse, unemployment, or other
stressors that can often strain the entire family, yet certain families seem to handle such stressors
more effectively or successfully than others. Married couples or unmarried partners with a solid
19
foundation of communication are proven to be effective in navigating such difficulties. Even so,
there may be situations where such stressors will create a drain on a relationship (Rifken, 2005).
As collateral victims of their parent’s stress, children can suffer. When a parent becomes
injured, sick, or incapacitated, the child will need to care for themselves in order to survive
(Howe, 2004). Over time, such children may need to tend to their own needs, taking over some
parenting responsibilities (Rifkin, 2005). This parentification can have profound and long-lasting
effects on the child’s future development. Since children are expected to remain in touch with
the feelings of their parents, their own feelings must be subjugated. Over time, they can feel
neglected (L’Abate, 1993). Anger can often be a by-product for children who are asked to take
on adult roles. Just as parents exhibit angry behavior towards their children, a child could exhibit
anger and frustration as a negative part of a young person’s peer-to-peer interaction process.
The development of bullying behavior can best be explained as a by-product of family
dynamics. Most research suggests that bullying is an adaptive process to family circumstance
(Grille, 2005). A family system approach would view bullying as a part of a larger process of
interaction that finds its roots at home. Rather than labeling a bully as bad, a more appropriate
approach would be to work with the parents of those identified as aggressive in bullying
situations. Any approach must recognize that parents may be trying their best to raise their
children and may be overwhelmed by the actions of their children. In addition, the parents of
victims need to understand the bullying process so that they can empathize with and support their
children. Schools and parents need to work together actively to target and eliminate negative
peer interaction.
20
Even children who adopt positive skills can find themselves at the other end of the
bullying spectrum as the victims. Victims are those who find themselves being rejected by their
peers (Bishop, 2004). Many young adults face some form of ridicule on a regular basis. Some
are hurt or pushed; others are taunted and declared “geek” or “freak”. All are viewed as weaker
than their aggressive counterparts, who intentionally harm others to gain respect or impress
others in their own peer group.
Victims come to be viewed as socially awkward in the eyes of the bully. This may
simply be a result of a social agenda that differs from that of the bully (Bishop, 2004). An
otherwise normal, non-athletic student may be a target for the more athletic, non-academic types.
In such a situation, parenting has been a positive influence on a child only to have the child fall
victim to a bully.
Many victims work hard to follow the rules established by their parents (Harris, 2002).
In fact, many children are taught to play fair and to be nice to others, and come to a playground
or classroom with an expectation of positive peer interactions. This environment can quickly
transform itself into a fearful place at the hands of a bully, however, and the victim is usually ill-
equipped to handle such acts of aggression and may suffer in silence.
Statement of the Problem
As established by Olweus (1993), the level of negative peer interaction seems to be on
the raise. Schools have noticed a mark increase in the number and severity of negative acts of
peer interaction. For this reason, schools have begun to implement programs to curtail incidents
of bullying. Most programs have been met with only limited success.
21
One explanation may be that the schools have just not found a program that is truly
effective. Another answer could lie in the implementation of the program itself. The program
may not be implemented fully or as intended by the originator of the program. The school may
not have the resources on hand to deliver the type of program necessary to combat the growing
incidents of bullying.
Another answer as to why programs have not been effective may lie in that the programs
do not fully address the true origin of the bullying behavior. Schools have focused little attention
in child-parent relationships. Exploring the perceived parenting styles as well as the perceived
strengths of relationships may provide a strategy for dealing with the growing phenomenon of
adolescent bullying.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the parents and their
child, as perceived by the child, to determine if any factors in that relationship may be predictive
of bullying behavior. The research will explore the perceived style of parenting as well as the
perceived strengths and weaknesses of the parent-child relationship that may lead to negative
acts of peer aggression. Factors such as permissive, authoritarian or authoritative will be
explored in order to determine factors that lead a child to develop a pattern of bullying behavior.
Upon review of the data collected, a researcher should be able to determine if there is a
relationship between the perceived parent-child relationship and a child’s peer interaction.
Research Question
The question explored with this research was, to what extent, does the perceived
parenting style of a child correlate with incidents of negative peer-to-peer interaction? The study
22
explored whether a child’s pattern of socialization was related to a pattern of parental interaction.
The research was also able to determine if a relationship exists at all or rather determine that
parenting style may have little effect on peer relationships.
How children will treat others, in essence, has been developed through their interaction
with their parents. Children who perceive difficulties with their parents with regard to security,
trust and/or responsibility may have difficulties in peer relations and resort to bullying behavior.
Therefore, both parenting style and the strength of the parent-child relationship in a continuum
will be factors in a child’s peer-to-peer relationships. The stronger the parental relationship in all
areas of trust, security and responsibility, the stronger the peer to peer relationships and the less
likely a child will resort to bullying behaviors.
The following research questions will be reviewed during this study:
• What affect does parenting style have on a child’s socialization?
• What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?
• Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern of peer
socialization with regards to bulling?
Nature of the Study
The study will be a quantitative study that will gather data that includes information
about a child’s perceived behavior as well as information regarding the family pattern of
interaction. A quantitative study will allow the researcher to review a significant amount of
23
information regarding the child-parent relationship in addition to examining a correlation
between that relationship and a child’s socialization. Data gathered can then be analyzed using
a multiple regression to determine which factors of parenting, if any, contribute the most to a
child’s pattern of socialization.
Significance
As we begin to examine the dynamics of bullying, we also begin to understand the effect
such negative acts can have on an individual, group, or even the entire facility. Many students
who admit to being victims of bullying show indications of suffering from post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), with symptoms consistent with PTSD appearing in self-reported surveys. For
this reasons, schools across the county have implemented programs to reduce the number of
bullying incidents.
Although schools have implemented programs, the number of incidents of bullying seems
to have only decreased marginally since the programs inception. The programs themselves may
be ineffective since they do little to stop the development of bullying behavior at the origin. In
other words, the programs developed by schools try to modify behavior rather then try to prevent
the socialization pattern from forming. To properly deal with negative peer socialization, studies
can begin to identify the origins of bullying behavior.
Little attention has been paid to exploring factors that may have precipitated those acts,
themselves. More specifically, the relationship between the parent and the child may have lead
to poor socialization habits resulting in bullying behavior. Beginning early in an individual’s
life, parents and or guardians interact with a child and in essence begin to formulate a pattern of
24
socialization. This pattern of socialization will then be translated into a child relationship with
their peers. Examining the parent-child relationship may be instrumental understanding what
factors in that relationship increases the likeliness of negative peer socialization. In this way,
prevention programs could be developed to ultimately reduce the number of bullying incidents.
Rationale
This study is crucial to a thorough understanding of the bullying process. Until now, the
focus of studies has been to examine the dynamics of negative socialization while at school. To
truly develop prevention strategies, one must examine the origins of the behavior being
investigated. Implementing programs at schools is tantamount to waiting for the behaviors to
manifest. By exploring the relationship of the child and parent, a therapist may be able to
accurately pinpoint the cause of the behavior and prevent the likelihood of that behavior
manifesting itself.
Theoretical Framework
A child’s success in many areas depends, in part, on the lessons they learn at home. This
research will explore the role of parental-child relationship with regard to parental support,
involvement and responsiveness that may affect children’s peer-to-peer interactions. The areas
to be examined will include the child’s perceived level of parental trust, security and
responsibility (Hutchinson, 2003).
With so much evidence of negative peer-to-peer activities, a question must be raised
about the families and their role in this process. Many parents try to prepare their children for
the rigor of school and the academic world, yet some children seem better equipped than others
to deal with the many demands of the educational process. Many parents don’t consider that one
25
of the skills their child needs for school is appropriate socialization and that socialization
depends on what is learned at home through family dynamics.
Baumrind (1991) rated parents based on the style of child interaction. In her research she
examined a parents interaction by reviewing the areas of control of a child’s behavior, attach
with their children, a child’s ability to become self reliant and establish self control. Rating
parents in these areas, Baumrind established the four types of parenting style permissive,
authoritative, neglecting and authoritarian. Each parenting style identified was an attempt to
describe the quality of the family environment (Joronen, 2005).
The role of parenting styles has been used previously to determine the correlation
between internal and external behavior problems (Aunola, 2005). Aunola and Nurmi (2005)
conducted this longitudinal study to examine the role of parenting style in regards to a child’s
internalizing or externalizing problem behavior. Parents were reviewed based on combination of
parenting characteristics including affection, responsiveness, involvement and supportiveness.
In a study to track the academic and motivational progress of 5 to 6 year old Finnish
students, permission was granted to review 196 students. Structured interviews were used to
assess a child’s internal and external problem behaviors. External behavior problems were
considered those with negative emotions directed at others and were exhibited through acts of
frustration and anger. Internal behavior problems were exhibited by directing negative emotions
at oneself such as overly strong self regulation.
The study concluded that parental style could impact on a child’s pattern of problem
behavior. The study also concluded that warmth is often not enough to ensure proper patterns of
26
behavior. They determined that inconsistent parenting such as high in affection and high in
psychological control could lead to negative patterns of behavior.
Definition of Terms
Bullying – acts of negative peer interactions that include both indirect and direct forms of
teasing or harassment.
Indirect acts of bullying – include but are not limited to acts of name calling, spreading
rumors and exclusion.
Direct acts of bullying – include but are not limited to physical acts of aggression such
as pushing and shoving, direct intimidation and threats.
Parental relationship – determined by how close or attached a child feels towards a
parent. Based on the perceived level of trust, closeness, and security.
Parental style – based on Buamrind theory of parental style that establishes four distinct
styles of parental interaction, authoritarian, authoritative, negative and permissive.
Assumptions
The survey to be completed will be a sample of convenience in that selected population is
easily accessible to the researcher. While the population may not represent a complete cross
section of the adolescent population, results can be compared to normative outcomes from
standardized bullying surveys. Once a pattern of bullying is compared to other outcomes,
familiar patterns being reviewed in the survey can be reviewed. In this way, if the school being
27
surveyed displays bullying results consistent with past bullying studies, then the results of the
family interaction could be consistent as well.
Fundamental to this study is the belief that children will answer questionnaires to the best
of their ability and honestly. Data collected relies on a child’s assessment of the relationship
he/she has with their parents. Intrinsic to the study is the honest feedback of that relationship, as
well as an honest interpretation of their behavior.
This design will not include the insight of the parents. Due to the limitations of the
sample and the limited availability of siblings and other family members, the family will not be
asked to give their perceptions of their relationship with their child. Instead, the researcher will
concentrate on the perceptions of the children and how that relates to their behavior. Since
students will be answering questions anonymously, in a setting away from their parents and at
the same time as their classmates, anxieties should be reduced and the students should be
comfortable answering questions honestly. The school has performed similar studies in the past
with fewer then 1% of the parents declining to allow their child from participating.
Limitations
Randomness. This survey of necessity is not random, and therefore cannot be accurately
generalized to the population. The sample is intended to be a representation of a small, middle
class suburban district.
Anonymity of Surveys. The anonymity of the surveys may lead to student bias, as they
may not take the survey seriously. Such action could influence the results by not accurately
portraying the feelings of the students. Underreporting or over reporting may equally limit the
results. Olweus (2001) recommends discarding up to 2% of results that may appear inconsistent
28
in the responses. He also has determined that such inconsistencies should not render the survey
invalid.
Language and Culture Barrier- Although both surveys are considered to be age-
appropriate, they are both written in the English language. The meaning of the term “bullying”
may also vary in different cultures, thereby affecting the results of the survey. For this reason,
information regarding ethnic background will be provided on the survey instrument.
Geography- This study is limited to a sample of middle class, suburban students from
Bergen County, NJ. While the population is diverse in nature, further study will need to be
conducted to indicate whether the findings can be generalized to other students in other parts of
the country.
Statistical design- The design of this study was based on data available from the school
itself. While other surveys may be more comprehensive, the data gathered by the ADAS was
sufficient to indicate whether a correlation exist among the variables and should be considered
valid and reliable for the purpose of establishing a correlation.
Researcher bias- The researcher in this study developed this study based on interactions
with her current population of students available to her. In this way, the research design itself
was developed to meet the needs of the current population. Such findings may or may not be
applicable to other populations outside her sphere of influence.
29
CHAPTER II: RELEVANT INFORMATION REGARDING BULLYING
Overview
Evidence supports an increase in aggressive behavior among peers at an age when
children are looking for new friendships, especially as they enter adolescence (APA Monitor,
1999). In fact, a study conducted by the APA Monitor (1999) cited as many as 75% of the
students having been bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year. Another study
sampled 331 students attending a British secondary school (Maynard, 2000) using The Peer
Victimization Scale. Of the 136 respondents, 40% reported that they had been bullied during
their time at school. This indicates that bullying has become a common experience for many
children. As indicated by other studies, 10 out of 15 victims of bullies reported that such
incidence occur on a regular basis (Newquist, 1979). Once shrugged off as “kids will be kids,”
acts of bullying have in recent years drawn increasing amounts of attention. Incidents such as
the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School have lead to a heightened interest in the dynamics
of the bullying process.
The effects of bullying can be dramatic. Many acts of bullying occur in seclusion and
many acts go unnoticed until the victims of bullying begin to show symptoms or signs that their
lives are not all right (Beane, 1998). Inconsistent school attendance may be an indication of
bullying, as victims tend to suffer from frequent illnesses or just don’t want to come to school to
avoid the acts of bullying they’re exposed to at school. Victims elect to become isolated from
their peers and will chronically arrive late, and leave early from school or abstain from recess.
Victims might prefer the company of adults and may talk about running away. Academic
30
performance may also be affected as their grades decline. They usually don’t eat or sleep well;
some will become potentially suicidal (Maynard, 2000).
With so much evidence of negative peer-to-peer activities, a question must be raised
about the families and their role in this process. Many parents try to prepare their children for
the rigor of school and the academic world, yet some children seem better equipped than others
to deal with the many demands of the educational process. Many parents don’t consider that one
of the skills their child needs for school is appropriate socialization and that socialization
depends on what is learned at home through family dynamics.
