زورگویان نوجوان شاد و غمگین: شواهد برای زیرگروه های به لحاظ تئوری معنادار
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|36799||2015||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 75, March 2015, Pages 224–228
Abstract Are all bullies unhappy and socially disconnected? The majority of theorists argue that bullies are a homogeneous group, such that their aggression is linked to less happiness and a greater probability of social exclusion. Recent findings, however, indicate some bullies obtain social benefits from the act of bullying, increasing their happiness. We sought to identify whether subgroups of bullies exist among 481 Chinese adolescents (mean age = 16.9, SD = 1.5) using self-report data on bullying, victimization, and various psychological and behavioral variables. Cluster analytic results identified four subgroups differentiated primarily by level of bullying, happiness, and perceived social connectedness. Subgroups included (1) happy, socially connected non-bullies (33.4%), (2) unhappy, socially disconnected non-bullies (26.9%), (3) unhappy, socially disconnected bullies (17.3%) and (4) happy, socially connected bullies (22.4%). These results suggest that, not only are some bullies happy and socially connected, but only a minority of bullies are unhappy and socially disconnected. Our findings offer unique insights into potential positive consequences of bullying that may differentiate subgroups of bullies. Such insights might inform existing and future anti-bullying interventions.
1. Introduction The majority of people, programs, and researchers view bullies as a homogenous group of unhappy people whose bullying behavior results in negative psychosocial consequences for all involved. A “bully” can be defined as someone who initiates repetitive aggression in an imbalanced power relationship with a victim (Nansel et al., 2001 and Olweus, 1995). Bullying is neither a recent phenomena (e.g., Lowenstein, 1977 nor a trivial one (rates as high as 60% in some countries; Fleming & Jacobson, 2010). Recent findings, however, indicate some bullies cannot be described as unhappy, and in fact obtain positive psychosocial consequences. Understanding the nature of bullies may help us better intervene in or even prevent bullying. Classifying types of bullies represents a relatively novel endeavor. Although most research to date focuses on the consequences of bullying for victims (e.g., Hawker & Boulton, 2000, some studies examine consequences of bullying for bullies themselves. Research suggests bullies exhibit increased anger and substance use (Stein, Dukes, & Warren, 2007), interpersonal difficulties (Undheim & Sund, 2010), negative academic outcomes (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999), and decreased happiness (Rigby & Slee, 1993). Thus, the negative consequences of perpetration and victimization form most of our current understanding of bullying. Our understanding of bullies as a group, sub-group, or distinct set of groups remains somewhat impoverished. We assume bullies are unhappy and experience negative consequences of their behavior that mimic many of the negative consequences experienced by victims. Absent from the literature is the potential for intact health – particularly from the bully’s perspective. Researchers, teachers, and parents rarely use the concept of “happiness” when conceptualizing the personality profile of a bully. After all, happy people are thought to be open-minded, generous, compassionate, and all-around better citizens (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Thus, we may prematurely conclude that bullying is inversely related to happiness and related dimensions of well-being such as healthy social functioning. This assumption also suggests that all bullies are the same with regard to these dimensions. As an alternative, we suggest that the notion of homogeneity be reconsidered by the use of research methodologies that go beyond “mean scores” to test for meaningful, heterogeneous subgroups (e.g., Kashdan & McKnight, 2011. For a subset of people, bullying coincides with positive intrapersonal outcomes such as increased self-esteem (Olweus, 1993) and popularity (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Acker, 2006). These results seem incompatible with research suggesting that bullying increases the probability of negative social outcomes, including peer rejection (Undheim & Sund, 2010) but point to the possibility of greater heterogeneity among bullies. If we question the assumption of homogeneity, new insights about the nature of bullies and bullying behavior emerge. Bullies vary based on levels of social intelligence and popularity, with a sizeable minority of bullies (37.5%) being both socially intelligent and popular (Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010). These beneficial social outcomes of intelligence and popularity are positively correlated with happiness (e.g., Myers & Diener, 1995). No research to date, however, explicitly examines the relationship between happiness and bullying. Understanding the prevalence and nature of bullies may illuminate key mechanisms to prevent and treat this problem.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3. Results 3.1. Bullying and victimization prevalence, descriptives, and correlations We identified the following prevalence rates of bullying and victimization in our sample: Bully-Victims (36.6%), Just Bully (11.7%), Just Victim (19.5%), and Neither (31.1%). We then examined variables associated with bullying and victimization via descriptive and correlational analyses. Self-reported bullying perpetration (M = 1.82, SD = 1.03) and victimization (M = 1.76, SD = 0.83) indicated a low frequency of occurrence, but with variability in both behaviors. Self-reported subjective happiness (M = 18.38, SD = 4.67) indicated moderate levels of happiness similar to US college samples ( Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Self-reported social connectedness (M = 4.69, SD = 0.86) indicated slightly good to good social connectedness. Self-reported hopelessness (M = 58.86, SD = 12.92) indicated a moderate, but non-clinical amount of hopelessness ( Beck et al., 1974). Self-reported risk-taking behaviors (M = 17.84, SD = 5.19) indicated a low frequency of risk-taking. Thus, our sample appeared to endorse questions similar to other samples, while maintaining heterogeneity in responses even for bullying and victimization occurrence. Victimization had a weak, inverse relationships with subjective happiness (r = −.15, p < .001) and social connectedness (r = −.17, p < .001), and a similarly weak but positive relationship with hopelessness (r = .18, p < .05) and risk-taking behavior (r = .14, p < .01). Bullying was not related to subjective happiness (r = −.05, p > .05) or social connectedness (r = −.06, p > .05). Bullying was moderately related to risk-taking behavior (r = .38, p < .01), and a weak, positive relationship with hopelessness (r = .10, p < .05). These weak associations provide the first evidence, in our sample, of the potential heterogeneity among bullies. 3.2. Identifying Meaningful Subgroups of Bullies Our two-step cluster analysis suggested the superiority of a four-cluster solution, as indicated by a relatively lower BIC value (1594.389) and higher ratio of distance of measures value (1.604). The clusters primarily differed in their respective levels of bullying, social connectedness, and subjective happiness (see Table 1). Clusters included a happy, socially connected cluster of non-bullies (33.4%), an unhappy, socially isolated cluster of non-bullies (26.9%), a happy, socially connected cluster of bullies (22.4%), and an unhappy, socially isolated cluster of bullies (17.3%).