Bullying: Preventing Peer Victimization

Approximately 5.7 million children in the United States are bullies, victims of bullying, or both. Based on a national survey of students in grades 6-10, about 13% of children reported bullying others, 11% reported being victims of bullying and 6% reported being the victim and the bully (Bullying,2005). There are parental, individual and situational factors that increase a child's risk of being victimized.

The original definition of being bullied described a child who is repeatedly victimized, teased and terrorized by their peers (Schuster, 1996). Currently, psychologists define being bullied as repeated and continuous negative actions directed toward a child by one or more individuals. Bullying is seen as a type of aggression (Van der Wal, DeWit, & Hirasing, 2003). Negative actions are defined as intentional attempts to harm another individual (Schuster, 1996).

Estimates of the prevalence of being bullied varies from 3% to 89% because of different definitions for being bullied. Variations in estimates were to due to differences in frequency and duration of victimization, the data source and the time period taken into account (current or past experience). When the duration and frequency of victimization were in the definition of being bullied, estimates of the percentage of children victimized decreased. Based on self-reports, only 4% of children are victims of bullying. Based on

teacher reports, only 3% of children are victimized according to this definition (Schuster, 1996).

Being bullied is a problem that occurs early in life and predicts short and long-term adjustment difficulties in school (Ladd & Ladd, 1998). Since being victimized on a regular basis has been associated with decreases in self-esteem and an increase in depression, it is important that researchers examine the antecedents of peer victimization (Egan & Perry, 1998). Victims are often anxious, emotionally reactive, depressed, submissive, and unassertive (Finnegan et al., 1998).

Furthermore, often, the same students receive physical and verbal harassment

from their peers for several years (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999). Since children are constantly coming into contact with their harasser, adjustment difficulties related to being bullied are intensified. Since the school the child attends and the classes are assigned, it is almost impossible for victims to avoid their harasser (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

Large-scale community studies show that between 20-30% of children and teenagers are bullied by their peers on a regular basis. In the past, being bullied was seen as an unavoidable experience in childhood. However, recently, attention to being bullied has risen as health professionals, school employees and parents understand that being bullied is correlated with a variety of psychosocial adjustment issues (McDonough, 2003). For this reason, policy and procedural changes need to be enacted within schools (Storch & Ledley, 2005). By studying the antecedents of peer victimization, school administrators will be able to enact intervention and prevention programs that address the parental, individual and situational factors. This will help lessen the negative effects associated with being bullied and the incidence of bullying.

There are two types of bullying. The two types of bullying include direct (overt) bullying and indirect (covert, relational) bullying. Direct bullying consists of verbal and physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking, pushing, threatening and name-calling. Indirect bullying consists of social isolation, such as ignoring, excluding, spreading rumors and backstabbing (Van der Wal et al., 2003). Studying indirect and direct forms of victimization is necessary for comprehending social and psychological adjustment difficulties (Crick et al., 1999).

Researchers have examined age differences regarding the likelihood of being bullied. Schuster (1996) found mixed results concerning the effect of age on being bullied. Four studies showed a decline in being bullied as the child grows older. Seven studies showed no age differences, while one study showed an increase in being bullied as the child gets older. However, the results may not be accurate because younger children may not have understood the definition of being bullied. For this reason, the researchers concluded that there were no age differences.

Researchers have also examined gender differences regarding the likelihood of being bullied. Schuster (1996) found that studies have consistently shown that there were gender differences. Boys were more likely to be a victim of bullying. This difference may be due to the fact that boys' bullying behavior is more overt, while girls' bullying behavior is more subtle. However, only three studies demonstrated statistically significant

results, three studies were not statistically significant and five studies did not report on the significance.

While there is a moderate correlation between gender and the prevalence of victimization, gender has a greater impact on the form of bullying. Studies have shown that boys were usually a victim of physical harassment and threats, while girls were usually a victim of verbal harassment and indirect bullying (Schuster, 1996). However, social exclusion and name calling was common among girls and boys (Veenstra et al., 2005).

Correlation studies have shown that being bullied has a negative effect on a child's psychosocial health. Being bullied is associated with a number of internalizing problems, including depression, anxiety, loneliness and low self-esteem (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005). Children who are bullied have five times the risk of being diagnosed with depression(McDonough, 2003). Being bullied also is associated with peer rejection, lack of friends and high absenteeism (Egan & Perry, 1998). Children who are bullied on a regular basis have an increased risk for developing externalizing problems, such as aggression, impulsiveness and hyperactivity. Children who are bullied also report high levels of social anxiety, avoidance of social situations, fear of negative evaluations and lack social skills (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

First, being bullied is associated with internalizing difficulties. In one study, researchers examined bullying among 8 and 9 year olds. They found that frequent bullying was associated with sleeping difficulties, bed wetting, depression and stomach and headaches (Williams, Chambers, Logan & Robinson, 1996). There was a negative association between being victimized and the development of the child's social, psychological and personality development (Finnegan, Hodges & Perry, 1998). Children who experienced indirect bullying had the greatest risk for social and psychological difficulties (Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999). Furthermore, some children had problems in multiple areas of their lives as a result of being bullied (Schwartz et al., 2005).