Baumrind (1991) rated parents based on the style of child interaction. In her research she
examined a parents interaction by reviewing the areas of control of a child’s behavior, attach
with their children, a child’s ability to become self reliant and establish self control. Rating
parents in these areas, Baumrind established the four types of parenting style permissive,
authoritative, neglecting and authoritarian. Each parenting style identified was an attempt to
describe the quality of the family environment (Joronen, 2005).
Review of Literature
When discussing the topic of bullying, first and foremost is the work of Dan Olweus and
his team of researchers in Norway. In 1973, after the suicide of three students that had been
bullied, Dan Olweus conducted research in Finland to review the incidents of bullying in
schools. Olweus conducted large-scale studies of school-age children across Norway and
Sweden, using the Bully/Victim Questionnaire that he had developed. Two versions of the
questionnaire were designed age-appropriate for grades 1-4 and 5-9 and higher. To safeguard
the confidentiality of all questionnaires, they were answered anonymously and administered by a
31
teacher in a school setting. In Finland, Olweus selected 830 schools to participate. Of the
students participating in the study, 715 of them provided valid data representing a quarter of the
population of students. The researchers then deemed first grade students as not having attained
the reading level necessary to complete the survey, and they were not entered into the study. A
similar study was also conducted in Sweden, with 17,000 students responding. This same
questionnaire was used to validate the success of his anti-bullying program implemented in the
various schools.
By answering the questionnaire, students self-report on perceived incidents that they had
personally witnessed, experienced, or caused. The survey accounts for styles of bullying
common to both males and females specific style of bullying. Those surveyed did not have to
identify whether or not they believe that this bullying was an issue, but simply establish if an act
had occurred. This was simply designed to gather information on the number of negative peer
interactions that a person had experienced in a period of time, either as the victim or as the bully.
By using this particular test, insight was gained into the perceived level of anxiety students had
experienced while at school. Those determined to be bullies or victims were those falling below
a certain cut-off line in terms of frequency of actions.
The method of data collect for the studies depended on self reports from students. Since
the researchers were dealing with student perceptions, the data gathered could suffer from
limitations since it deals with individual perception. These perceptions can vary from day to day
and person to person. If a test taker is experiencing a particularly bad week, the results may be
skewed to indicate a larger problem than actually exists (Breakwell, 2000). The test is also
32
limited, in that is does not account for bullying that is based on racial bias. This can be
accounted for by adding a section that identifies the ethnic background of the test taker.
Olweus and his team realized that bullying was not a new issue, but they wanted to
determine whether incidents of bullying were on the rise. What he discovered convinced him
that bullying was a larger problem than had been originally thought, and that the issue should be
dealt with. According to Olweus (1993), as many as 1 in 6 students are exposed to acts of peer
aggression in a given week. In fact, another study cited as many as 75% of students having been
bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year (APA Monitor, 1999). Other studies
using The Peer Victimization Scale sampled 331 students attending an English Secondary School
(Maynard, Stephen & et al, 2000). Of the 136 respondents, 40% reported that they had been
bullied during their time at school. This would indicate that bullying has become a common
experience for many children. Of those students being bullied, 10-15 report such incidents occur
on a regular basis (Newquist, 1979). Such studies indicate a current trend of bullying behavior
that could stand as a serious barrier to the educational process.
The work of Olweus has indicated that a person who is bullied becomes anxious and
fearful. Many even have difficulty attending school because of the fear of being bullied
(Olweus, 1993). These responses can become conditioned over time and can elicit chemical
reactions from the brain (Psychological Self Help, 2004), fear response initiates the fight-or-
flight response that can actually bypass the cognitive region of the brain through nerve impulses
(Psychological Self Help, 2004). Over time, a person suffering from certain traumas such as
bullying and who exposed to the fight-or-flight anxiety response can actually experience this
33
response even after the threat has passed. Repeated often enough, the brain can be altered and a
pattern develops that will carried into adult life.
According to Olweus’s research (1993), few parents actually understand or appreciate the
implications of adolescent behavior and have disregarded bullying as a type of rite of passage.
Others minimize the actual effects by saying “boys will be boys”. For this reason, researchers
need to be careful not to generalize the adult feelings and findings to adolescent behavior
(National Institute of Health, 1998). As adults, we work to protect the rights of the young and
the vulnerable. In the process we can unfortunately fail to entire the world of the adolescent, and
have an incorrect understanding of what it means to be an adolescent.
Indeed, the data collected has proven beneficial for a variety of reasons, including
drawing attention to the incidence of bullying. What the survey does not provide is insight to the
nature of the problem, itself. Although broad in scope, the study is limited to gathering
information and reporting on the occurrence of events as reported by the individual student. This
was acceptable for the research objective as defined by Olweus, and has proven instrumental in
the establishment of anti-bullying programs throughout the world. However, without a full
understanding to the fundamental mechanism of the nature of bullying behavior, programs will
be designed to curb act of bullying as they occur. Programs have not been designed to prevent
the formation of patterns of bullying behavior.
Instrumental to an understanding of bullying is the work of Ken Rigby from Australia.
His research followed along the lines of Olweus and corroborated much of his findings. Rigby
(1999) studied 38,000 Australian students to determine whether bullying was a factor in schools.
34
He concurred with Olweus that one in six students are bullied on a weekly basis, and that 50% of
students are bullied during their time at school.
In a paper presented at the Children and Crime Victims and Offenders Conference
convened by Australian Institute of Criminology in Brisbane, June 1999, Rigby reviewed his
research findings and discussed the implications of bullying behavior. While his early findings
and methods of study were similar to those of Olweus, he felt that the surveys being used were
inconclusive. For example, the victims of bullying indicated that they were more likely to suffer
from physical illnesses such as headaches and stomachaches. One explanation could be that
there is a correlation between victimization and the health of the person. Rigby was not satisfied
with this explanation, however, and felt that one could not conclude that an illness was related to
the bullying, since no data were collected to determine which came first or whether their were
other factors to explain the onset of illness.
Rigby felt that a retrospective study would be more appropriate to determine the harm of
bullying behavior. For this reason, as explained during his presentation (1999), he conducted a
longitudinal study that started in 1994 and included 400 males and 350 females. During this
study, he gathered data that would determine the factors related to bullying as well as other data
such as strained family relations which could cause stress and illness. Such factors, he reasoned,
could also increase the likeliness that a person was singled out by a bully.
Rigby (1999) determined that bullying was a primary factor in the health and well-being
of victims, who were more likely to suffer from depression, social dysfunction, and anxiety.
These findings indicate that victims of bullying lose their ability to relate in a positive way to
35
their environment and are more likely to be absent from school. In this way, peer interaction was
a significant factor in a person’s overall development.
During this conference that reviewed his major works (1999), Rigby explained his insight
into the development of bullying behavior, a theory that aligns with T. Bowlby’s theory of
attachment. That is, Rigby believes that a child’s attachment (or lack of attachment) to his/her
parents influences the development of bullying behavior. Thus, relationships that are low in
parental care and high in controlling tactics can be a precursor to a child’s negative peer-to-peer
relationships and that may lead to bullying.
Such research has illustrated the need for schools to respond to the negative form of
interaction. Initially starting in Europe, schools began to examine methods to prevent incidents
of bullying. Schools around the world and later in the United States have implemented the
program developed by Olweus. Dr. Olweus’s approach involved several components. The first
step was to administer a school-wide survey to better understand the scope and nature of the
problem. Next, there is a school-wide involvement of the staff through in-services so that
professionals could better understand and deal with bullying. Staff involvement would also
become instrumental by providing increased supervision at targeted hot spots of bullying
activities (Leff, 2003). In addition, groups would be developed to discuss ongoing issues and
concerns with staff. Parents would also become included through ongoing communication with
staff. For this reason, issues of bullying would even be discussed at local Parent Teacher
Organization (PTO) meetings.
The approach developed by Olweus has been adopted by many agencies in Europe and
the United States. One such program was developed in Lane, Oregon, by the staff of Prevention
36
Strategies and it is called Steps to Success. Agencies adopting the Steps to Success strategies
follow similar program strategies as those outlined by Olweus (1993). The program is designed
to increase staff awareness of bullying through staff in- services and workshops. The staff then
teaches the children—through lessons and interventions—how to be more socially responsible
by fostering the social and emotional skills of the children. In this way, adults oversee the
implementation of the program and monitor student progress (Frey, 2005).
The State of New Jersey has adopted a plan called New Jersey Cares About Bullying
(2002). This program is also based on the research of Dan Olweus and is designed to curb the
effects of bias crime. Similar initiatives also exist that encourage teachers to use character
education in lesson plans to deliver a message that bullying is not considered acceptable behavior
by their peers. In these initiatives, the onus to change school climate is on the bystanders. In
other words, efforts are made to persuade students idly watching the bully to actually begin to
stand up and be heard. In this way, a climate is created that demonstrates support rather than
secrets and silences (Strauss, 2003), and students are taught the difference between tattling and
reporting. Fundamentally this program educates both children and adults to the various
aspects of bullying and establishes guidelines and rules for handling situations as they occur.
Adults are expected to monitor problem areas and intervene as necessary. Students who are
bystanders of bullying behavior are encouraged to stand up and defend their classmates. This
can be done by contacting a teacher or administrator. Individual interventions are then
conducted to reinforce the message that bullying is not allowed or tolerated. This program has
claimed to reduce bullying by fifty percent.
37
Even if this program reduces bullying by fifty percent, one in three students are still being
bullied. For this reason, not all of those utilizing programs based on Olweus’s work have been
satisfied with the results. The British Department of Education and Skills in particular, had
decided to review this issue. They funded a national study to determine the success of their
bullying programs. The study was conducted by the Thomas Crown Research Institute (Oliver
& Candappa, 2003) and was a comprehensive look at the secondary education system in
England. This was the first study of its kind that focused on the opinion of the students.
England had been using a telephone hotline called Childline for students who sought
assistance with difficult issues. The single largest concern established by Childline in terms of
sheer numbers of callers was the issue of bullying (Oliver & Candappa, 2003). For this reason,
the British government decided to make bullying reform a top priority. Oliver and Candappa of
the Thomas Crown Institute set out to examine what worked in preventing bullying, according to
the young people themselves. They were particularly concerned since England had adopted a
comprehensive anti-bullying program and children were still calling Childline to discuss
incidents of bullying. Twelve schools from different parts of England were asked to participate.
In total, 953 students participated in the study, of which 230 participated in a qualitative study
that utilized discussions and interviews to gather data. Although the research also utilized
standard surveys, the primary focus of the study was data collected through qualitative means.
As a result of this study, a new program, Childline in Partnership with School (CHIPS),
was instituted that focused on bringing students together to tackle the problem. The study
indicated that students are not comfortable sharing details about bullying situations with adults
(Oliver & Candappa, 2003) but are more likely to tell a friend about an act of bullying. Those
38
responding to the survey indicated that at least half of them had been bullied during the marking
period, but few told either a parents or a sibling. Therefore, any program that centered on adult
interventions, such as the one designed by Olweus, would eventually fail. Instead, programs
were adopted that encouraged students to work with teachers to organize peer support
organizations.
During this study, the students who were interviewed were asked open-ended questions
that allowed them to provide a wide range of answers; more focused data were collected through
a questionnaire. The study indicated that preliminary data were consistent with previous
quantitative studies such as those conducted in Olweus. What proved to be unique were the data
collected through the qualitative means in the structured interviews in which students were free
to provide their own answers rather than choose from the selection provided by adults. The
interviews were conducted in a small group environment and, apparently, the students were thus
able to respond openly to the “interviewer” in this regard (Oliver & Candappa, 2003).
Establishing a proper rapport with the students while ensuring their rights are protected during
this process is fundamental to success of this study.
Just as British Department of Education and Skills had questioned the effectiveness of the
school-based bullying intervention programs, others also began to look into the roots of bullying
behavior. Many researchers began to question the feasibility of waiting for bullying acts to occur
before an intervention is made. Instead, researchers wanted to develop programs that would
target strategies for the prevention of the patterns of negative peer socialization. Such behaviors
tend to begin to manifest during the formative years of development. For most individuals this
developmental period begins during the middle school years and continues through the
39
adolescent years of high school (Mclean, 2003). During this time, children experience many
biological and emotional changes as they continue on their path to adulthood. Young children
take the skills acquired at home and begin to apply them to their own lives. As they become
more independent of their parents, their daily interactions help to influence and mold them as
they continue to grow.
Theoretical Orientation
Such models of socialization are not new. Beginning in the 1950’s, researchers including
Skinner and Bandura, were beginning to recognize the importance of modeling behavior as a
factor in the newly developing field of social learning (Thurber, 2003). As part of a study
conducted by Bandura, children were observed interacting with inanimate toys. At times, adults
would become involved by interacting with the toys in the same environment. Children who
observed aggressive behavior directed at Bobo, a punching bag, also became aggressive with
Bobo. Researchers subsequently theorized that learning had occurred subliminally with no
reinforcement (Thurber, 2003).
This study supports the concept that bullies are, first and foremost, models of some
learned behavior or behaviors. If this is the case, bullies can be presumed to have been exposed
to some form of bully-related behavior during their lifetimes. Since children tend to model adult
authority figures, bullies would be modeling a form of interaction witnessed at home, the source
most likely being their parents. Yet not all bullies are witness to aggressive behavior at home.
In this way, the modeling theory does not go far enough in explaining bullying behavior.
Research needs to focus on patterns of learned behavior that, over time, could lead to acts of
40
bullying, specifically looking at what an adult does or does not do that could translate into a
child’s maladapted socialization pattern.
The socialization starts at home but continues as children interact with their peers. Many
factors will ultimately mold the individual throughout adulthood. Each person also interacts with
their environment, which includes schools, medical care, and economic factors that contribute to
the overall emotional stability of that person. With so many others factors contributing to the
development of a child, preventing socially aggressive children becomes a daunting task.
To curtail the incidence of bullying, researchers became interested in those traits or
variables that may begin at home and follow a person as they develop and mature. Possible
explanations of bullying behavior include child rearing, parental involvement, family stress, and
anger. Researchers wanted to determine what factors influence a child’s interaction and
socialization. The following studies attempt to identify factors that will lead to bullying or
disruptive behavior in children. While many theories exist to explain this behavior, clear-cut
answers have proven evasive at best.
Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005) evaluated theories that focused on parents being crucial
to the social development of children. They wanted to determine what dimensions or aspects of
the family affected school attendance. They examined whether peer attachment or family
attachment was more influential to a child’s socialization. They felt that the quality of the family
environment and parenting style could be linked to adolescent relationships and school
attendance (2005).
Using a qualitative approach, they wanted to describe a teenager’s experience with
regards to family and peers to determine the effects on school attendance. The survey included
41
28 individuals ranging from age twelve to seventeen, twelve of whom were females. The sample
was selected from 245 pupils of Finnish schools. Each student was interviewed in locations of
the participant’s choosing. All participants were white, Lutheran, and considered mainstream in
Finland. The interviews were semi-structured and lasted from 25 to 90 minutes. The taped
interviews were then reviewed using qualitative methods that categorized vocabulary.
Findings indicated that students felt that positive family experiences related to their peer
relationships and influenced their school attendance. Teens who felt that their parents were
interested and warm to their friends were thought to be supportive and trusting to the teen. In
addition, teens indicated that parents who encouraged school attendance and achievement were
perceived by the teen as a positive and supporting influence. In this way, parenting style directly
affected a child’s socialization and attitude.
These findings support the characterization of parenting style as defined by Baumrind.
During Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005) study, parents were identified by their style of
interaction with children regarding peer interaction and the effects on school attendance. Those
parents deemed to be neglectful and controlling tended to have children who felt their parents
restricted their autonomy. Some parents were characterized as coercive in their interactions with
their children. A coercive parent uses force and threats to regulate a child’s life. Teens with
coercive parents felt that they had little control of their lives and would take measures to take
some control by missing school.
The study determined that school attendance was based on multiple relationships in a
child’s world. Both parents and peers can interact in both a positive or negative manner to
influence a child’s behavior and school attendance. While Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005)
42
support the role of parenting style as a factor of peer interaction, it focused on school attendance
rather then the quality of peer relationships. It did not explore the positive or negative quality of
peer relationships, but only explored the nature of the parent-child relationship. In this way, this
study does support the exploration of parenting styles as a factor in peer relationships.
A more direct link between the parent-child relationship and problem behavior was
explored by Aunola and Nurmi (2005). In this study, parenting style was characterized by
degree of affection, behavioral control, and psychological control. The study sought to
determine which factors were the most influential in predicting a child’s internal and external
behavior problems.
During a longitudinal study, 196 children starting at age 5-6 were examined six times
from kindergarten to second grade. At each stage, the children were reviewed to determine their
problem behaviors. The mothers and fathers were also asked to fill out questionnaires once a
year that measured their parenting style.
Results of this study indicated that parenting style tended to remain constant over time.
This tended to be true of mothers and fathers who participated in the study. Aunola and Nurmi
(2005) did not include socialization as a factor of parenting style. They were concerned with
problem behavior in general and the parenting factors that may predict such behavior. The study
also indicated that the parental level of affection and psychological control predicted problem
behavior. Mothers who showed high levels of psychological control and high levels of affection
had the highest level of internal behavior problems. Those mothers who had low level of
psychological control along with any level of maternal affection had no effect on internal
43
behavior problems. External behavior problems were predicted only by the level of maternal
affection.
While the study does suggest a connection between parenting styles and a child’s
behavior, the study did not examine peer relationships. In addition, the study did not examine
the time frame for the origin of the behavior problems or other possible causes for such behavior.
For this reason, the researchers could not determine which factors came first, the problem
behavior or the parenting style. In other words, it was unclear whether the parents were
responding to the child or the child to the parents?
Another study examined a child’s use of free time and the parental expectation of the use
of free time. Hutchinson (2003) developed a method to measure the situation in which a parent
structures, supports and regulates an adolescent’s behavior in their spare time. Hutchinson was
trying to determine what parental practices lent a more positive use of free time.
Hutchinson felt that parenting style was comprised of two dimensions: demandingness
and responsiveness (Baumrind, 1971). She believed that parenting style ultimately shapes the
emotional climate environment of the parent and child. In this way, the researchers believed that
the overall demandingness and responsiveness of the parent will shape the child which, in turn,
establishes the parent-child relationship. This relationship in then transferred to the child’s peer
choices and academic achievement.
Using a qualitative research design, families were asked to provide interview data for a
multiple case study. Such a design would allow for both descriptive data as well as explanations
of parenting practices. The research design allowed for further explanation of the research
question and would provide more insight to such practices. This study included 17 parent and
44
adolescent groups from both rural and urban backgrounds. The parent and child were then
interviewed separately at their home. Questions were semi-structured to identify how the
adolescents spend their free time.
Researchers realized that adolescent activities were shaped by adult values and practices.
They determined that parents set up guidelines through parenting styles that establish the
boundaries of appropriate behavior. Children are then expected to operate within the established
guidelines. While most parents had a clear priority of things they wanted their children to do, the
style of establishing this behavior varied. For example, some parents allowed for negotiations of
activities while others did not.
The family management techniques used by the parents by means of communication,
enforcement, expectation, and monitoring of free time were used to determine the parenting
style. The parenting style was then reviewed with regard to the child’s use of free time. Results
in this study are complex and do not show a clear correlation between parenting style and the use
of free time. Instead, parents may be at odds with the adolescent’s use of free time when the
activities are not something a parent values. For example, a parent who has instilled a sense of
autonomy in their child may be at odds with that child’s independent choice of leisure activities.
In this way, a positive parenting quality that promotes a sense of independence may actually put
parents at odds with their child.
The research was inconclusive about the role of parenting style in the use of an
adolescent’s free time; however, the role of parents in establishing parameters and rules for an
individual was clear. The scope of this study may have been too broad in nature to allow the
45
researchers clear-cut answers. Research with a more focused and precise nature may provide
more definitive answers.
Establishing clear linkages between parents and child behavior does not in and of itself
ensure an answer to the question of bullying behavior. For example, connections between angry
and authoritarian parents have clearly been linked to patterns of childhood aggression. This
connection does not seem to go far enough to explain all acts of bullying since not all parents of
bullies have been identified as having authoritarian parents.
The development of bullying behavior can best be explained as a byproduct of family
dynamics. Most research suggests that bullying is an adaptive process to family circumstance
(Grille, 2005). A family system approach would view bullying as a part of a larger process of
interaction that finds its roots at home. If this is the case, bullies can be presumed to have been
exposed to some form of bullying-related behavior during their lifetimes. Since children tend to
model adult authority figures, bullies would be modeling a form of interaction witnessed at
home, the source most likely being their parents.
In this way, children who grow up experiencing conflict can become conditioned by
recurring patterns of negative behavior and begin to model this negative behavior when they
interact with their peers (Chang, 2004). Not all families with conflicts perpetuate this pattern,
yet parents’ engaging in unresolved conflicts and displaying negative forms of communication,
does not in fact, teach their children a pattern of angry behavior. That, in turn, will establish a
pattern of socialization their children may involuntarily carry with them to the playground and
into the classroom (Namka, 1997). As the children grow, they begin to perpetuate this pattern of
angry interaction. Such children may begin to display behavioral problems that result in low
46
academic performance (DeBaryshe, 1998). They may have difficulty empathizing with the other
students and become intolerant of individual differences. Individuals with this pattern of
interaction who are raised in an angry or negative household develop an attitude in which they
attempt to get their needs met by developing a sense of entitlement (Namka, 1997). Children in
this situation have an attitude of, “I want what I want when I want it,” and they will act in any
manner necessary to get it. This lack of empathy, coupled with a lack of regard for
consequences, may cause them to develop a pattern of bullying behavior to satisfy their own
needs.
Parents may be experiencing difficulties that strain the entire family including depression,
substance abuse, unemployment, or other stressors. Married couples or unmarried partners with
a solid foundation of communication are proven to be effective in navigating such difficulties;
even so, there may be situations where such stressors will create a drain on a relationship. As
collateral victims of their parents stress, children can suffer during such times of stress.
Likewise, when a parent becomes injured, sick or incapacitated, the child will need to care for
themselves in order to survive (Howe, 2004). Over time, such children may need to tend to their
own needs, taking over some parenting responsibilities (Rifkin, 2005). Such a child’s
“parentification” can have profound and long-lasting effects on the child’s future development.
Since children are expected to remain in touch with the feelings of their parents, their own
feelings must be subjugated. Over time, they can feel neglected (L’Abate, 1993). Anger can
often be a by-product of the children who are asked to take on adult roles. Anger and frustration
can manifest themselves as negative peer-to-peer interaction. Repeatedly, the anger displayed by
authoritarian parents becomes one component of the equation yet, does not sufficiently explain
47
all incidents of bullying (Rifken, nd). Not all bullies grow up in a conflicted family where
parents openly argue or are consistently abusive. Therefore, other parenting styles need to be
considered in order to further identify the patterns that place a child at risk for demonstrating
future bullying behavior. A parent’s style of interaction is crucial for the emotional well-being
of a growing child, and determining which actions can potentially put a child at risk for bullying
behavior could be the key to eliminating that behavior from occurring.
Rather than looking strictly at anger as a predictor of bullying behavior, Douglas and
Emory (1996) studied the effects of stress on a child and the parent-child relationship. Douglas
and Emery (1996) tested 131 highly stressed fourth and sixth grade urban youths. Parents were
also interviewed in order to determine four aspects of the parent-child relationship: warmth,
involvement, discipline style and discipline consistency. They wanted to determine the role of
stress in the development of youth with regard to measured outcomes. Such indicators of child
development included self esteem, adjustment, locus of control, empathy, and social problem
solving. The researchers believed that there was a relationship between parenting practices and
the development of a child’s coping skills.
Parents were asked to review the child’s developmental history, family relationship and
parental family history. Parents were paid for their participation in structured interviews that
asked 36 open-ended questions regarding their parental attitudes, involvement, and discipline.
The children were asked to answer several questionnaires that identified their perceived
competence, self esteem, locus of control, empathy, and social learning.
Parental attitudes and warmth were found to be associated with a child’s formation of self
image, social competence, and self regulation. Those children who reported a warm, caring
48
relationship with the caregiver tended to relate better social skills and socialization. In this way,
the level of stress a family faced was not an indicator of a child’s self image rather; the quality of
the parent-child relationship had proven more influential with regards to a child’s overall
outlook. The study supports the idea that positive parental relationships can be protective factors
on a developing youth.
The study does not include a review of peer socialization as factors but does clearly show
a relationship between the parent-child relationship and the child’s adjustment. The study is
limited because the population studied was a highly stressed urban population that may not
generalize to other populations. Despite the level of stress noted in this population, a correlation
was established that indicated that the parent/child relationship can be a powerful influence on a
child.
In a study by Hastings and Coplan (1999), maternal parenting styles were investigated.
In this study, however, researchers looked at the correlation between maternal beliefs and
responses to a child’s misdeeds, to determine what maternal goals or beliefs correlated with the
response. The researchers also wanted to determine the effects of maternal beliefs on a child’s
social outcomes. Families that participated tended to be middle class, Caucasian, and had two
parents living at home. For this study, seventy-five mothers and their preschool children ranging
from thirty to seventy months at the start of testing (forty males) participated.
Mothers were asked to respond to short scenarios regarding a child’s behavior. They
then had to choose a response about parenting beliefs. Many of the scenarios included acts of
aggression or defiance. Several months after the mother responded to their questions, teachers
49
were given a rating scale that would index problem behaviors. Included in the scale was a
subsection that pertained to a child’s aggressive, destructive or hyperactive tendencies.
The mother’s data were then analyzed using three-way mixed ANOVA using parenting
goal, child misbehavior, and child gender as factors. Data indicated that gender was a factor in
goals of behavior. Mothers of daughters placed a higher importance on parent-centered goals
than they did for their sons. Mother’s goals for their sons tended to be relationship centered.
Data also indicated that a mother’s response to a transgression varied for more serious
transgressions. If a mother felt that an act was serious in nature, the mother would have a
stronger response.
Mothers also tended to be protective of their child’s actions and tended to feel that their
actions were not intentional but circumstantial. Such beliefs have a great impact on parenting. If
a parent feels the act is not intentional, then they don’t have to act. With respect to bullying, if a
parent’s belief is that a child did not mean to hurt another’s feelings, then the child may suffer no
consequences. Mothers also tended to view acts of violence with boys as typical and not as
misbehavior.
Hastings and Coplan (1999) determined that a child’s socialization was correlated to
maternal beliefs and goals. Those students who were determined to be low in parent-centered
response and high in relationship-centered responses tended to be less socially competent and
more likely to externalize problems. Many of the mothers responded to acts of aggression as if
they were not typical behavior for their child. Unless there was eminent threat of harm, mothers
tended to minimize the acts of aggression as transitory. This may have been a protective action
for the parent who did not know how to respond.
50
This study has shortcomings in that it does not address the child directly. Responses are
those of the mother and a teacher. Each may have a very different view of a child’s behavior and
the motivating factors behind a child’s behavior. Failing to include the child exposes a serious
weakness in the study, in that parents may answer the scenarios in a way that will please the
tester. The answers may not depict the actual experience or actions of the parent.
While viewed with caution due to the limitations stated, the study does seem to draw a
correlation between parenting beliefs that are then enacted through a parenting style and a child’s
social outcomes. Specific actions of the parents are not reviewed but have been categorized
based on responses to scenarios. In this way, the study identifies the beliefs but not the actions
of the parents that may be behind those beliefs.
In a study more directly related to bullying, E. Rock (2003) developed a program to
curtail incidents of bullying by teaching children empathy. The researcher believed that children
that were not taught proper socialization skills may not be able to comprehend the feelings of
others. In this way, the researcher believed that children would be not able to empathize with the
victim in bullying situations.
