Bullying: Theories

Bullying: Theories

1. Ecological Systems Theory

   • Adapted for bullying from Bronfrenbrenner (1994) by Hong + Espelage (2012)
   • Microsystem = pattern of activities/roles/interpersonal relationships experienced by a child in a particular setting where they are directly involved (e.g. home, classroom, playground)
   • Mesosystem = relationship between 2 or more settings in which the child actively participates
   • Exosystem = setting where child is not directly involved, but it affects/is affected by settings that do directly involve the child. E.g. neighbourhood environment, local authority's policy on bullying, exposure to violence in media...
   • Macrosystem = influence of cultural/subcultural mores and belief-systems.
   • Chronosystem = consistency/change of the child and their environment over time
   • Tells us risk factors for different settings, with implications for the importance of assessing all systems and intervention at multiple levels
   • Payne + Gottfriedson (2004) found lower levels of bullying associated with school level factors
     • Teacher discussing bullying with pupils
     • Teachers recognising bullying behaviour and actually intervening in bullying incidents
     • Teachers showing interest in stopping bullying
     • Pupil cooperativeness
     • These factors also associated with more negative pupil attitudes towards bullying

2. Sociocognitive Deficit Theories

   • Social information processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1994)
     • 6 stages for how social cues are attended to, evaluated, reacted to, etc.
       • Skillful processing = social competance, biased processing = aggression and social problems (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Zelli et al, 1999)
     • Bullies have biased social information processing - attending preferentially to hostile cues, coding less neutral cues, selecting more instrumental goals over relational goals, evaluating aggressive responses more favourably...
       • BUT not all bullies seem to be socially incompetent, some seem to be skilled manipulators
         • Shakoor et al (2012): longitudinal twin study. Poor Theory of Mind age 5 predicted victim/bully-victim status, but proactive bullies had very strong ToM
           • Proactive bullies socially competent but lacking in empathy + instrumental goals (Arsenio + Lemerise, 2001)
         • Viding et al (2009): 11-13yo self-reports of callous unemotional (CU) traits and psychopathology, peer reports of direct/indirect bullying. Higher CU = increased direct bullying. CU + conduct problems = high risk for engaging in both types of bullying.

3. Family influence

   • Social learning theory: aggression is learnt through modelling + reinforcement, early experience particularly influential.
     • Olweus (1994) + Bowes et al (1994)
       • High levels of physical aggression and emotional hostility between parents of bullies and their children
         • These parents often do not set limits to their child's aggression, so it is often successful in achieving the child's goals
       • Parenting style of victims is overprotective and overinvolved
     • Schwartz et al (1997): longitudinal study. Parental behaviour = instrumental in the development of bullying behaviour in some children.
       • Bully-victims: physical abuse, domestic violence, maternal hostility, harsh discipline
       • Bullies: aggressive models, parental conflict
       • Victims: not significantly different from homes of children not involved in bullying, BUT overprotective parenting not studied.
   • Disorganised attachment (Bowlby): Strong associations with problems regulating emotions, behaviour problems in school, psychopathology in adolescence (Green + Goldwyn, 2002)

4. Group process theories

   • Social dominance theory (Nishina, 2004)
     • Evolutionary advantage to bullying behaviour?
     • Establishing/rebelling against dominance hierarchies
       • Effects of how the adults in school assert their dominance over children, develop/maintain hierarchies, are important
     • Bullying an outgroup member increases feelings of ingroup membership