In another study, the researchers hypothesized that there is a relationship between being bullied on a regular basis and an increased risk of suicidal ideation, depression and loneliness. The researchers examined the relationship between children who were victims of direct and indirect bullying and psychosocial health in children between the ages of 9

and 13 in Amersterdam. The results of this study demonstrated that depression and suicidal ideation were common outcomes associated with being bullied for boys and girls. The relationship was strongest for indirect bullying. Studies conducted in Australia, Ireland, Finland and the United Kingdom found the same results (Van der Wal et al., 2003).

Second, being bullied is associated with academic difficulties. In a short-term longitudinal study, researchers examined the relationship between being bullied and academic performance. There were 199 children in elementary school who participated. The researchers hypothesized that being bullied is associated with academic difficulties through an increase in symptoms of depression. The results supported their hypothesis. Being victimized in elementary school was correlated with difficulties in academic performance (Schwartz et al., 2005).

Children who were victimized had lower grade point averages and lower scores on achievement tests. The stress the child experienced as result of being victimized may cause the child to have difficulties in concentrating in learning information. Since children with depression often have a pessimistic view of their academic abilities, many do not turn in homework, avoid some classes and do not participate in school activities

(Schwartz et al., 2005). Being victimized also was correlated with a decrease in class participation (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

Also, the form of bullying has an effect on the symptoms the child experiences. In one study, the researchers examined preschool children who were victims of indirect and direct forms of bullying. It is important to study this age group because of the lack of research conducted on this age group and early identification of a child's social problems is necessary for implementing appropriate intervention and prevention programs. The

researchers hypothesized that there is a relationship between peer victimization and psychological and social adjustment problems. The results supported their hypothesis (Crick et al., 1999).

In another study, the researchers investigated the correlation between physical and relational bullying and health problems. There were 1,639 elementary school children who participated. The researchers predicted that children who were physically bullied would have a greater risk for having physical symptoms and high absenteeism rates. The results demonstrated that only children who were physically bullied had a greater risk for nausea, lack of appetite, sore throats, colds and breathing difficulties. However, the researchers did not find high absenteeism rates among elementary school children. This may be due to the fact that elementary children who were bullied were less likely to be truant compared to middle school children (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield & Karstadt, 2001).

Storch and Ledley (2005) found that internalizing difficulties were more strongly correlated for girls who were victims of indirect bullying compared to direct bullying. In contrast, depressive symptoms were associated with only boys who were victims of direct bullying. Being bullied also was associated with externalizing difficulties. The researchers also found that being bullied was more strongly associated with externalizing difficulties compared to internalizing difficulties. Since parents and teachers rated the

child's behavior, they may not have noticed internalizing difficulties. Other studies have found that being victimized was correlated with an increased risk of attention difficulties,delinquency and aggression.

In addition, research has shown that being victimized is correlated with long-term difficulties. First, there are long-term mood and anxiety difficulties. Even years later children who reported being victims of bullying still showed symptoms of depression and had low self-esteem. In one study conducted on the effects of recalled teasing in childhood, college students who remembered being a regular target of victimization were

more depressed, anxious, lonely, and apprehensive about negative evaluations from individuals (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

Second, research has shown that victimized children have a greater risk for long-term social difficulties. In one study by McCabe et al., patients in an anxiety disorder clinic were asked if they were ever victimized. About 85% of individuals with social anxiety disorder reported being bullied. In comparison, only 25% of individuals with panic disorder reported being bullied (as cited in Storch & Ledley, 2005). Third, children who were bullied had a greater risk of having long-term educational and employment

difficulties. Studies have shown that peer relationships effect educational achievement and employment status in adulthood. Relationship difficulties were associated with low scores on national exams administered in high school and an increased chance of being unemployed as an adult (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

In another study, the researchers examined how certain types of victimization are associated with certain psychological symptoms. The effect of victimization based on appearance, family background, performance, academic and social behavior was examined. Victimization based on social behavior, such as being teased about looking anxious, had the most lasting impact. This type of victimization was positively correlated with loneliness, anxiety and depression. While this type of victimization did not affect the reported number of friends as an adult, it was associated with low self-esteem and difficulties in romantic relationships. Frequent victimization was correlated with discomfort with intimacy and closeness, difficulties in trusting and relying on individuals, and fears of being unloved or abandoned in relationships (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

Family factors might be the underlying reason for behaviors that cause a child to be victimized. Researchers have started to investigate how parental socialization is correlated with behaviors that increase the child's risk of being victimized. Information about the influence of parents on victimization comes from models of family socialization and perspectives utilized to explain the impact of parenting practices, parent-child interactions (social learning theory) and the parent-child relationship (attachment) (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

Recently, research has been conducted on family vulnerability to internalizing disorders. The impact of being victimized may be indirectly correlated with genes and environment. For this reason, there may be a relationship between negative family conditions and the psychological health of the parents. Parenting style may be genetically based. In other words, the environment the child is exposed to and the influence of genes on parenting styles contribute to the risk of being victimized (Veenstra et al., 2005).