Rock (2003) studied ten children who had been identified by teachers as being easily
aroused to anger or having bullying behaviors. Subjects ranged in age from nine to eleven years,
with six of the subjects being male. The students were interviewed to determine the cognitive
and affective framework used by the child. The questions were designed to determine whether
the child could identify the feelings of others. Other questions tried to determine whether the
child thought of the consequences of his actions, for himself and the other child involved. The
51
final stage of questioning was geared towards exploring the origins of the behavior and how the
behavior continued to be reinforced.
They discovered that the children seemed to understand the consequences of their
actions, i.e., that someone was being hurt in some way. Most could even relate on some level to
what the victims could be feeling, based on their own experiences. Most of the respondents did
not consider adult interventions as appropriate, but felt it should be handled by peers. In fact, the
children appeared to think through their actions. Decisions and actions were based on the peers
present and whether or not they would be encouraged by their peers.
The researcher concluded that easily-aroused children lacked the skills to intervene
appropriately. The child was responding to a situation using what limited tools they had
acquired. At times, this response would include physical or verbal aggression. For this reason,
Rock recommended that adults become more active in the consequences of bullying behavior
and that counselors work to develop problem-solving skills.
Although this study is decidedly limited in scope with only ten subjects, the results are
interesting. The bullies seem to be aware of the response of the victim and the possible
consequences but act anyway. The researcher concluded that they acted because they didn’t
know how to act any other way. If this were true, a person is left to wonder whether parenting
brought the child to this point of not being able to ascertain any other alternative strategies of
interaction.
The researcher stated that the aggressor identified with the aggressor on some level, yet
still bullied them. This begs the question of what benefit was the act of bullying to the bully?
The act could be misplaced aggression from other events. The bully could be compensating for a
52
weak self image and trying to bolster his/her self esteem. Without such vital information, a
program based on developing problem solving skills is destined to fail. The children have
already considered the consequences and they acted anyway. A more intrinsic motivation must
then be explored, one that may have developed well before they came to school.
Synthesis of Literature
Bullying behavior has come to the forefront as a developmental concern of school age
children. Research has documented the long term effects of bullying on both the victim and the
bully. Programs have been established to try to deter incidents of peer-to-peer aggression and
schools in many states have been required to implement school programs as part of an anti
violence campaign.
Many of these programs have been met with a limited amount of success. Olweus boost
that his program reduce bullying by nearly 50%. While this number would appear to be
significant, it also suggests that nearly 1 in 3 students are still being bullied even after the
implementation of his comprehensive program. No program can guarantee to be 100% effective;
however such results would indicate that the program does not go far enough in curbing the acts
of peer to peer violence. As many would agree, his program may be more effective that others
that have been developed, the question still remains as to what other factors need to be addressed
to further reduce the incidents of bullying in schools.
Reviewing the literature strongly suggest that further research in the area of family
patterns is needed. Many of the programs developed target the bullying behaviors at the source
53
where these behaviors have become most prevalent and troublesome, the schools. While schools
may be the area where the behaviors manifest themselves, little evidence suggests that schools
are actually the actual origins or root of that behavior. In fact, reviewing the literature indicates
that much of a child’s behavior in regards to peer socialization actually has its roots in the family
style of interaction. For this reason, further research is warranted that would review patterns of
family interaction that may inadvertently result or contribute to the development of negative
patterns of peer socialization.
54
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand to what extent does the relationship between
child and his/her parental as perceived by the child affects that child’s peer relationships. The
quantitative research design has explored whether a child will have a predictable response to
bullying questions based on the results of information regarding a particular parental interaction
style. In other words, does a certain perceived parenting style correlate to bullying behavior?
The research will also explore if such a relationship exists, at all, or it may determine that
parenting style may, in fact, have little or no effect on peer relationships.
Research Design
This research is a quantitative study to examine the perceived parent-child relationship
and the socialization of the child. The study examines if there is any relationship between the
perceived parenting style and the incidents of negative peer interaction. The study wants to
determine if there is a relationship between a certain parenting style and incidents of bullying.
Target Population
The participating school is a regional district in Bergen County, New Jersey. The district
is considered a middle class district consisting of approximately 1400 students from grades
7to12. The district claims to be diverse, with an Asian population constituting approximately
20% of the student body. Other minorities include a significant number of students from Jewish
(unknown), African-American (1%) as well as European immigrant backgrounds (7%).
55
Since all schools are compelled by the State of New Jersey to institute effective violence
prevention programs, establishing a clear connection between the behavior and its origin is
paramount to any bullying prevention program. Parental involvement in prevention programs
could prove the pivotal link in eliminating the bullying behavior of school-age children.
Selection of Participants
As recommended by the designers of the American Drug and Alcohol survey with the
Violence Prevention Planner, Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute (RMBSI) the
participating school will administer the survey to the entire eighth. The survey could include
as many as 266 students which would increase the validity and reliability of the study. As
reviewed by the RMBHI, the goal of surveying is to find out about certain behaviors and
attitudes within the community’s population of young people regarding their perception of
the parent-child relationship as well as there pattern of peer socialization. This sample of
students is a sample of convenience of those who have agreed to participate. Since the goal
of the survey is to get an overall picture of the student population, the entire 8th
grade was
invited to participate through a parental notification letter and then again via a follow up
phone call. Although it would be nice to utilize a true experimental design using a random
sample this is not feasible for this population. Students have access to each other and would
probable talk with each other about the study therefore violating the fundamental
assumptions of the control groups. Within a school setting it is more advantageous to have
an entire class serve as the experimental group. A sample of the 8th
grade will afford this
researcher the optimum number of participants that will then represent their class.
56
The participating school is a Regional district with one high school and one middle
school. Since the majority of reported acts of bullying in the district occur in the middle
school, the 8th
grade will be the focus of this study. There are about 266 students in the 8th
grade as possible participants. Since parental consent is necessary to administer surveys to
minors, 266 parental notification letters were sent to the parents or guardians of the students.
Included in the mailer was a parental consent form. The parents were asked to respond
whether they agreed to the survey or not. They were also provided with a return envelope to
help expedite as many possible responses.
Students also had the opportunity to assent or decent to the survey as well. Students
had a separate form to sign with their consent/decent. This form was reviewed in a
homeroom prior to the survey to address any concerns. Those students who didn’t want to
participant were able to remain in their gym class. All surveys were anonymous those
engaged in at risk behaviors will not be identified for follow up. For this reason, following
the survey an additional information sheet was provided that explains the resources available
to the students with any concerns.
All surveys were anonymous to protect confidentiality. Students participating were not
identified by name; however, demographic information was requested. Students were asked
to identify their age, sex, and ethnic background. Scores were then processed by the
designers of the survey.
Surveys were administered and collected by the researcher. Only one copy of the
survey was available for review prior to administration of the survey at the school(s) for
57
parental review. To my knowledge, no parent took advantage of this opportunity. No
students had prior access to the surveying instruments. Data collected was immediately sent
to the RMBSI for data input to SPSS software. All survey forms are being stored at this
facility. The researcher was provided with a CD rom of the data for further analysis. All
data was kept secured when not being analyzed.
Variables
The variables being studied are a child’s negative pattern of social interaction and the
perceived parenting style. The independent or x variable is the parental style of interaction with
a child with bullying behavior as the dependant or y variable. Data was analyzed using Chi
Square analysis. Students were identified as bullies or none bullies. The parenting style was then
used as the observed behavior for this analysis. The observed behaviors were based on
permissiveness, support, trust, perceived level of caring and respect which will determine the
overall warmth and control of the parents.
The key to this study was the identification of actions that may be indicative of bullies
through self reports. Once identified, the nature of their relationship with their parents can be
established. Students reported specifically on the parents in the areas of setting boundaries,
developing trust and respect as well as the perceived level of caring by the child. The behavior of
the parents was evaluated for their ability to develop a close and effective parenting relationship
with their child as perceived by their child. Participants identified as bullies and non bullies
based on their responses to the questions answered questions were then organized by responses
to questions regarding parenting style. Data was then be analyzed to determine if there is a
58
connection between the child’s ability to socialize and the relationship they perceive with their
parents.
Measures
The tool for this survey is The American Drug and Alcohol Survey with the Prevention
Planning Survey (ADAS). The ADAS was developed at Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science
Institute (RMBSI) with Small Business Innovative Research grant funding from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse in 1983-1986. The three co-authors of the survey are Fred Beauvais,
Ph.D., Ruth Edwards, Ph.D., and Eugene Oetting, Ph.D. All three of the authors of the ADAS
conduct research on youth substance abuse prevention through the Tri-Ethnic Center for
Prevention Research at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Scores from the prevention portion of the ADAS have determined whether a population
is involved with bullying behavior either as a victim or a bully. In addition, the scores were then
analyzed to investigate whether a relationship exists between the perceived parental-child
relationship and acts of bullying. While the survey was designed to establish strategies for
substance abuse prevention, the prevention portion of the survey also gathers data regarding
school violence and acts of bullying as well as other environmental influences. For the purpose
of this study, scores were generated to analyze the relationship between bullies and their parents
based on attachment, security and trust which will determine the warmth of the parent. The
ADAS has been utilized in numerous, large-scale studies with middle and high school, which
verifies the reliability and validity of each section of the instrument. The survey focuses on the
risks and protective factors in the social environments that make up most teens’ daily lives: the
59
factors involving the students’ peer groups, family, and school environments. Importantly,
questions also address experiences with violence and victimization.
The ADAS is one of the most widely used questionnaires to assess adolescent behavior,
and has been considered suitable for individuals 12to18 years old with a high degree of trust,
quality of communication with regards to the assessment of closeness, security, and trust in a
parent-child relationship. The ADAS has proven to be very reliable when used both in the
general population and with five major ethnic groups in the United States. The survey used
multi-item scales (three to six items per scale) to measure involvement with ten different drugs.
Another four drugs (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and heroin) were assessed with two items each.
The RMBSI reports that most other drug surveys used only single items. As reported by the
RMBSI, their statisticians use Cronbach’s alpha reliability test to determine how reliable a multi-
item scale may be for a given population. According the data provided by the developers of the
survey instrument, the Cronbach alpha reliabilities for fourteen drug-use scales on the ADAS
range from .72 to .94, with the majority in the high .80 to .90 range. Generally, alpha reliabilities
above .70 were considered good when measures are used in large surveys, while alpha
reliabilities in the range from .80 to .99 are considered to be exceptionally high. The strong alpha
reliabilities of the drug use scales on the American Drug and Alcohol Survey show that the
students are responding consistently to the survey items.
Concurrent validity for the ADAS was established by demonstrating that similar results
were obtained when ADAS results are compared with the findings from other well-designed and
established surveys over time. As stated by the RMBSI, the instrument also was proven to have
60
construct validity since answers reported and that answers make sense and were consistent for
the type of respondent. Those respondents, who scored as being at risk, show scores relating to
drug use that tend to be predictable. The ADAS was used in over 45 published journal articles
indicating that many researchers view the instrument as valid and reliable.
The Prevention Planning portion of the survey was designed to illicit student information
that will help schools develop programs to prevent incidents of violence and substance abuse.
This was accomplished by gathering data that could be indicators of at risk behavior. Family
background information was gathered that will be used to determine a child’s perceptions on his
closeness, trust and responsibilities within his family. Another section examines the student’s
feelings on certain area such as questions regarding how well they like themselves, as well as
question about their actions and the perceived actions of their peers.
Question 53 directly relates to negative peer activities such as bullying behavior and
picking on other students. A response of “a lot”, “some” and “not much” were an indication that
this person engages in bullying behavior. Once identified, the parental relationship was then
examined through Chi Square analysis. Self-report surveys were thus utilized to identify the
target population of bullies. In this way, students have anonymously reported their behavior
without fear of repercussion. In addition, the questions asked were not specifically designed to
label them directly as a bully or victim. Instead, they indicated whether or not they have
performed the indicated action. This method should increase the likelihood that the answers
reported are accurate and represent an accurate interpretation of their behavior.
61
Procedures
The research is a quantitative design of convenience to study the perceived attitudes of
adolescents in regard to their relationships with their parents. In this way, a researcher is gaining
insight into the way the children feel about their parents’ methods of interaction with them. At
the same time, the research, using the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Health Violence Prevention
Planning Survey, has identified those students who partake in bullying behavior. Data collected
needed to identify those students who bully and determine how the child perceives their
relationships with their parents. Those who engage in bullying behavior were then analyzed
utilizing Chi Square analysis to determine their perceptions of parent-child relationships.
Critical to the study was the determination of those students who engage in bullying
behavior. Many acts of bullying go unreported to authority figures (Olweus, 1993). Adding to
the difficulty of detecting acts of bullying is the fact that indirect acts of bullying are very subtle
and will defy detection even if this behavior is being monitored or observed (Simmons, 2002).
For this reason, a bully may not always be detected making adult identification of bullies
inaccurate and misleading.
Data Collection Procedures
Research was conducted in accordance with all current school procedures and pursuant
to existing New Jersey laws of informed consent (NJS18A:36-34). Working with school
officials, parents were notified by letter as to the scope and nature of the study. They were given
the opportunity to view the surveys instrument prior to its administration; to my knowledge no
parent has taken advantage of this opportunity. Parents were asked to respond to the letter by
62
either agreeing are dissenting and then returning the letter to the district. A return envelope was
provided to elicit as many responses as possible.
Due to the impact of a resent court case, finding a school in New Jersey to participate in
student related survey has proven to be a difficult process. In 1998, the district of Ridgefield, NJ
was sued by three parents over the ability of schools to administer surveys. The parents
contended that the schools had acted improperly in administering the survey and that their
children had suffered as a result. In a 2004 decision, the court upheld the right of a school
district to administer surveys to students as long as they followed the guidelines of informed
consent. The surrounding school districts however, have been reluctant to conduct surveys for
fear of reprisal from parents.
The survey was taken during a student’s physical education class. During the class
period, students who had consent to take the survey were sent to the cafeteria to take the survey
while the remaining students participated in gym class. Prior to the distribution of survey
materials, the researcher read a predetermined statement to each and every class to ensure
consistency in all test groups. Students were strongly encouraged to answer all questions
accurately and honestly and to the best of their knowledge. They were also advised that they
may request to be excused and that participation is voluntary. Those who chose not to
participate were excused to the gym.
