ENGL108 MIDTERM PROJECT

ACADEMIC ENGLISH II

NAME: HENRY AKHIMIEN

STUDENT NUMBER: 200201067

DEPARTMENT: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

COURSE LECTURER: DR. EVREM HOCA

SEMESTER: SPRING 2021

 Bullying

Bullying research began more than 40 years ago (Olweus, 1973, 1978), and this behavior was
described as ‘aggressive, deliberate actions carried out routinely and over time by a group or a
person against a target who cannot easily protect himself or herself' (Olweus, 1993, p. 48).

Several international organizations have identified violence as a relevant and important issue. In
1996, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming conflict to be a major global
public health crisis and urging Member States to address the issue urgently. Peer bullying is the
most prevalent type of violence among children and adolescents in the school setting. Bullying
jeopardizes children's rights, including the right to an education, as outlined in the Convention on
the Rights of the Child (The United Nations 1989).

Bullying includes emotional assaults (e.g., name calling, threats), aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
punching, attacking, causing damage to the victim's property), and relational/social violence
(e.g., social isolation, rumor spreading) (Monks & Smith, 2006; Olweus, 1993; Smith, 2014).
(also referred to as cyberbullying).

Several research show that the prevalence and types of bullying vary across age ranges, but the
results are not conclusive. Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, and Sadek (2010) discovered in a meta-
analysis of 153 studies that the impact size of age was 0.09 on the bully role, 0.01 on the
bully/victim role, and –0.01 on the victim role, suggesting general consistency of the victim and
bully-victim positions over time and a small rise in bullying behavior with age.

According to research led by the social cognitive paradigm, bullies are described by thought
patterns that promote the use of violence. Bullies are secure in their use of violence, predict
favorable results (e.g., social approval), see aggression as a normal way of acting, and have an
overall optimistic attitude about the use of aggression (Toblin, Schwartz, Gorman, & Abou-
ezzeddine, 2005). A new meta-analysis (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel, 2014) offers empirical
evidence that bullies use a variety of moral disengagement strategies to explain their negative
conduct.

Bullies view their parents as patriarchal, punitive, and unsupportive (Baldry & Farrington, 2000),
and they show lower family cohesiveness than other children (Smith, 2014). Cook et al. (2010)
found that family factors were only weakly linked to bullying on average; however, many family
factors such as parental rivalry, surveillance, and family SES were analyzed together rather than
independently.

Victimization is linked to a variety of internalizing issues, including depression, anxiety, and

poor self-esteem (Cook et al., 2010; Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Victimization is often linked to a
variety of relationship issues, including peer rejection, low peer acceptance, having little or no
mates, and poor communication consistency (Cook et al., 2010; Hawker & Boulton, 2000).
Furthermore, adolescents who have externalizing issues and poor levels of prosocial behavior are
on likely to be victimized (Card, 2003; see the section on bully-victims). Children who have
internalising (or externalising) issues are most likely to be victimised if they already have
relationship problems.

Many risk factors for bullying can be viewed in terms of the personalities and interests of the
bullies: children who are unassertive and vulnerable can evoke aggression-encouraging
cognitions in future bullies. Such qualities can also make an infant a good candidate for those
looking to improve their social standing. Bullies will signal their dominance to the rest of the
community without fear of conflict or losing the attention of other peers by selecting victims
who are submissive, unsure about themselves (Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005), physically vulnerable
(Hodges & Perry, 1999), and dismissed by the peer group (Hodges & Perry, 1999). (Veenstra,
Lindenberg, Munniksma, & Dijkstra, 2010).

Having protective friends helps to moderate the connection between risk factors and
victimization. Thus, children who are timid and insecure are more likely to be victimized if they
have friends who are physically vulnerable and/or hated by their parents, as opposed to children
who have friends who are healthy and/or loved by others (Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997).
Despite the fact that victimized children can profit from having close friends who can shield
them from bullies, victimized children prefer to hang out with other victimized peers (Sentse,
Dijkstra, Salmivalli, & Cillessen, 2013).

Many children who are bullied by their classmates are often bullied in other ways, including their
own home (poly-victimisation, see Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007). In comparison, some
studies have shown that victims perceive their home setting to be both positive and
overprotective. A meta-analysis conducted by Lereya, Samara, and Wolke (2013) discovered
support for both overprotection and abuse/neglect in the family: the former was more strongly
linked to being a pure survivor, while the latter was more strongly related to being a bully-
victim.

Recent study has found that the relationship between individual risk factors (such as social
anxiety and peer rejection) and victimization differs across schools, implying that individual
flaws are more likely to contribute to victimization when the classroom environment allows it.
The risk that young children will be bullied is increased in schools with high levels of
reinforcement for the abuser and low levels of protection for the perpetrator (Kärnä, Voeten,
Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2010).

Finally, the extent of bullying issues in a school is related to students' views of teacher attitudes
toward bullying. An analysis of the KiVa antibullying program's mediators (Saarento et al.,
2015) discovered that improvements in student views of their teachers' bullying-related
behaviors influenced the program's impact on bullying. During the year that the KiVa curriculum
was introduced, students began to view their teachers' attitudes about bullying as more
disapproving toward bullying, and as a result, their bullying behavior decreased. There provides
compelling evidence for the value of teachers expressing to students their rejection of bullying.

Bullying has detrimental health effects on both abusers and suspects, and it may also have an
adverse effect on spectators (Wolke & Lereya, 2015). Several longitudinal research from various
countries, as well as systematic assessments and meta-analyses, have shown a connection
between school bullying or victimization and later health outcomes. These correlations hold even
after other childhood risk factors are taken into account (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010).

There has been a considerable volume of literature on antibullying interventions, including

various clinically validated school-based programs. Farrington and Ttofi (2009) concluded in
their meta-analysis that such programs are often successful, with an average decrease of 20–23
percent for bullying others and 17–20 percent for being bullied. The results, however, differ
significantly between programs; they are often lower when programs are tested using more
restrictive designs, such as randomized controlled trials (Langford et al., 2015; Ttofi &
Farrington, 2011). It should be remembered that some programs do not provide good results, that
others have never been tested, and that even others have been evaluated so negatively that no
assumptions can be made on their effects. Evans and colleagues (Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014)
estimated that up to 45 percent of the research found no program effects on bullying perpetration
and approximately 30 percent found no program effects on victimization. Which programs
perform well, and what components are most important in these programs, are critical issues.

In conclusion, whole-school bullying prevention programs are often effective. However, their
outcomes vary; some programs have consistent beneficial effects, while others have few to no
evidence of efficacy. What accounts for the disparate effects? Programs should be intensive and
long-term, and they should be carried out consistently. The involvement of parents, as well as the
use of punitive procedures for bullies, seems to intensify the results. Raising student
understanding of the position of the entire community has an effect on the continuation of
bullying, and improving antibullying norms and responses within classrooms is critical. It is also
critical that teachers explicitly articulate their anti-bullying behaviors to their pupils.
Refrences

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and
parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10,
17–31.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1298

Olweus, D. (1973). [Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys]. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell.

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and
parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10,
17–31.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1298