In one study, the researchers examined how individual, family and situational factors contribute to the likelihood of being victimized. In this study, preadolescent children participated. They examined the correlation between overprotection and rejection and being victimized. They also examined the correlation between socioeconomic status (SES), isolation, dislikeability, family vulnerability to internalizing disorders and being victimized. The psychological health of the parents was examined in terms of depression, anxiety, antisocial behavior, substance abuse and psychoses (Veenstra et al., 2005).

The results indicated that isolation and dislikeablity were strong predictors of being victimized, while family vulnerability and SES were weak predictors. There was a negative relationship between SES and being victimized with non-victims coming from families with a higher SES than victims. Overprotection, rejection and emotional warmth were not correlated with being victimized. In contrast to the researchers' hypotheses, characteristics of the parents had no effect on being victimized. The researchers contended that this may be due to the fact that parenting has more of an effect on early childhood compared to preadolescence. Individual characteristics of the child were found to have a greater impact on being victimized than parenting style (Veenstra et al., 2005).

Other research has demonstrated that insecure attachment and overprotective parenting styles can increase the likelihood of being victimized (Perren & Hornung, 2005). Studies have demonstrated that there is a correlation between insecure attachment to parents and being bullied. Preschool and elementary school children who were insecurely attached as infants, especially anxious-resistant attachment, were more likely to be victims. These children usually displayed signs of anxiety and cried easily, which allowed them to be an easy target. Also, preadolescent boys who were emotionally attached to their mother were often victims of bullying (Finnegan et al., 1998).

Researchers have speculated that parenting most likely has an indirect impact on being bullied because parenting is related to social competence and school function. Children develop social skills and learn how to function in school by observing their parents' behavior (Veenstra et al., 2005).

Ladd and Ladd (1998) investigated characteristics of parenting behavior and the parent-child relationship as associations of being bullied. In this study, 197 kindergarten children and their mothers were videotaped while they were interacting. Parenting behaviors (intrusive demandingness and responsiveness) and relationship quality (intense

closeness) were assessed as risk factors for being bullied and passive behavior in children.

Parental responsiveness was defined as the rate and consistency in which parents respond to their child. Intense closeness was defined as an emotionally close or enmeshed relationship. Intrusive-demandingness was defined as parents often interrupting and ignoring their child's willingness to engage in certain activities and insisting that their child show certain types of behavior or be involved in a specific task The results supported their hypotheses (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

The researchers hypothesized that parental interactions characterized by high levels of intrusive-demanding behavior would be associated with the child experiencing more victimization. This hypothesis was based on parenting, dynamic-relationship and social learning perspectives. According to the parenting perspective, these behaviors are correlated with the child becoming unassertive due to socializing them to depend on others and be obedient. When confronted with conflicts, these children are taught to use conflict-avoidant tactics and be submissive. They are taught that obedience is an efficient way of avoiding conflict and punishment (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

Based on the dynamic-relationship perspective, high intrusive-demanding parents are associated with the child being dependent and having low self-esteem about their social skills. The social learning perspective contends that this parental behavior results in the child losing their ability to learn, practice and apply social skills that can influence their peers. Consequently, intrusive-demanding parental behavior would be correlated with withdraw behavior in children and social isolation from peers (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

The researchers further asserted that parents with high levels of responsiveness would have children that are less likely to experience victimization. Based on the parenting perspective, parents that are responsive to their children create an environment where children learn and develop social skills. These parents respond based on the content and type of behavior, and show interest and involvement, which allows the child to gain self-control and have an influence over their peers (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

According to the dynamic perspective, a lack of responsiveness from parents can have an enormous emotional impact on the child and are associated with behaviors that increase the risk of being bullied. Since these children have parents who respond only occasionally, they are more likely to have low self-esteem and anxiety. A lack of responsiveness is correlated with the child developing an ambivalent, passive and avoidant interactions with others. Social learning theory argues that children who have responsive parents elicit similar responses from the child. Children who have responsive parents are less likely to be aloof in their relationships with others. A lack of parental responsiveness is associated with being victimized, especially for girls (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

Furthermore, they hypothesized that intense closeness would increase the likelihood of the child being victimized. Parent-child relationships that are characterized as emotionally intense and close allow the child to receive support and protection, but this relationship does not allow the child to become independent. This is associated with the child showing signs of vulnerabilities. Maternal overprotection prevents the child from developing social skills, especially for boys in middle childhood (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

Perren and Hornung (2005) hypothesized that victims would report less family support compared to non-victims. Lack of family support increases a child's risk for antisocial behavior and being a victim of bullying. For boys, victims are usually overly close with their parents. For girls, victims usually come from families that are psychologically abusive or unhealthy. Victims of bullying usually report more negative family interactions and a lack of family support compared to non-bullied children. As predicted, children who came from unsupportive families had a higher risk of being victimized. The results also supported how gender and parental behavior influence whether a child has an increased risk of being victimized.