Administration of the survey was scheduled on a day that most students were likely to
attend. The survey was not administered on dates where there were field trips or other activities.
The time of year should also be considered. Since the survey is an attempt to get a snapshot of
63
student behavior and perceptions towards their family, giving a survey during exams may tend to
produce different results than a survey given after a holiday. Time of day could also be a factor
since students tend to tire at the end of the day.
Ideally, students had been given the survey on the same day. It could not be conducted
during the same period however but was given on the same day. In this way, students had only a
limited amount of time to discuss the survey in the halls. Students had taken the survey during
their physical education class and were instructed to remain in class until the surveys were
complete. Students excused from the survey due to lack of parental consent were allowed to
participate in their regularly scheduled gym class.
Students participating were not identified by name; however, demographic information
was requested. Students were asked to identify their age, sex, and ethnic background. Students
were not asked to indicate any factors that could identify them to those reviewing the scores.
Surveys were administered and collected by the researcher. Only one copy was available
prior to administration of the survey at the school(s) for parental review. No students had been
granted access to the survey prior to the survey administration. Of the 91 students eligible to
take the survey, 83 students actually participated in the survey. Several students opted to remain
in gym class (it was a very nice day after a series of rather cold days and the students stated they
wanted to go outside). One student could not read the survey since he had recently come from
Korea. He was excused to return to gym class. Two surveys had to be excluded since the
students had skipped pages and could not be accurately tabulated.
64
Data Analysis Plans
Once the data was collected, nominal groups were established based on the answers the
students provided. The groups were broken into groups of those who bully and those who state
they do not bully. These groups were established based on eleven different questions that looked
at bullying behavior. The total score of the questions was calculated. Scores of 4 through 33
constituted bullying behavior.
Using the categories that were established by Baumrind, parents were broken into four
groups. The four categories of parenting style were based on whether they are deemed high or
low in the areas of warmth and control. In each category, five variables will be used to
determine whether a parent was thought to be high or low in either category. A score of 11to 20
in the area of control will constitute a high score, while a score of 5 to10 in the area of warmth
will constitute a high score. Those who are high in warmth and high in control were classified
Authoritative. Permissive parents were those who were low in control but high in warmth. The
Authoritarian parent was high in control with low warmth. The Rejecting or Negative parent
was low in both warmth and control.
Since nominal groups were established, the appropriate method of data analysis was the
Chi Square or X². When dealing with categorical data such as the groups of bullies and
parenting style, the researcher was concerned with the frequency of observations of each
established group. For this study the observed behavior was the incidents or particular parental
style that may be unique to a group of bullies. Then the frequency of observations was analyzed
based on the statistical expected frequency of observations. Differences in the expected and
65
actual observed frequencies of observations were then analyzed using a test of independence to
determine the p-value. A small p-value would result in a rejection of the null hypothesis which
would indicate that the samples are not independent of each other.
The observed frequencies were based on the observed parenting styles as reported by the
child. Utilizing the child’s responses to the Likert scale, the parents were reviewed in terms of
warmth and control to determine their parenting style. Reviewing the survey questions 35 a, b, c,
d and e relates directly to the amount of control a parent has over a child. Responses of very
true or mostly true indicate low levels of control while somewhat true and not at all true indicate
high levels of control.
To determine the level warmth a child perceives of their parents involves several areas
including the amount of support, trust and respect the parent displays. Questions 38 a, 10, and
11 provide information as to the support parents offer their children. Question 36f asks directly
if the child feels that the parents trust them. Respect was determined by question 36g which ask
if the child feels respected by the parent. Answers that indicated a lot or some constitute high
responses while not much and not at all indicated low levels of warmth.
Question 1, “What affect does parenting style have on a child’s socialization?” was
analyzed using four separate Chi Square analyses. For each analysis, a score was determined for
bullies and non bullies in relation to an individual parenting style. Question 2, “What factors of
parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?” A Chi Square was used to
analyze to determine the group with the most incidents of bullying to determine if there was a
relationship with parenting style. This group was reviewed with each of the parenting styles.
66
Question 3, “Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern
of peer socialization with regards to bulling?,” was analyzed using Chi Square to determine if the
variable of warmth or control in and of themselves were factors in a child’s incidents of bullying.
Expected Findings
If the research question is valid and students provide honest feedback to the surveys, the
findings will indicate that parental style of interaction will directly influence a child’s pattern of
peer-to-peer socialization and that the null hypothesis is rejected. Children of parents with
extremes in parenting style by either being to permissive or overly negative will negatively
impact a child’s ability to socialize and will lead to bullying behavior.
67
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Research Design and Methodology Summary
The purpose of this study was to further understand to what extent the relationship
between a child and his or her parents as perceived by the child affects that child’s peer
relationships. This quantitative research design has explored whether a child had a predictable
response to bullying questions based on the results of information regarding a particular parental
interaction style. In other words, does a certain perceived parenting style relate to bullying
behavior? The research also explored the degree of association between these two variables, by
utilizing the Chi Square procedure for each parenting style.
In essence, the study proposes that how children will treat others is a result of interaction
with their parents. Children who perceive difficulties with their parents with regard to security,
trust and/or responsibility may have difficulties in peer relations and resort to bullying behavior.
If this is the case then both parenting style and the strength of the parent-child relationship will
be factors in a child’s peer-to-peer relationships. The stronger the parental relationship in all
areas of trust, security and responsibility, the stronger the child’s peer to peer relationships will
be and the less likely a child will be to resort to bullying behaviors.
Participants of the study were eighth grade students attending a suburban middle school
in Northern Bergen County, New Jersey. All participants had received written informed consent
from their parents or guardians to participate in the study. In addition, students were asked to
complete a student consent form before they took the survey. A letter had gone out to all parents
or guardians in the district regarding the survey with the consent form. While plans had been
68
made to include return postage with the return envelope, an oversight on the part of the printer
resulted in a failure to include this with the mailer. The researcher felt that this would result in a
smaller return from the mailer. So this issue was addressed with the district. The district did
agree to allow this researcher to send a follow up letter home with the students as a reminder to
the parents. Due to cost constraints of this reminder, postage was not included.
As a result of the 253 letters send home, 91 students were granted permission to
participate in the survey, however 79 students actually participated. There were 43 females and
36 males partaking in the study. On the day of the study, the students were asked whether they
wanted to participate in the study or remain in gym. It was a very nice day after a series of rather
cold days and 9 students opted to go outside. One student could not read the survey since he had
recently come from Korea. He was excused to return to gym class. Because the students had
skipped pages, two surveys had to be excluded.
The tool for this survey was The American Drug and Alcohol Survey with the Prevention
Planning Survey (ADAS). The ADAS was developed at Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science
Institute (RMBSI) with Small Business Innovative Research grant funding from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse in 1983-1986. Scores from the prevention portion of the ADAS have
determined whether a population is involved with bullying behavior either as a victim or a bully.
In addition, the scores were then analyzed to investigate whether a relationship exists between
the perceived parental-child relationship and acts of bullying. While the survey was designed to
establish strategies for substance abuse prevention, the prevention portion of the survey also
gathers data regarding school violence and acts of bullying as well as other environmental
69
influences. For the purpose of this study, scores were generated to analyze the relationship
between bullies and their parents based on attachment, security and trust.
The research conducted was a quantitative study of variables to examine the perceived
parent-child relationship and the socialization of the child. The variables were quantitative in
nature; Chi Square was performed to access any relationship between them. Chi Square analysis
for each style of parenting was used to determine if there was a relation between that parenting
style and a child’s incidents of bullying. Using one degree of freedom and a critical value of a =
.05, Permissive, Authoritarian, Authoritative and Neglecting parenting styles were analyzed with
regard to bullying behavior to determine whether there was a statistical significance between the
theoretical predicted frequencies and the actual obtained frequencies.
For this study, parenting style was assessed to determine the perceived level of warmth
and control a parent exhibits (see Table 1). A combined score of questions 10, 11, 36f, 36g and
38g determined the perceived level of warmth. Scores on each question ranged from one to four.
A score of five through ten was considered high in warmth since they represented the scores of
the lower two categories. A score of eleven through twenty were considered low on warmth
since they represented the score of the higher two categories. The level of control a parent’s tries
to establish was determined by combining scores from questions 36a, 36b, 36c, 36d, and 36e.
Scores on each question ranged from one to four. A score of eleven through twenty was
considered to be high in control. Those parents who were determined to be high in warmth (a
score of five through ten) and high in control (a score of eleven through twenty) will be
considered Authoritative. Parents high in warmth (a score of five through ten) but low in control
(a score of five through ten) were considered Permissive. Authoritarian parents were those
70
considered to be low in warmth (a score of eleven through twenty) and high in control (a score of
eleven through twenty) while Neglecting parents will be those low in both warmth (a score of
eleven through twenty) and control (a score of five through ten).
Table 1, Score to Determine Parenting Styles
Warmth
Low
Score of 11-20
High
Score of 5-10
Control
Low
Score of
5-10
Neglecting
Permissive
High
Score of
11-20
Authoritarian
Authoritative
71
Table 2, Frequency of Parenting Style
N
Authoritative 46
Authoritarian 21
Neglect 1
Permissive 11
Total N 79
In order to determine if parenting style was a consideration in incidents of bullying, the
students surveyed were divided into two groups. The two groups were those who engaged in
bullying behavior and those who did not. Bullying behavior included both indirect and direct
forms of bullying. Eleven questions were used to determine these two groups. A combined
score of questions 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, 30a, 30b, 48c, 48f, and 48g were totaled. Each question
ranged in score from one to four. A one indicated a lot of bullying, a two was some bullying, a
three would indicate not much bullying while a four would indicate no bullying behavior. A
total score of 5to33 would constitute the cut off for bullies. A score of 33 would indicate that a
person had participated in some bullying behavior. A score of 34 to 44 indicated no bullying
behavior. Using SPSS analysis 79 students were grouped as either being a bully or a not bully.
Table 3 illustrates that 26 students were classified as bullies while 53 students were determined
to be none bullies. Once the groups had been established the groups were analyzed to examine
the observed frequency of parenting style.
72
Table 3, Frequencies of bullies and not bullies
The following research questions were reviewed during this study:
Frequency Percent
1.00 26 32.9
2.00 53 67.1
Bully
Not
bully
Total 79 100.0
73
• What affect does parenting style have on a child’s socialization?
• What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?
• Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern
of peer socialization with regards to bulling?
Question 1
What effect does parenting style have on a child’s negative socialization?
Permissive Parenting Style
It was hypothesized that Permissive parenting style would effect a child’s socialization
and lead to bullying behavior. A Permissive parent was determined to be a parent that was high
in warmth and low in control (see Table 1). Of the 79 students participating in the survey,
eleven parents were classified as having Permissive parenting style (see Table 2). Chi Square
analysis was not performed in this area since the expected frequency of low control was less then
5. An expected frequency of less than five would indicate that Chi Square analysis would be
unreliable. According to Howell (2004) with a small expected frequency there is no way that the
observed frequency could be normally distributed. For this reason, the Chi Square would not be
reliable statistical test.
74
Table 4. Chi Square Analysis of Bullies with Permissive Parents
Frequency
Permissive
1=bully; 1.00 Count 4
Expected Count 3.6
2= not bully 2.00 Count 7
Expected Count 7.4
Total Count 11
Expected Count 11.0
Authoritarian Parenting Style
It was hypothesized that Authoritarian parenting style would have a negative impact on a
child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. An Authoritarian parent was
determined to be low in warmth and high in control (see Table 1). Of the 79 students surveyed,
21 parents were considered to be Authoritarian in parenting style (see Table 2).
Using SPSS Chi Square analysis of the students who were classified as bullies and not
bullies (see Table 3), there was a statistical significance between the expected frequencies and
the obtained frequencies. Using SPSS analysis, a Chi Square score of x²(1, N=21) = 2.802
p=.094 would indicate that there is a relationship between incidents of bullying behavior and
Authoritarian parenting style (see Table 5). Although there is a relationship between bullying
behavior and Authoritarian parenting style, the null hypothesis could not be rejected.
75
Table 5. Chi Square Analysis of Bullies with Authoritarian Parents
Frequency
Authoritarian
1=bully; 1.00 Count 10
Expected Count 6.9
2= not bully 2.00 Count 11
Expected Count 14.1
Total Count 21
Expected Count 21.0
Chi-Square Tests
2.802b 1 .094
1.968 1 .161
2.712 1 .100
.110 .082
79
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.
91.
b.
Symmetric Measures
-.188 .094
.188 .094
79
Phi
Cramer's V
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.
b.
Authoritative Parenting Style
76
It was hypothesized that an Authoritative Parenting style would have a positive effect on
a child’s pattern of interaction. To be considered Authoritative, a parent would have to score
high in warmth and high in control. Out of the 79 students who took the survey, 46 parents were
classified as being Authoritative in parenting style (see Table 2).
Using Chi Square analysis of the students who were classified as bullies and not bullies
(see Table 6), there was no statistical significance between the expected frequencies and the
obtained frequencies. A Chi Square score of x²(1, N=46) = 2.323 p=.127 would indicate that
there is a no statistical difference between incidents of bullying behavior and Authoritative
parenting style. Since there was no statistical difference between bullying and Authoritative
parenting style null could not be rejected (see Table 5). This result was not surprising since it
was expected that Authoritative parenting style would have a positive effect on a child’s
behavior. The statistical relationship−or lack of relationship−may be a result of the positive
effects of the parenting style.
Table 6. Chi Square Analysis of Bullies with Authoritative Parents
Frequency
Authoritative
1=bully; 1.00 Count 12
Expected Count 15.1
2= not bully 2.00 Count 34
Expected Count 30.9
Total Count 46
Expected Count 46.0
77
Chi-Square Tests
2.323b 1 .127
1.642 1 .200
2.309 1 .129
.150 .100
79
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.
86.
b.
Symmetric Measures
.171 .127
.171 .127
79
Phi
Cramer's V
Nominal by
Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.
b.