In one study, the researchers investigated the relationship between passivity in the child and aspects of the mother's behavior. This includes overprotectiveness, responsiveness, coercive, emotional and constructive control. In this study, 4th and 7th graders rated their mothers on each of these elements. The results showed that coercive and emotional control and lack of responsiveness were correlated with passive behavior and experiencing victimization for girls. In contrast, overprotectiveness was correlated with passive behavior and experiencing victimization for boys (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

Finnegan et al. (1998) also examined the hypothesis that families that do not allow the child to develop social skills appropriate for their gender will have a greater chance of being victimized. For girls, relationships and communication are important. Parenting that impacts relationships with others, such as maternal rejection, can increase the risk of being victimized. Girls who are victims often report that their mothers are critical and bossy. This type of parenting delays the development of cooperation, empathy and sharing because these girls feel they are unable to connect with others and are not loved. The results supported their hypotheses. As predicted, children who had parents that did not allow them to develop social skills appropriate for their gender had a greater risk of being victimized. The only unexpected result was that the development of assertiveness in boys did not decrease the risk of being victimized.

For boys, independence and assertiveness were important. Mothers that were overprotective treated their child as younger than their age and were overcontrolling concerning extracurricular activities. This type of parenting delayed the development of assertiveness, exploration and risk taking, and conflict management skills. As predicted, this was associated with them feeling vulnerable and inadequate (Finnegan et al., 1998).

The researchers also examined how coping strategies during conflicts with the mother can impact being victimized. The researchers hypothesized that boys who use a fearful and self-blame style of coping were at risk for being victimized, while girls that used aggressive coping were at risk for being victimized. This may happen because they use this style of coping during peer conflicts (Finnegan et al., 1998).

In addition, children from abusive families are at a greater risk for being bullied, especially for boys who are aggressive. In one study, the majority of male victims who were aggressive came from families where their parents physically abused them, used severe discipline measures and observed violence within the family (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

There has been a minimal amount of research conducted on how father-child interactions can impact the risk of being victimized. Studies that have been conducted show that paternal negativism and neglect concerning the child's peer relations and internalizing problems can increase the risk for being victimized. In addition, including the father in research would allow researchers to see if a positive father-child relationship can counter a negative mother-child relationship (Finnegan et al., 1998).

Recently, research has focused on behavioral vulnerabilities as antecedents to peer victimization. The majority of children who are bullied have internalizing difficulties. They often reward their harasser by showing signs of distress and meeting their demands. For example, the bully might demand that the victim give them money or a toy. The victim often complies and gives the bully what they want. Also, many victims have been found to use ineffective strategies to gain entrance into peer groups and use ineffective persuasive strategies. They do not have the necessary prosocial skills to interact with their peers. These vulnerabilities welcome and increase the likelihood of being victimized. Some victims also have externalizing difficulties. These victims often are dishonest, argumentative, and use ineffective aggression strategies (Finnegan et al., 1998).

In addition, studies have demonstrated that victims usually are shy, withdrawn and cautious. The most common reason reported on why children are regularly bullied is that they are not well-liked or accepted by their peers (Veenstra et al., 2005). Many children who are victims display behaviors that tell others that they will not be able to stand up for themselves if attacked. Many victims are sensitive and easily cry (Hodges et al., 1999). Victims display behaviors that suggest that they are unable to effectively

handle confrontations with other children. Instead of seeking further information to solve a problem, victims often allow the problem to intensify(Egan & Perry, 1998).

Research has also demonstrated that children who possess certain traits are less likely to be bullied. For example, the trait of agreeableness is strongly correlated to social adjustment. Agreeable children are friendly, cooperative and share. Agreeableness is associated with positive social evaluations because children who have this trait clearly express that they like others. In return, other children like them back. Children who are

normally aggressive may even avoid victimizing agreeable children (Egan & Perry, 1998).

Furthermore, there has been extensive research regarding the correlation between prosocial and antisocial behavior and being victimized. Rejected children were viewed as more aggressive and less prosocial by observers and peers. Aggressiveness was the best predictor for rejection for boys, while uncooperativeness was the best predictor for girls. However, only unprovoked aggression was associated with peer rejection. Rejected children often did not follow group norms. Children who were rejected usually were less cooperative and asked for help before trying themselves. In contrast, even though popular children did not initiate more interactions, popular children were approached by their peers more. Observers viewed their behavior as more positive than other status groups (Schuster, 1996).

Egan and Perry (1998) examined the relationship between the likelihood of being victimized and self-regard (global self-esteem) over a school year. They hypothesized that self-regard effects the impact of behavioral vulnerabilities on being bullied. Children with low self-regard do not possess the motivational and cognitive ability to defend themselves against being victimized. In contrast, children with high self-regard assert and

defend themselves when attacked. For this reason, children with high self-regard, even if the child possesses behavioral vulnerabilities, should not have a greater risk of being victimized. In this study, there were 189 third and seventh graders that participated.

The results supported their hypotheses. This was especially true when self-regard was examined in association with self-perceived peer social competence. Feelings of failure to fit in among one's peers increased the risk for being victimized, while confidence among one's peers protected children with behavioral vulnerabilities. High self-regard served as a coping mechanism for dealing with stress. Low perceived peer social competence may also increase a child's risk of being victimized because it is related to lack of friends and unpopularity (Egan & Perry, 1998).

The researchers examined this hypothesis by using four subcategories of self-concept. The first subcategory of self-concept is self-esteem. There are three ways in which self-esteem impacted the risk of being victimized. First, children with low self-esteem felt unworthy and did not fully assert their needs or defend themselves against being victimized. Second, children with low self-esteem anticipated and accepted being victimized by their peers. Third, children with low self-esteem exhibited signs of cautiousness, depression and poor self-control. These vulnerabilities allowed the bully to

view the individual as an easy target.

However, theories and empirical research demonstrated that the relationship between self-esteem and being victimized was not strong. First, self-evaluations in academic achievement, physical appearance and peer acceptance also affected self-esteem. Some of these areas were not strongly related to a child's risk of experiencing victimization. Studies have shown that self-evaluations in a specific area of functioning were a better predictor of later adjustment (Egan & Perry, 1998).

The second subcategory of self-concept they examined was self-perceived peer social competence. Children who felt disliked and socially incompetent were more likely to become emotionally reactive, anxious and submissive during a peer conflict. They did not possess the confidence and well-being associated with peer acceptance. These children did not have friends or peers to protect them against being victimized. During peer conflicts, these children realized they alone have to stand up to their attacker, which

further increased behaviors that welcome bullying. They hypothesized that there is a relationship between low self-perceived peer social competence and being victimized (Egan & Perry, 1998).

The third and fourth subcategory of self-concept they examined was perceived self-efficacy, which includes self-efficacy for assertion and aggression. Psychologists define self-efficacy as an individual's belief about one's ability to execute specific behaviors. During peer confrontations, assertion and aggression helped decrease the risk of being victimized. Children who had low perceived self-efficacy for a behavior tried to avoid that behavior and if they must confront it they become disorganized. The researchers hypothesized that low perceived self-efficacy for assertion or aggression would increase a child's risk of being victimized (Egan & Perry, 1998).

Currently, researchers have mainly studied how children enter new peer groups and interactions with familiar and unfamiliar children. Studies have observed that successful entry into a new peer group includes first passively observing, then talking and then engaging in a cooperative activity. Children of lower social status often just observe the behavior of their peers, which decreases their chance to successfully enter the new group (Schuster, 1996).

Schuster (1996) investigated the hypothesis that children who are rejected are incompetent in entering a new group. In order to test the hypothesis, they had popular and unpopular children test a new game. The results demonstrated that unpopular children were ignored more, their entry into the group was delayed, and they needed more approaches before they were allowed to join the group. When they did approach the group, they often asked informational questions, disagreed with the group and talked about themselves. In contrast, popular children focused on talking about the group activity. Popular children also were more accurate in evaluating group behavior.

The behavior of children of low social status, which includes children who are not accepted or well-liked by their peers, also differs from other status groups. Children of low social status differ in how they view their peers and explain their behaviors compared to other status groups. Children of low social status usually explain their failure in terms of internal and stable causes, believe others often have ulterior motives and generate and

utilize less effective ways to resolve conflicts. They are unrealistic about how others perceive them and do not carry on after a social failure(Schuster, 1996).

In addition, children's interpersonal relationships can serve as risk factors for being bullied because friendships in childhood are an important part of development. Friendships allow children to develop social skills, serve as a source of self-knowledge and self-esteem, provide cognitive and emotional support for coping with stress and help for future relationships (Schuster, 1996).

Often, children who are victimized have friendships that are characterized by betrayal and conflict. The friendships of victimized children are less positive emotionally (acceptance/smiling) and behaviorally (sharing and cooperating). Victimized children have difficulties in relating with other children. They are characterized as lacking necessary social skills, fear of being negatively evaluated, avoiding social situations and have high levels of social anxiety. Anxiety and avoidance of social situations increases a

child's risk for being victimized because friends help protect individual's from the effects of victimization (Schuster, 1996).

Currently, there has not been extensive research on friendships as a source of protection against being victimized. Children who have one or more friends are less likely to be victimized. Since most attackers are aware of peer groups within school, children who do not have friends are an easy target. The attacker does not have to worry about a counterattack (Schuster, 1996).