Neglecting Parenting Style
It was hypothesized that Neglecting parenting style would have a negative impact on a
child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. A neglecting parent was
determined to be low in warmth and low in control (see Table 1). To be determined as low in
control the combined score of those five questions was less than eleven. Of the 79 students that
were surveyed, only one incident of a neglectful parenting style was determined (see Table 2).
It must be noted that only one parent was determined to be Neglecting in parenting style.
Therefore, the sample is limited and does not warrant proper Chi Square analysis. Since no
78
relationship between bullying and a Neglecting parenting style was determined, null could not be
rejected nor accepted. Due to the number of parents in this category, the data is inconclusive
with regard to this parenting style.
Question 2
What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?
The data was analyzed to determine if there was a relationship between parenting style
and those students who were reporting the most frequent acts of bullying. It was hoped that by
isolating those students with the most frequent acts of bullying, the researcher could isolate
factors of parenting that may contribute to this behavior. SPSS analysis had determined that
more females had participated in the study, 43 females and 36 males, and that the females
reported the highest frequency of bullying behavior (see Table 7). The most frequent acts of
bullying were reported by 4 females who indicated that they engage in bullying behavior “a lot”
to “some”. No males reported this frequency of behavior. As seen in Table 7, those who
indicated that they bullied “ a lot” were females.
The factors of parenting style were a parent’s warmth and control that their child had
perceived. As seen in Table 1, parents were determined to be either high or low in regards to
warmth. In addition they were determined to be high or low in control they exhibited in the
parent-child relationship. The factors of warmth and control were examined to determine if they
were factors in the most frequent acts of bullying behavior.
79
Table 7: Frequency of students who bully “a lot”
Highest frequency of bullying incidents
Frequency Percent
Highest 1.00 4 5.0
Remaining 75 95.0
Total 79 100.0
Since only 4 participants admitted to frequent acts of bullying, Chi Square analysis could
not be performed. Each of the 4 students reporting the highest frequency of bullying behavior
also were determined through review of the data to have Authoritarian parents. Results are
inconclusive in this area because Chi Square could not be done.
Question 3
Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern of peer
socialization with regards to bullying?
A student’s perceived feelings of trust, security and closeness to their parents were used
to determine an overall level of warmth and control a parent exhibits. Students were asked if
they felt trusted by their parents. In addition, they were asked if they felt that their parent’s
supported them and if they could count on their parents for help. Answers were totaled to
determine an overall score. This score was used to determine if the parents were perceived to be
high or low in warmth (see Table 1).
80
The data gathered was expected to indicate that students who felt that their parents were
low in warmth and that their parents were high in control would engaged in incidents of bullying
more often then children of other parenting styles. This would indicate that trust, security and
closeness would be a factor in a child’s negative socialization. What is unclear is the nature of
the relationship. The data is not clear on what factors lead to the student’s feelings of mistrust.
In other words, the questionnaire is unclear as to the mitigating factors that may have lead to this
conclusion. In fact, the data collected is strictly from the point of view of the child and does not
indicate if the parents actually had reasons to mistrust their child or even if the child was
trustworthy.
Trust, security and closeness were considered to be factors that contribute to a child’s
feelings of warmth with their parents. A combined score of questions 10, 11, 36f, 36g and 38g
was used to determine the perceived level of warmth. Scores on each question ranged from one
to four. A one would indicate a lot, a two would indicate some, a three would indicate not much
and a four would indicate not at all. A score of five through ten was considered high in warmth,
while eleven through twenty would indicate a low level of warmth. Both Permissive and
Authoritative parenting style indicate high levels of warmth while Neglecting and Authoritarian
parents have low levels of warmth (see Table 1). Of the 79 students surveyed, 57 students
indicated a high level of warmth with their parents. The remaining 22 students indicated a low
level of warmth.
Using SPSS analysis on warmth as a variable showed that this factor alone was not a
significant factor in bullying. In a Chi Square as seen in Table 8, there was no relationship
81
between warmth and bullying behavior. The results of each Chi Square analysis showed that
warmth alone was not a factor in a child’s bullying behavior (see Table 8). Analysis determined
that x²(1, N=79) Chi Square =2 .173, p = .149 therefore we could not reject the null hypothesis.
For this analysis it was determined that for those who engaged in bullying behavior, 16
described their parents as being low in warmth, and 10 described them as being high in warmth.
The not bullies more frequently described their parent as being low in warmth (see Table 8)
Table 8, Chi Square analysis of bullies and not bullies and warm.
Crosstab
WARMTH
LOW HIGH Total
Count 16 10 26 1
Expected Count 18.8 7.2 26.0
Count 41 12 53
1=bully; 2= not bully 2
Expected Count 38.2 14.8 53.0
Count 57 22 79 Total
Expected Count 57.0 22.0 79.0
Chi-Square Tests
2.173b 1 .140
1.457 1 .227
2.112 1 .146
.183 .115
2.145 1 .143
79
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correctiona
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.
24.
b.
82
Control as a variable was also reviewed. As seen in Table 1, both Authoritarian and
Authoritative parenting styles indicated a high level of parental control while Permissive and
Neglecting parents indicated a low level of control. Of the students who participated in the
survey, 12 parents had low levels of control. Chi Square analysis was not performed in this area
since the expected frequency of low control was less then 5. An expected frequency of less than
five would indicate that Chi Square analysis would be unreliable. According to Howell (2004)
with a small expected frequency there is no way that the observed frequency could be normally
distributed. For this reason, the Chi Square would not be reliable statistical test.
Students with Authoritarian Parenting styles who are low in warmth but high in control
have a relationship with incidents of bullying. The other parenting style with low warmth as a
factor would be the Neglecting parenting style. Since only one student indicated that their
parents were Neglecting parenting style, there was not enough of a sample size to truly determine
the nature of the relationship. For this reason, the strength of the relationship of the variable low
warmth could not truly be determined. While the Authoritarian Parenting style seems to indicate
that low warmth is marginally related to incidents of bullying behavior, the sample size for
Neglecting Parenting Style is too limited to conclude that there is a relationship.
83
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary and Discussion of Results
A phenomenon around the country indicates that incidents of bullying are on the
rise. Evidence shows an increase in aggressive behavior among peers at an age when children
are looking for new friendships, especially as they enter adolescence (APA Monitor, 1999). In
fact, a study conducted by the APA Monitor (1999) cited as many as 75% of the students having
been bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year. As indicated by other studies
as well, 10 out of 15 victims of bullies reported that such incidents occur on a regular basis
(Newquist, 1979). Once shrugged off as “kids will be kids,” acts of bullying have in recent years
drawn increasing amounts of attention. Incidents such as the 1999 shootings at Columbine High
School have lead to a heightened interest in the dynamics of the bullying process.
Children who experience persistent bullying may become depressed or fearful
(Eslea,1998). A child who was once confident might, after being bullied, question what was
wrong with himself/herself that caused such victimization. The child may then suffer from lower
self-esteem. Furthermore, it is essential not to mistake bullying for normal childhood conflicts or
acts of anger. Some conflicts are to be anticipated. For example, children might express
negative emotion when they don’t get their way. Bullies, on the other hand, may call or tease a
child just for their own satisfaction.
As established by Olweus (1993), negative peer interaction seems to be on the rise.
Schools have noticed a marked increase in the number and severity of negative acts of peer
interaction.
84
Escalation of the incidence of bullying has not gone unnoticed by legislative bodies. For
this reason, schools have begun to implement programs to curtail incidents of bullying. New
Jersey Statute (NJSA) 18A:37-13-19 (2002) is specific anti-bullying legislation, mandating that
all schools have anti-bullying programs. This statute was signed into law on September 6, 2002,
by Governor James McGreevey. The law is intended to ensure the physical and emotional safety
of all students. The initiative, called “New Jersey Cares About Bullying,” will be overseen by
the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations,
which, in turn, is overseen by the Office of the Attorney General.
Most bullying programs have been met with only limited success. This may be because
the programs did not fully address the true cause of the bullying behaviors. Schools have focused
little attention in child-parent relationships. Exploring the perceived parenting styles as well as
the perceived strengths of relationships may provide a strategy for dealing with the growing
phenomenon of adolescent bullying.
The development of bullying behavior can best be explained as a by-product of family
dynamics. Most research suggests that bullying is an adaptive process to family circumstance
(Grille, 2005). A family system approach would view bullying as a part of a larger process of
interaction that finds its roots at home. Any approach must recognize that parents may be trying
their best to raise their children and may be overwhelmed by the actions of their children. In
addition, the parents of victims need to understand the bullying process so that they can
empathize with and support their children. Schools and parents need to work together actively to
target and eliminate negative peer interaction.
85
Parenting style thus seems to stand out as a factor that can have a significant effect on a
child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1991). Overly authoritarian parents who try to wield absolute
control over their children while displaying little warmth can stifle a child’s ability to express
emotions (Thurber, 1997). Children of authoritarian parents find themselves lacking spontaneity
and curiosity. Social skills are therefore hindered, leading to what can become extreme measures
to gain acceptance by their peers. They may begin to feel that being feared is better than being
ignored.
Permissive parents will unwittingly encourage their children to be impulsive, since they
had not enforced proper boundaries. Baumrind (1991), who studied parenting styles, suggested
that the children of such parents are unable to accept responsibility for their actions and tend to
have immature socio-emotional responses to situations (Thurber, 1997). This impulsive
behavior may prove detrimental during peer interactions, especially since such children do not
consider the consequences of their behavior or the effect they will have on others.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the parents and their
children, as perceived by the children, to determine if any factors in those relationships may be
predictive of bullying behavior. The research explored the perceived style of parenting as well
as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the parent-child relationship that may lead to
negative acts of peer aggression. Factors such as Permissive, Authoritarian or Authoritative
parenting were explored in order to determine factors that lead a child to develop a pattern of
bullying behavior. Upon review of the data collected, this researcher was able to determine that
there is a relationship between the perceived parent-child relationship and a child’s peer
interaction.
86
Participants of the study were eighth grade students attending a suburban middle school
in Northern Bergen County, New Jersey. All participants had received written informed consent
from their parents or guardians to participate in the study. In addition, students were asked to
complete a student consent form before they took the survey. A letter went out to all parents or
guardians in the district regarding the survey and included the consent form. Although plans had
been made to include return postage with the return envelope, an oversight on the part of the
printer resulted in a failure to include this with the mailer. The researcher felt that this would
result in a smaller return, so this issue was addressed with the district. The district agreed to
allow this researcher to send a follow-up letter home with the students as a reminder to the
parents. Due to the cost constraints of this reminder, postage was not included.
As a result of 253 letters send home, 91 students were granted permission to participate in
the survey, however only 79 students participated, 43 females and 36 males. The printer had
failed to include return postage on the return envelope was felt to be a contributing factor to the
low number of respondents to this mailer. Since cost prohibited another mailer, an additional
reminder letter was send home with the students. On the day of the study, the students were
asked whether they wanted to participate in the study or remain in gym. It was a very nice day
after a series of rather cold days and 9 students opted to go outside. One student could not read
the survey since he had recently come from Korea. He was excused to return to gym class.
Because two students had skipped pages, their two surveys had to be excluded.
For this project, parenting styles were reviewed along the lines of research by Buamrind
(1991). Parents were identified in terms of their children’s responses to questions regarding their
87
parent’s warmth and level of control (see Table 9). Those who were determined to be high in
warmth and high in control were considered Authoritative. Parents high in warmth but low in
control were considered Permissive. Authoritarian parents were those considered to be low in
warmth and high in control while Neglecting parents were those low in both warmth and control.
Table 9, Parenting Styles
Warmth
Low Score of 11-20 High Score of 5-10
Control
Low
Score of
5-10
Neglecting
Permissive
High
Score of
11-20
Authoritarian
Authoritative
In order to determine if parenting style was a consideration in incidents of bullying, the
students surveyed were divided into two groups: those who engaged in bullying behavior and
those who did not. Bullying behavior included both indirect and direct forms of bullying. The
definition of bullying behavior was determined from information gathered from Olweus (1993)
and Rigby (1999, June) and included acts such as teasing, intimidation, exclusion, spreading
88
rumors and cyberbullying. Groups were established to examine the observed frequency of the
different parenting style.
Research Question 1: What effect does parenting style have on a child’s negative socialization?
It was hypothesized that an Authoritarian parenting style would have a negative impact
on a child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. Of the 79 students surveyed,
21 considered their parents to be Authoritarian (see Table 9).
Findings indicated that there was a relationship between an Authoritarian parenting style
and acts of bullying. This would indicate that children who perceive their parents to be high in
control and low in warmth were at an increased risk of exhibiting bullying behavior. As
indicated by Thurber, (2003). , children who feel controlled by their parents while given little
warmth may then try to control their own social relationships by bullying. In this way, bullying
would be a learned behavior. Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005), in a study of school attendance,
also found a correlation between the negative quality of a parental relationship and poor
socialization. In their study, controlling parents were thought to restrict individual autonomy. A
child was then left to find alternative ways of expression and control, which could lead to
bullying behavior.
In the studies of Hastings and Capplan (1999), a child’s socialization was strongly
correlated to parental values and beliefs. This was particularly the case with children who
viewed their parents as angry and controlling. Such children were more likely to externalize
problems and have poor socialization skills.
89
It was also hypothesized that an Authoritative parenting style would have a positive
effect on a child’s pattern of interaction. Of the 79 students who took the survey, 46 parents
were considered as being Authoritative in parenting style by their children (see Table 9).
Since there was no statistical relationship between an Authoritative parenting style and
bullying behavior, an Authoritative parenting style does not seem to be a factor in the
development of bullying behavior in children. This result was not surprising since it was
expected that Authoritative parenting style would have a positive effect on a child’s behavior.
These findings would be consistent with the findings of Baumrind (1991), who theorized that
Authoritative parents were viewed as the most fair by their children. Authoritative parents seem
to be viewed as trusting and respectful of the needs of their children while establishing clear
boundaries for behavior.
It was hypothesized that a Permissive parenting style would affect a child’s socialization
and lead to bullying behavior. Of the 79 students participating in the survey, 11 considered their
Permissive parents (see Table 9). Since the sample in this area was low, no statistical analysis
was performed. The study would have benefited from a larger sample of students in order to
gain clearer insight into the role of a Permissive parenting style.
It was hypothesized that a Neglecting parenting style would have a negative impact on a
child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. Of the 79 students that were
surveyed, only 1 student considered their parent neglecting (see Table 9). Since the sample in
this area was low, no statistical analysis was able to be performed. The study would have
benefited from a larger sample of students in order to gain clearer insight into the role of the
Neglecting parenting style.
90
Research Question 2: What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer
interaction?
The data was analyzed to determine whether there was a relationship between parenting
style and those students who were reported that they committed the most frequent acts of
bullying. It was hoped that by isolating those students who reported that they committed the
most frequent acts of bullying, the researcher could isolate factors of parenting that may
contribute to this behavior. More females participated in the study than males (43 females and
36 male). In addition, the most frequent acts of bullying were reported by 4 females who
indicated that they engage in bullying behavior “a lot” to “some”. No males reported this
frequency of behavior. The results raise the question as to whether the females were just more
forthcoming and honest than the males when reporting the frequency of bullying behavior.
The results of the survey are consistent with the research of Olweus (1993), in that both
males and females engage in bullying behavior. Olweus (1993) notes that females tend to
engage in more indirect acts of bullying than males, who tend to be more physical. Since many
of the questions on the survey were geared to indirect forms of bullying behavior, this may
explain why the females reported more acts of bullying. Females may not become as physical as
males but seem to report more frequent acts of name calling, exclusion, and teasing. Society has
been slow to recognize the impact indirect acts of bullying may have on a victim and, therefore,
they are not generally viewed by many as being harmful. Such behavior remains an unpleasant
aspect of the hidden subculture of our youth and is sometimes viewed as a rite of passage by
91
adults (Olweus, 1993). Hastings and Coplan (1999) found that mothers responded to acts of
aggression as if they were not typical behaviors for their children. For this reason, many acts of
bullying go unreported by youths.
While this research did try to determine the frequency of bullying behavior, the survey
was limited. The participants were not asked how recently they had committed such acts, only
whether they had done so at some point. This may be a shortcoming of the survey since, the
researcher does not know when the respondents engaged in such acts. In addition, data was not
gathered on how many students had participated in each reported acts of bullying. In other
words, the data does not indicate if the individual had acted alone or with a group. Therefore,
little is known about the acts themselves. For example, the data does not indicate whether the
females who reported the most frequent acts of bullying did so in a group or whether they acted
independently. Such insight could have been useful in studying the dynamics of bullying. If the
girls acted as part of a group, then the group dynamics may have played a role in the behavior of
the females. In this way, peer groups themselves would have been a factor in developing
bullying behavior rather then being a byproduct of parenting style.
Research Question 3: Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a
child’s pattern of peer socialization with regards to bullying?
92
A student’s perceived feelings of trust, security, and closeness to their parents was used
to determine an overall level of warmth and control a parent exhibits. Students were asked if
they felt trusted by their parents. In addition, they were asked whether they felt that their parents
supported them and if they could count on their parents for help. Answers to these questions
were used to determine whether the parents were perceived to be high or low in warmth.
The data gathered was expected to indicate that students who felt that their parents were
low in warmth and high in control would engage in incidents of bullying more often then
children whose parents exhibited other parenting styles. Such findings would be consistent with
the work of Rigby (1999), who felt that children who could not attach to their parents because
they were not warm would tend to engage in bullying behavior. In addition, Joronen and Astedt-
Kurki (2005) reported that teens who felt that their parents were interested and warm to their
friends were also thought to be supportive and trusting to the teen. This would indicate that the
absence of warmth would be factors in a child’s negative socialization.
What is unclear from the current study is the nature of the parent/child relationship. The
data does not illustrate what factors lead to students’ feelings of mistrust. In other words, the
questionnaire does not illustrate the mitigating factors that may have lead to the feelings reported
by the child. In fact, the data collected is strictly from the point of view of the child and does not
indicate whether the parents actually had reasons to mistrust their child or even if the child was
trustworthy.
The data collected also does not provide information about the particular parenting style
of each parent. Those students surveyed are asked questions regarding their parents in general.
93
The data may not accurately distinguish between the parenting style of both parents. Such
behavior may only be indicates of one parent. The questionnaire also does not distinguish
between single parent families or families that are divorced and share custody. In this way, there
are many factors of the family dynamics that are not taken into account when determining the
families overall parenting style.
While the research collected on warmth alone was not statistically significant, the
findings do warrant further discussion. Both Permissive and Authoritative parenting styles
indicate high levels of warmth while Neglecting and Authoritarian parents have low levels of
warmth. Due to the small number of participants, analysis could not be performed on the
Permissive and Neglecting parenting styles. The Authoritarian parenting style was statistically
significant, which would indicate that low warmth plays a role a in child’s peer-to-peer
relationships and may lead to bullying behavior.
Control as a variable was also reviewed. Participants were asked questions regarding
how demanding their parents were about following rules. Based on scores from these questions,
parents were then rated as high or low in control. Again due to the small sample size, statistical
analysis could not be performed. However, Authoritarian parenting style was statistically
significant, which would indicate that high levels of control play a role in the development of a
child’s peer-to-peer relationships and may lead to bullying behavior. Douglas and Emory (1996)
determined that stress in a family could lead to negative outcomes for a child.
The current research in this study is unclear about the effects of control. Since there were
a limited number of questions gathered to determine overall control, the data provide little
94
insight of the overall quality of the parent-child relationship. Although a parent is rated as high
or low in control, the data does not indicate how the children feel about their parents’ controlling
behavior. A child may feel controlling behavior is appropriate; others may feel they are being
treated unfairly. In this way, parents may actually being viewed differently for the similar
behavior. For this reason, the score itself should be viewed with caution
Conclusions
As established by Olweus (1993), the level of negative peer interaction in adolescents
seems to be on the raise. Schools have noticed a mark increase in the number and severity of
negative acts of peer interaction. For this reason, schools have begun to implement programs to
curtail incidents of bullying. Most programs have been met with only limited success.
Although schools have implemented programs, the incidence of bullying seems to have
decreased only marginally. The programs, themselves, may be ineffective since they do little to
stop the development of bullying behavior. In other words, the programs developed by schools
try to modify behavior rather than try to prevent the socialization pattern from forming. To
properly deal with negative peer socialization, studies should to identify the origins of bullying
behavior.
Little attention has been given to factors that may precipitate bullying acts, themselves.
More specifically, the parent/child relationship may lead to poor socialization and result in
bullying behavior. Beginning early in an individual’s life, parents’ and or guardians’ interactions
with a child begin to formulate a pattern of socialization. This pattern of socialization will then
be translated into a child’s relationship with his/her peers. Examining the parent-child
relationship may uncover factors in that relationship that increase the likelihood of negative peer
95
socialization. Prevention programs targeting those factors could be developed to ultimately
reduce the number of bullying incidents.
Baumrind (1991) rated parents on their style of child interaction. In her research she
examined a parent’s interaction by reviewing the areas of control of a child’s behavior,
attachment to their children, and a child’s ability to become self-reliant and capable of self-
control. Rating parents in these areas, Baumrind established the four types of parenting style:
Permissive, Authoritative, Neglecting and Authoritarian. Each parenting style identified was an
attempt to describe the quality of the family environment (Joronen, 2005).
The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships between the parents
and their children, as perceived by the children, to determine factors in those relationships may
be predictive of bullying behavior. Consistent with the prior work of Baumrind (1991), parental
styles such as Permissive, Authoritarian or Authoritative were explored in order to determine
factors that lead a child to develop a pattern of bullying behavior.
The sample used in this study was a sample of convenience and was not truly random
and, therefore, it cannot be generalized to the overall population. Furthermore, this sample was
predominantly white, middle class, suburban middle school in Northern, New Jersey which
limits the scope of the findings. In addition, all participants were required to give written
parental consent in order to participate. As a result of the 253 letters send home, 91 students were
granted permission to participate in the survey, however 79 students actually participated (43
females and 36 males). Failure on the part of the printer to include return postage was a
contributing factor to the low number of respondents to this mailer. Since cost prohibited
another mailer, an additional reminder letter was send home with the students. The sample size
96
was a factor in this study outcome and analysis was limited due to low frequency distributions in
several situations.
The survey tool, while providing valid and reliable data on incidents of bullying
behavior, was rather limited with respect to allowing analysis of parental relationships. The tool
for this survey was The American Drug and Alcohol Prevention Planning Survey (ADAS). The
ADAS was developed at the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute (RMBSI) in 1983-
1986 with Small Business Innovative Research grant funding from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. Scores from the prevention portion of the ADAS were used determined whether a student
was involved in bullying behavior.
Scores were also used to determine the nature of the parent-child relationship. A score
would determine if a parent was high or low in warmth and control and this, in turn, would
determine the parenting style. Those parents who were determined to be high in warmth and high
in control will be considered Authoritative. Parents high in warmth but low in control were
considered Permissive. Authoritarian parents were those considered low in warmth and high in
control, while Neglecting parents were those low in both warmth and control.
Parenting style was then analyzed to determine whether there was a relationship between
parenting style and incidents of a child’s involvement in bullying behavior. While analysis did
determine a relationship between acts of bullying and an Authoritarian parenting style, the score
for an Authoritarian parent was based solely on a limited number of questions. There were only
five questions designed to determine a warm parent and five questions designed to determine a
controlling parent. For this reason, insight into the score is limited.
97
The results are, by design, based on the insight of the child. A child may actually believe
a parent to be controlling yet we are unaware of the reasons behind such behavior. In reality, the
parent may have good reasons for such behavior, e.g., as warranted by a child’s actions. Also, we
do not know the quality of the parent-child relationship. Actions taken by angry parents are
different from actions of protective, nurturing parents. The survey does not allow us to make
those distinctions.
Recommendations for Future Research
Despite the limitations of this current study, a future study is necessary to determine what
parental factors contribute to a child’s incidence of bullying behavior. Despite the limitations of
this current study, a relationship was established between an Authoritarian parenting style and
the incidence of bullying behavior. To truly curtail future acts of bullying, we must understand
the factors that contribute to the formation of such behavior. For this reason, research in this
area should continue.
Future studies should address the need for instruments other than the ADAS to measure
the relationship between a parent and a child who bullies. While the ADAS proved to be a valid
and reliable instrument, it provided only limited information about the true nature of the parent
child relationship. In addition, the ADAS was limited in the timing of bullying actions. While
the researcher was aware of bullying behavior, no data could be collected on the time frame of
these actions, i.e., the data do not indicate whether these acts were recent or not. Other
instruments may help examine this issue of timing.
Ideally, any future studies should include a larger population of students. But, since any
survey that includes children will require some form of parental consent, such research will be
98
arduous at best. The results are necessary, however, because we cannot implement programs
without fully understanding the adolescent world and the nature and extent of the problem.
Adults may believe they know what is best for a child, yet have not explored the necessary
information to make such decisions. To truly understand the world of a child, one must ask the
child.
In conclusion, bullying has become a serious problem that can have lasting effects on an
individual. Studies by Olweus (1991) indicate that 1 in 6 students are bullied on a regular basis.
While programs have been developed to curtail incidents of bullying, these programs have been
only marginally successful. For this reason, further research is warranted to fully explain the
origins of bullying behavior.
Data collected in this research as well as the research of others like Baumrind (1991) and
Rigby (1999) suggest that a child’s behavior is a by-product of parenting dynamics. To be
successful at curtailing bullying behavior, future bullying studies should aim at understanding
family dynamics, including what parenting styles that support healthy socialization. Only by
understanding how parenting factors contribute to bullying behavior can we hope to reduce the
incidence of bullying behavior.
99
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association (APA) (2002). Ethical principals of psychologists and code
of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, Washington, DC:
Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J. (2005, November/December). The role of parenting styles in children's
problem behavior. Child Development, 76(6), 1144-1159.
APA Monitor, (1999, October) Bullying widespread in the middle school, say 3 studies.
[Electronic Version] APA Monitor. 30:9. Retrieved October 30, 2003 from:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct99/cf3.html
Armsden G.C. and Greenberg M.T. (2000) IN: Corcoran, K. & Fischer, J. (Eds.) Inventory of
parent and peer attachment [IPPA] (1987).). Measures for Clinical Practice: A
Sourcebook. 3rd Ed. (2vols.) NY, Free Pr. 1, 564-573
Azar, B, (1999, February) Consortium of editors pushes shift in child research method. The
APA Monitor. 30(2)
Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant
children. In J. E. Rolf, D. Cicchetti , S. Weintraub, A. S. Masten, & K. Neuchterlein
(Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257-280).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baumrind, D (1991) The Influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence 11(1), 56-95.
Beane, A. (1998). Chapter 7: The Trauma. The Children of Trauma. (pp. 205) Madison, Conn:
University Press,.
Beauvais, F., Edwards, R., and Oetting, E. (1989) American drug and alcohol survey.
Rocky Mountain Behavioral Health Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Bishop, J., H., Bishop, M., Gelbwasser, L., Green, S., Peterson, E., Rubinsztaj, A., et al.
(September., 2004) Why we harass nerds and freaks: a formal theory of student culture
and norms. Journal of School Health. 74(7)
Bond, L., Thomas L., & Patton G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? British
Medical Journal. 323(480).
Bosworth, K., & Espelage, D. (2004), Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in
early adolescence. Whitted and Clearly .Retrieved June 20, 2005 from
http://www.whittedclearlaw.com
100
Boulter, L. (2004, January). Family-school connection and school violence prevention. The
Negro Educational Review, 55(1), 27-40.
Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (Eds.). (2000). Research Methods in
Psychology (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brewer, D. D., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Neckerman, H. J. (1995). Preventing
serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: A review of evaluations of
selected strategies in childhood, adolescence, and the community. In J. C. Howell,
B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson (Eds.), A sourcebook: Serious, violent, and
chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 61-141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Carole P., Christy R., (2003, May). Like mother, like daughter: similarities in narrative style.
Developmental Psychology, 39(3)
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., & Arseneault, L., et al. (2004).