Hodges et al. (1999) investigated how friendships can serve as a moderator of behavioral vulnerabilities and the effects of being victimized. In this study, 393 children in 4th and 5th grade participated. The two aspects of friendship they examined included presence and perceived quality of friendships. They hypothesized that having a best friend, especially when they often protected them, would decrease the risk of being victimized for children who have behavioral vulnerabilities. However, if the child's friend also had internalizing or externalizing problems, the risk of being victimized was further increased. Children who have quality friendships are less likely to be victimized.

The results supported their hypothesis. The results demonstrated that friendships can serve as strong buffer against the negative impact of being victimized. Also, the tactics the friend used to protect the victim effected victimization experiences. For instance, friends who fought back against the bully helped decrease the risk of being victimized. Future research needs to be conducted on what tactics effectively inhibit being victimized (Hodges et al., 1999).

Perren and Hornung (2005) examined the quality of peer relationships for victims of bullying. In this study 1107 adolescents in grades 7 and 9 completed a self-report questionnaire. They contended that peers can have an important influence on being victimized by intervening and supporting the victim. Having few or no friends and unpopularity, such as not being well-liked by one's peers, are risk factors for being bullied. The researchers hypothesized that victims of bullying would report lower peer acceptance compared to nonvictims. Friendship and peer acceptance have been associated with a child's socio-emotional and academic functioning (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). The results supported their hypotheses (Perry & Hornung, 2005).

In another study, Pellegrini et al. (1999) investigated the role of friends as an inhibitor of being victimized. They also hypothesized that having friends in specific groups can inhibit being victimized. Children who have friends that are bullies can protect them from being victimized because of fear of retaliation. The researchers also examined and hypothesized that being well-liked among one's peers would reduce the risk of being bullied because bullying these children would lead to peer disproval. The results supported their hypotheses. The results demonstrated how having friends and being well-liked by one's peers serves a protective function, but friends that were also victims do not protect victims.

In addition, evidence suggests that children who are medically ill or physically unattractive may have a higher risk of being victimized. However, research on the correlation between being bullied and medical illness is limited. Children with certain medical conditions have noticeable characteristics that welcome peer victimization because children may categorize children with a medical illness as different and having

special needs. For example, children with diabetes have to wear a medical alert bracelet. This then causes them to be at a higher risk for being bullied (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

However, there has been an enormous amount of research conducted on the relationship between being bullied and obesity or being physically small. About 59% of children who are physically small were victims of bullying. Research has shown that children who are obese were frequently victimized. In one study, 48 obese adolescent girls out of 50 were victims of bullying (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

Also, there has been some research conducted on the correlation between diabetes and being victimized. In one study, the researchers examined the prevalence of being bullied among children with diabetes. They hypothesized that children with diabetes are at a greater risk for relational and physical victimization because of the responsibilities related to their illness. For example, they have to watch their diet and wear a medical

alert bracelet. Children with diabetes are seen as different and having special needs. They are at a risk for being bullied because the negative view of children with illnesses. However, it is possible that their increased risk for being victimized was not due to their medical illness, but these children might seek attention or have low self-esteem that makes them more likely to be bullied. In this study, 32 children with and without diabetes participated. The results indicated that children with diabetes had a higher risk of being relationally victimized and received less prosocial support from peers (Storch et al., 2004).

Finally, there is a relationship between popularity and physical attractiveness. In one study, college students were instructed to rate photos of children. The results showed that the children who were rated the least physically attractive were the most unpopular, while the children who were rated the most physically attractive were the most popular. Also, children who were rated as the least physically attractive had an increased risk of being victimized (Schuster, 1996).

Furthermore, situational factors can contribute to the risk of being victimized (Schuster, 1996). The main situational factor that has been implicated is SES. Studies have shown that children from lower SES families have a greater risk of being victimized. Also, school and class type have been implicated (Perren & Hornung, 2005).

In one study, the researchers examined the relationship between being victimized and students in low, average, and high level schools and classes. The researchers defined school and class levels as differences in academic levels, such as general and advanced levels. Students who attend low level schools were more often involved in delinquency and were victims of bullying. This may be due to the fact that children who attend low

level schools are bullied by their classmates as well as average level students, especially when they attend the same school. There also was a statistically significant correlation between children in lower school levels and more negative peer and family relations (Perren & Hornung, 2005).

Furthermore, school environment can impact the likelihood of a child being victimized. A lack of adult awareness and systematic supports, destructive bystander behavior, and student beliefs that support bullying are associated with higher rates of victimization (Pearce & Thompson, 1998). School employees' tolerance for bullying can increase the risk of children being victimized. School employees may implicitly tolerant victimization by believing that students must handle bullies on their own and it is just part of school life (Pellegrini et al., 1999). Since children observe and model the behavior of adults, the behavior of school employees can affect the behavior of the children.

The school environment may also unintentionally promote aggressive behavior. Bullying occurs more often in schools with high rates of teacher turnover, low morale among employees, rules for behavior and discipline are unclear, lack of organization and supervision, and employees not perceiving students as individuals (Pearce & Thompson, 1998). Based on all of the research, there are multiple family, individual and situational factors that contribute to the risk of being victimized.

Identifying family, individual and situational factors that increase the risk of being victimized is necessary to enact intervention and prevention programs. By identifying the antecedents of peer victimization, intervention and prevention programs can address the underlying causes of peer victimization. For example, for situational factors, children in lower level schools and classes are at a greater risk for being victimized. For this reason, prevention programs need to concentrate on this group of children. Bullying programs that have been enacted in other nations have tried to focus on individual, class and school level changes (Perren & Hornung, 2005).

In order to prevent children from being victimized, school employees need to receive training in identifying children who are victimized on a regular basis. Since teachers have trouble noticing signs of internalizing difficulties, teachers need to be educated about the nature and characteristics of psychological difficulties. Also, it is important that teachers learn how to intervene and stop bullying (Storch & Ledley, 2005). Research has shown that teachers only intervene in about 15% of bullying events. Often, students that are bullied do not report the event to school personnel because interventions are not successful and the child is afraid of further victimization (Frey et al., 2005).

Bullying programs should focus on changing attitudes, recognition of bullying, supporting the victims of bullying, teaching children appropriate behavior, and providing additional resources for children at risk for being victimized (Pearce & Thompson, 1998). Children need to recognize the signs and symptoms that welcome bullying (Storch & Ledley, 2005).The programs should also focus on implementing school guidelines and responding effectively to bullying incidents (Frey et al., 2005).

Since children who are bullied often fear telling an adult, the first step in reducing bullying is changing attitudes. Unless society knows how to handle bullying, it is not likely bullying behavior will decrease. Attitudes toward bullying are important because they determine the amount of aggression that is considered appropriate (Pearce & Thompson, 1998).

Second, it is important for school personnel to provide education on bullying through classroom interventions that encourage prosocial behavior. Also, parents are an important part of prevention. Parents need to teach their children social skills and how to control their aggression. For aggression, parents need to teach their child that aggression is unacceptable, how aggression hurts others, and identify the negative impact of aggression. Parents also need to be good role models by controlling their own aggression. For socializing, parents need to demonstrate the characteristics of a good relationship and teach empathy (Pearce & Thompson, 1998).

Punishment characterized by anger, aggression and humiliation only enforces bullying behavior. The best punishment is having the bully apologize to the victim. This will allow the bully to confront the impact of their behavior and realize it is unacceptable. Close supervision of an aggressive bully is needed because bullying often occurs when there is little supervision. By identifying high risk areas and specific times of the day bullying occurs, bullying can be handled immediately. In contrast, for a bully that is passive, increasing their feelings of guilt and overemphasizing the impact of bullying is effective (Pearce & Thompson, 1998). Furthermore, verbal ridicule and threats by teachers can encourage victimization (Pellegrini et al., 1999).

In addition, channeling aggression into appropriate activities can reduce bullying because there is a lot of supervision. The rules of behavior are clear and must be followed consistently. Sports can serve as a way to manage aggression. Furthermore, since family factors have been implicated as risk factors for being bullied, parent training programs need to be available to encourage more appropriate parenting behavior. However, many of these families might not think these programs are helpful (Pearce & Thompson, 1998).

Research has shown that bystanders who do not intervene contribute to bullying by giving bullies attention and encouraging them. Observations show that bystanders are present in 80% of all bullying incidents, but when peers intervene the bullying usually stops immediately (Frey et al., 2005). For this reason, it is necessary to increase the social responsibility of bystanders and educate them on the beliefs that support victimization. Studies have indicated that there is a correlation between encouraging bullying and lack of empathy for victims. The belief that victimization is warranted if the child is different might allow bystanders to defend their role. Social responsibility can be achieved by providing clear policies for responding and reporting, teaching effective coping strategies and practicing assertive responses to bullying. Teaching social and emotional skills will allow victims to have a buffer against being victimized (Frey et al., 2005).

Wylie (2000) conducted research to examine how successful Olweus's bullying program was as a preventive measure. This program has been strongly supported by research as an effective way to decrease bullying. This program is a whole system approach that focuses on social skills training and developing clear rules on discipline. Olweus's program includes educating adults, assessing and evaluating the school environment, school conference days, increasing supervision, implementing class rules and class meetings on bullying. Serious talks with bullies, victims and parents also are part of the program. If a child does not follow the rules, they must call their parents and fill out a "think-about-it" form. The form asks the child to reflect on why they were bullying another child and how they can resolve the problem.

Pearce and Thompson (1998) used interventions that increased awareness of bullying in school and encouraged prosocial behavior. The program they used was Olweus's bullying program. The results showed that bullying behavior decreased significantly. Over two years, there were less new victims, less antisocial behavior, more cooperation among peers, and students were more happy with school life.This program has been successful because the school uses rules that are enforced firmly, but also emphasize faith in every student. Over a one year period, bullying decreased by 50% in one elementary school. Anti-social behavior decreased, children felt safer, were more likely to report bullying incidents and teachers reported a better learning environment. The involvement and support of parents in the program also helped the program become successful (Wylie, 2000).