Maternal expressed emotion predicts children's antisocial behavior problems: using
monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral
development. Developmental Psychology, 40, 149-161.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A.,& McBride-Chang, C., (2003). Harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17,
598-606.
Chapell, M. (2004, Spring) Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence. 153 (39).
Clark, J. (2000, November) Balancing quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the health
services. Newmarket, Ontario. Retrieved on April 4, 2005, from:
http://www.cehip.org/Library/student%20projects/Clark_total.PDF
Crosman, D.,(2003). Anger it’s a family issue. Edmonton Child Magazine. Retrieved
February 10, 2005, from http://www.edmontonschild.com/health/pages/anger.htm
Cox, D.L., Van Velsor, P., & Hulgus, JF. (2004, October.) Who me angry? patterns of anger
diversion in women. Health Care Women International. 9, 872-93.
DeBaryshe, B. D., & Fryxell, D. (1998). A developmental perspective on anger: family and peer
contexts. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 205-216.
101
Dimeff, L.A., Rizvi, S.L., Brown, M., & Linehan, M.M. (2000). Dialectical behavior therapy for
substance abuse: A pilot application to methamphetamine-dependent women with
borderline personality disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 457-468.
Dix. T., Gershoff, E.T., Meunier, LN., & Miller, P.C. (2004, November) The affective structure
of supportive parenting: depressive symptoms, immediate emotions, and child-oriented
motivation. Developmental Psychology. 40(6)
Elkind, D. (1992), Cognitive development. in Friedman, M., Fisher, S., and Schonberg, K. Eds.
Comprehensive Adolescent Health Care, St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing,
Inc.
Eslea, M. & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in
primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203-218.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K. & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual
effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220.
Fagen, D. & Cowen, E. (1996). Relationships between parent-child relational variables and child
test variables in highly stressed urban families. Child Study Journal, 26(2), 87, 22p.
Families On-Line Magazine (2005). Managing anger: theirs and yours. Retrieved February 10,
2005, from http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/teenhealth4.html
Frey, K., Hirschstien, M., Snell., J., Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E., & Broderich, C. (2005, May)
Steps to Respect Program,".; Developmental Psychology, 41( 3) 479-490.
Foley, D. (n.d.) Quantitative research vs qualitative research. The Royal Windsor Society of
Nurse Researchers. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.research-
nurses.com/quant_qual.html
Graber, J.A., Lewinsohn, P.M., Seeley, J.R. & Brooks-Gunn, J. 1997 Is psychopathology
associated with the timing of pubertal development? Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(12)1768-1776.
Grille, R., (2005). Natural born bullies. Retrieved February 5, 2005 from
http://www.naturalchild.com/robin_grille/
Halloway-Young, D. (2003) Does school connectedness predict bullying behavior?
Analysis of perceptions among public middle school students. Capella University,
unpublished manuscript.
102
Harris, S., Petrie, G & Willoughby, W. (March 2002). Bullying among 9th
graders: an
exploratory study. National Association of Secondary School Principal. 86, 630
Hasting, P. & Coplan, R. (1999, Winter). Conceptual and empirical links between children's
social spheres: relating maternal beliefs and preschoolers' behaviors with peers. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development(86), 43-59.
Henshaw, J., (n.d.) Expecting the worst. Familyresource.com retrieved on February 10, 2005
from http://www.familyresource.com/relationships/5/142/
Howe, G.W., Levy, ML., & Caplan, RD. (2004, December) Job loss and depressive
symptoms in couples: common stressors, stress transmission or relationship
disruption? Journal of Family Psychology. 18(4)
Horton-Parker, R. (1998, December). Teaching children to care: engagendering prosocial
behavior through humanistic parenting. Journal of Humanistic Education &
Development, 37(2), 66-78.
Howell, D (2004) Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th
ed.) Belmont, CA:
Thompson Learning.
House, G. (2005, April) "Quantifying relationships between variables." Capella University
Residency. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN..
Hutchinson, S., Baldwin, C., & Caldwell, L. (2003). Differentiating parent practises related to
adolescent behavior in the free time context. Lournal of Leisure Research, 35(4), 396-
422.
Jaffe, M. (1998). Adolescence. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Joronen, K, & Astedt-Kurkel, P. (2005). Adolescents' experiences of familial involvement in
their peer relations and school attendance. Primary Health Care Research and
Development(6), 190-198.
Kachigan, S., (1991). Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New York, NY: Radius Press.
Kalat, J. W. (2001). Biological Psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
103
Kallstead, J. & Olweus, D. (2003, October) Predicting teachers’ and schools’
implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program: a multilevel study.
Prevention and Treatment. (6)
Kinnear, P. & Gray, C. (1999). SPSS for Windows Made Simple (3rd ed.). East Sussex:
Psychology Press Ltd..
Kipke, M.[ed.] (2003, May)Adolescent Development and the Biology of Puberty. Committee on
Youth Development, National Research Council: National Academy Press.
L’Bate, L. (1998) Family Psychopathology: the Relational Roots of Dysfunctional
Behavior. Guilford Press.
LaFlamme L. (2003). Peer victimization during early adolescence: an injury trigger, an injury
mechanism & frequent exposure in school. Journal of Adolescent Medical Health, 15(3),
267-279.
Langhout, R.D. (2003, December) Reconceptualizing, quantitative and qualitative
methods: a case study dealing with place as an exemplar. American Journal of
Community Psychology. 32(3-4):229-244.
Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Costigan, T. E. & Manz, P. H. (2003). Assessing the climate of the
playground and lunchroom: Implications for bullying prevention programming. School
Psychology Review, 32, 418-430.
Li, Chi-Dooh, (2001, March). School bullying is rooted in a teenage caste system, Seattle
Post. Retrieved on October 30, 2004 from
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/index.asp?=b
Leedy, P. & Omrod, J. (2001). Practical Research, Planning and Design. Ohio: Prentice Hall.
Miller, A. L. (1999). Dialectical behavior therapy: A new treatment approach. Ameican
Journal of Psychotherapy., 53:413-417.
Mounts, N. S, (2002, March) Parental management of adolescent peer relationships in
context: the role of parenting style. Journal of Family Psychology. 16(1),58-69
Montgomery, B., (2002, April 12). “Assembly passes bill to curb school bullying.”
[Electronic Version] Record Newspaper. Retrieved October 30, 2003
from:http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/04/12/bmharass.htm
104
Mynard, H., & Alexander J. (2000). Peer victimization & post traumatic stress. Personality
and Individual Differences, 29, 815-821.
National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2003). Bullies, victims at risk for
violence & other problem behaviors. Join Together, 03, 4-16.
National Institute of Health, (1998, March). NIH Policy and guidelines on the inclusion
of children as participants in research involving human subjects. Press release
Retrieved June 2, 2005 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice- files/not98-
024.html
National Research Council, (1993). Losing generations: adolescents in high-risk settings.
Panel on High Risk Youth, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council, (1996). Youth development and neighborhood influences:
challenges and opportunities. Committee on Youth Development, National
Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
New Jersey Cares About Bullying NJSA18A:37-13-19 New Jersey (2002) Enacted
New Jersey School Survey informed consent NJS18A:36-34 New Jersey (2002) Enacted
Newquist, C. (1997). Bully-proof your school, [Electronic Version] Education World
Administrator. Retrieved October 30, 2003 from: http://www.education-
world.com/a_admin/admin018.shtml
Oliver, C & Candappa, M. (2003, March) Bullying-how to beat it. Thomas Crown
Institute, England. DfES publications also available at website: www.childline.org.uk
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in the Schools. Blackwell Publishing.
Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying. Educational Leadership, (12)17.
Ortega, R., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Singer, M., Smith, P., Pereira, B. & Menesini, E.(2001,
November) Final report of the working group on general survey questionnaires and
nomination methods concerning bullying. TMR Network Project. Retrieved May 22, 2005
from http://www.gold.ac.uk/tmr/reports/aim2_seville1.html.
Paulison, A. (2003). Internet bullying. Christian Science Monitor, (12) 12-30.
Perry, D., Hodges, E., Egan, S. (1999). Victims of Peer abuse: an overview. Journal of emotional
and behavioral problems, 5, 23-28.
105
Peters, R, & Rios, F., (2004, November) Do you praise your child too much? Redbook. 203(5)
Psychological Self-Help (n.d.) Stress, anxiety, fears and psychosomatic disorders. Retrieved
February 13, 2004, from http://www.mentalhelp.net/psych5/ap5b.htm
Rock, E. (2003, June). School-based program to teach children empathy and bully prevention.
The International Child and Youth Care Network (53), 1-22.
Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15
years Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135-143.[Special Issue: Bullying in the schools].
Rifkin, J.,(n.d.)Anger and good parenting. Familyresource.com. Retrieved February 10,
2005 from http://www.familyresource.com/parenting/19/730/
Rigby, K., (1999, June) What harm does bullying do? Paper presented at Children and
Crime Victims Conference, Bisbane, Australia.
Rutter, M., Graham, P. & Chadwick, O.F.D. (1976) Adolescent turmoil: fact or fiction.
Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry 17:35
Sieber, J.E. (1994). Issues presented by mandatory reporting requirements to researchers of
child abuse and neglect. Ethics and Behavior, 4(1), 1-22.
Simmons, R. (2002). Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls. Harcourt
Press.
Smith, P. & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of
school-based interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189-209.
Strauss, V. (2003, November 4). Some schools take on the classroom bully [Electronic
version]. Washington Post, A10.
Star, L. (2000). Bullying intervention: strategies that work. Education World. Retrieved June
17, 2003, from Education World Web site: http://www.education- world.com
Teicher, M., (2000, Fall) Wounds that time won’t heal: neurobiology of child abuse.
Cerebrum 2(4).
Thurber, C. (2003, September/October). Do as I say: the circle of parenting and socialization.
Camping Magazine. 76(5)
106
Vogele, C., & Steptoe, A. (1993, July). Anger inhibition and family history as modulators
of cardiovascular responses to mental stress in adolescent boys. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research. 37(5)
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2001, December) Code of federal
regulations part 46 protection of human subjects. Retrieved June 20, 2005, from
http://www.cehip.org/Library/student%20projects/Clark_total.PDF
Wiseman, R. (2003). Queen Bees and Wannabe:. Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques,
Gossip, Boyfriends & Other Realities of Adolescence. New York: Crown Publishers.
Worth, J. (n.d.). The effect of anger on families. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Web site:
http://www.aamft.org/families/Consumer_Updates/Effect%20of%20Anger%20on
%20Families.asp
107
APPENDIX A
PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
Parental Consent Form
Please return this form in the envelope provided no later than April 7, 2006.
Keeping in touch with the lives of our students is paramount for establishing programs to assist them in their academic
performance. For this reason, the River Dell Regional school district would like your support in our collaboration with Randie
Fielder of Capella University in a research study together information regarding the lives and activities of our students. The data
from this study will be used for her dissertation and the results will be shared with the River Dell Regional School District.
In approximately two weeks, your child’s class has the opportunity to complete the American Drug and Alcohol
Survey with Prevention Planning Survey. Students can skip any question that they do not wish to answer and may stop
participating in the survey at any point. While good participation helps obtain accurate information, please note that your child’s
participation in the survey is voluntary. No action will be taken against the school, you, or your child, if your child does not take
part. Students not participating in the survey will be provided with an alternative activity.
The information from the survey will include a comprehensive study designed to gather data regarding a student’s
attitudes and behaviors in school, with friends and at home. This survey will gain insight in the a student’s perceptions and
impressions of their world in regards to peer pressure, friends, parents, family, substance abuse and acts of bullying and violence
they have seen or been involved in. This data will help provide information as to the best strategies for establishing successful
practices for parents and teachers and students that support a learning environment. Participation in the survey will also provides
information about important risk and protective factors related to substance use and negative peer relationships such as bullying
and victimization.
The survey has been designed to protect your child’s privacy. Students will not put their names on the survey, so no
one will know how a particular student answers the questions. No one from the school will be allowed to look at the completed
survey. Completed surveys are placed in sealed envelopes and the data will then be analyzed for my dissertation research at
Capella University and a copy of the analyzed data will forwarded to the River Dell Regional School district. The survey will
take approximately one period for your child to complete. There are no foreseeable risks to completing the survey. While your
child may not personally benefit from completing the questionnaire, the information we learn from this survey will be used in
research to develop and evaluate programs for River Dell youth. Thank You for your help.
There are no apparent psychological or physical risks in completing this survey. However, a list of counselors and
services will be available to answer any questions or concerns that may develop as a result of the survey will be provided to the
students after the survey. In the event that any incident of violence is reported to a staff member or Mrs. Fielder, all incidents
will be reported to the administration and parents in accordance with school policy.
ALL PARENTS MUST SIGN AND RETURN THIS FORM TO SCHOOL BY APRIL 7, 2006
Participation: I understand that my child’s participation in this survey is voluntary, and that I may withdraw my consent at
anytime before the class period when the survey is given. PLEASE CHECK ONE:
________Yes, I give permission for my child_______________________________________(please print your child's name),
who is in ___________(grade) to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with Prevention Planning Survey
_________No, I do not give permission for my child __________________________________(please print your child's name),
who is in ___________(grade) to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with Prevention Planning Survey .
________________________________________Please Print your name (parent or guardian)
__________________________________Signature of Parent or Guardian and Date
If you have any questions feel free to contact Randie Fielder at 201-599-7200 ext. 7281.
108
APPENIX B
STUDENT COSENT FORM
Student Consent Form
Your class will have the opportunity to complete the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with Prevention
Planning Survey. Students can skip any questions that they do not wish to answer and you may stop participating in
the survey at any point. While good participation helps obtain accurate information, please note that your
participation in the survey is voluntary. No action will be taken against you if you do not take part. Students not
participating in the survey will be provided with an alternative activity.
Thank You for your help.
Participation : I understand my participation in this survey is voluntary, and that I may withdraw my consent at
anytime.
PLEASE CHECK ONE:
________Yes, I _______________________________________(please print your name),
agree to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with his/her class at school.
_________No, I __________________________________(please print your name),
do not want to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey.
________________________________________Please sign your name.