In another study, the researchers examined the Steps to Respect Program. Six schools were in the control condition or the bullying intervention group. The program was designed to develop school guidelines and educate school personnel and through class curriculum encourage prosocial beliefs in relation to bullying and increase social and emotional skills. For class curriculum, lessons concentrated on positive relationships with others, management of emotions, recognition of bullying and reporting bullying (Frey et al., 2005).

Before and after the study, students in grades 3-6 were instructed to complete questionnaires of behaviors and beliefs toward bullying and were rated by teachers. The beliefs about bullying that were assessed included acceptance of bullying, bystander interest and amount of responsibility to intervene. For social-emotional skills, agreeableness and argumentative behavior were assessed. For the intervention group, they hypothesized that there would be a decrease in bullying and destructive bystander

behavior, an increase in prosocial beliefs in relation to bullying, an increase in social-emotional skills and students would perceive adults as more helpful in intervening. The results supported their hypothesis. While argumentative behavior decreased in girls and boys, agreeableness only increased for boys (Frey et al., 2005).

First, there needs to be more research conducted on how participants in sports, extracurricular or religious activities serve as a protection against being victimized (Kockenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002). Also, intervention programs need to include teaching children appropriate conflict resolution skills (Storch & Ledley, 2005).

Second, there needs to be more research conducted on the correlation between medical illness and being victimized because most of the research has focused on obesity and being physically small (Storch & Ledley, 2005). For family factors, there needs to be more research on the impact of family on being victimized because the results were mixed (Veenstra et al., 2005). Furthermore, studies conducted on coping strategies during conflicts with the mother had unexpected results. Future research needs to examine why

assertiveness in boys did not decrease the risk of being victimized. In addition, there has been a minimal amount of research conducted on father-child interactions. By including the father in research, it would allow researchers to see if a positive father-child relationship can counter a negative mother-child relationship (Finnegan et al., 1998).

Third, research on school-environment variations between bullying in elementary and middle school is limited. Future research should examine a wide range of school systems in which there are differences in aggression and victimization (Perren & Hornung, 2005).

Based on research, individual factors contributed to the risk of being victimized. Internalizing and externalizing difficulties, low self-regard, lack of friends and physical conditions and characteristics all were associated with an increased risk of being victimized. Furthermore, family factors contributed to the risk of being victimized. Paternal neglect, family abuse, insecure attachment, parenting behavior and coping style

during conflicts with the mother also had an effect on whether a child was victimized. For situational factors, lack of adult awareness, systematic supports, destructive bystander behavior and beliefs that supported bullying increased rates of bullying. In addition, low SES, class and school level were risk factors.

Also, research conducted on Olweus's bullying program and the Steps to Respect Program have shown that both of these programs are successful in reducing bullying. In Olweus's bullying program, anti-social behavior decreased, children felt safer, were more likely to report bullying incidents and teachers reported a better learning environment. In the Steps to Respect program, there was a decrease in bullying and destructive bystander behavior, an increase in prosocial beliefs in relation to bullying, an increase in social-emotional skills and students perceived adults as more helpful in intervening. For this reason, these programs should be implemented in schools to reduce bullying incidents. In order for a prevention program to be successful, it is important that the program addresses family, individual and situational factors.

References

Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young children's school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550-560.

Bullying facts and statistics (2005). National Youth Violence and Prevention. Retrieved November 5, 2005, from http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/faq/bullying.asp

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35, 376-385.

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299-309.

Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E. , & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with children's reports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076-1086.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Van Scholack Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479-490.

Hodges, E. V. E., Bolvin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendships: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children's coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 38, 267-278.

Ladd, G. W., & Ladd, B. K. (1998). Parenting behaviors and parent-child relationships: Correlates of peer victimization in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology, 34, 1450-1458.

McDonough, S. (2003). Bullying and depression. Instructor, 113, 9.

Pearce, J. B., & Thompson, A. E. (1998). Practical approaches to reduce the impact of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 79, 528-531.

Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216-224.

Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: Victims'and perpetrators'family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 51-64.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and children's academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425-435.

Schuster, B. (1996). Rejection, exclusion, and harassment at work and in schools: An integration of results from research on mobbing, bullying, and peer rejection. European Psychologist, 1, 293-317.

Storch, E. A., & Ledley, D. R. (2005). Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment in children: Current knowledge and future directions. Clinical Pediatrics, 44, 29-38.

Storch, E. A., Lewin, A., Silverstein, J. H., Heidgerken, A. D., Strawser, M. S., Baumeister, A., & Geffken, G. R. (2004). Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment in children with type 1 diabetes. Clinical Pediatrics, 43, 467-471.

Van der Wal, M. F., DeWit, C. A., & Hirasing, R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682.

Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996). Association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. British Medical Journal, 313, 17-19.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 85, 197-201.

Wylie, M. S. (2000). Teaching kids to care. Networker, 24, 26-35.