رابطه بین زورگویی، قربانی و سطح نوجوانان ناامیدی

Abstract In this study, 419 Turkish middle school students (203 girls, 216 boys) were surveyed on their exposure to and engagement in bullying, and their level of hopelessness. Our findings suggest that girls were victims of indirect (e.g. gossiping) bullying more than boys. Boys reported being victims of physical (e.g. damaging property) and verbal (e.g. teasing) bullying more than girls. While the level of hopelessness among victims of physical and verbal bullying was higher than non-victims, no difference was found between the victims of indirect bullying and non-victims. Students who never talked to their teachers and parents about bullying reported higher levels of hopelessness than others. The implications of the study for intervention and prevention programs are discussed.

Introduction During the last twenty years, our understanding of the relation between bullying, victimization and children's psychological health has broadened significantly. It is now well documented that peer victimization and bullying has negative effects on adolescents' psychological health (Baldry, 2004; Roland, 2002) including increased anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and in some cases, suicide. Despite a large number of studies on the relation between bullying and depression, few were conducted on the relation between hopelessness and bullying when in fact hopelessness was found to be a key factor linking depression to suicidal behavior (Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman, 1975). The National Institute of Mental Health (2011) defines depression, the persistent feeling of sadness, as a “serious illness” that is manifested through various symptoms that interferes with daily functioning of the individual. These symptoms can be a combination of physical, emotional, and social symptoms such as anxiety, social withdrawal, and fatigue. Hopelessness, the cognitive dimension of depression, is associated with individuals' perceptions of lacking control over future event outcomes, and is found to play an important role in predicting depression (Marshall & Lang, 1990; McLaughlin, Miller, & Warwick, 1996). While previous studies suggest that depression and suicidal thoughts are high among both bullies and victims (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Marttunen, Rimpelä, & Rantanen, 1999; West & Salmon, 2000), it is unclear what aspect(s) of depression are more salient for bullying prevention and intervention programs. This paper examines the relation between bullying, victimization, and hopelessness among Turkish adolescents (ages 12–14) to understand the relation between depression and bullying, and how to improve prevention and intervention programs to address the issues of mental health surrounding bullying and victimization. Bullying, victimization, and depression Children engage in two types of bullying depending on the overt or covert ways of displaying an aggressive behavior. Direct bullying, the display of overt aggressive behavior(s), is defined as harassing others through either direct physical contact or verbal attack such as pushing, hitting, and teasing (Woods & Wolke, 2004). Indirect bullying, also called relational bullying, is defined as a person's covert aggressive behavior(s) that is intended to harass others by damaging the victim's social relations. It includes gossiping, rumor spreading, and excluding someone from the group (Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006). Research suggests that boys are more likely to engage in and be exposed to direct bullying than girls, and girls are more likely to engage in indirect bullying than boys (Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Smith & Gross, 2006). Both victimization and bullying is associated with depression, anxiety, and somatic complains (Baldry, 2004; Craig, 1998). In their study, Marini, Dane, Bosacki, and YLC-CURA (2006) found that indirect bully-victims, those who bully others and are bullied by others, and victims, those who are bullied by others only, reported higher level of depression than bullies and uninvolved adolescents. While the level of depression of direct bullies and bully-victims were same, the victims reported lower levels of depression compared to the other two groups. In addition, previous studies suggest that bullies and victims display symptoms of depression and have suicidal thoughts more than those who are neither a bully nor a victim (Gini, 2008). Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, and Gillberg (2005) found that children who were victims or bully-victims have higher suicide attempts than bullies and those who were neither victims nor bully-victims. Parents, peers and teachers, play an important role in children's ability to cope with bullying and mediate the development of depression. For instance, the positive relationship with peers, teachers, and parents play a buffering role between victimization and its negative psychological effects on the person who is been bullied (Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Idsoe, Solli, & Cosmovici, 2008). Studies found that teachers' beliefs about bullying determine whether they intervene in a bullying situation and how well the child copes with victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Interestingly, teachers and parents perceive physical bullying as being more serious and harmful than verbal and indirect (relational) bullying and are less likely to intervene when children experience indirect bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001). Bullying, victimization and hopelessness Depression designates a complex pattern of deviation in feelings, cognitive processes, and behavior (Beck, 1969). While early studies conceptualized depression as a result of different pathologies caused by one factor, researchers developed multidimensional models that explained different characteristics of depression (Craighead, 1980). According to theory of hopelessness (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974), the person's negative attributions to the event, the future and the self determine his level of hopelessness. People who are hopeless make three kinds of inferences in the face of a negative event: (a) they attribute the cause of a negative event to stable and global causes (b) they believe that the consequences are unchangeable and have big impacts, and (c) view themselves as worthless and inferior (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989). Thus, interpretation of the negative event, not the negative event itself, presumed to contribute to the development of hopelessness depression. While hopelessness depression is conceptualized having all three inferential styles, Abela and Sarin (2002) found that they are relatively independent for younger children but are interrelated in adolescence. The theory of helplessness, a similar cognitive model of depression, also suggests that people's attribution to the causes of events to uncontrollable factors results in the development of chronic self-handicapping behaviors in the face of a new situation (e.g. learned helplessness). Furthermore, the expectation of failure results in adaptation of negative self-image. Thus, people who expect negative events are more likely to have low self-esteem and feel helpless, consequentially, more vulnerable to depression than those who do not have negative expectations (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Together, the theory of hopelessness and the theory of helplessness is the basis of cognitive vulnerability-stress framework model that focuses on the cognitive rather than emotional and behavioral characteristics of depression (e.g. negative attributional styles). According to this model, hopelessness and helplessness moderate the relationship between the negative life events and the development of depression ( Hankin & Abramson, 2001); individuals with cognitive vulnerability are more likely to be depressed when faced with negative events than those who are not cognitively vulnerable. However, some studies suggest that hopelessness has a mediator effect ( Cole & Turner, 1993). For instance, in their longitudinal study with 4th and 5th-grade children, Gibb and Alloy (2006) found that the level of children's hopelessness was a mediator between verbal victimization and the development of depression for both 4th and 5th-graders, while it was a moderator for only 5th-graders. Although the findings of this study are important in understanding hopelessness phenomenon, they do not address the relation between hopelessness and different kinds of victimization (e.g. physical) and bullying behaviors.

Results Consistent with previous research, our findings suggest that both boys and girls were victims of bullying. As seen in Table 1, students reported mostly being victims of verbal bullying (e.g. name calling, teasing) at 47% (23.63% males, 23.39% females), followed by being victims of indirect (or relational) bullying (e.g. gossiping) at 26.3% (9.78% males, 16.47% females), and physical bullying (e.g. hitting, damaging belongings) at 27.96% (15.06% males, 12.90% females). There were no differences between boys and girls in terms of victimization (see Table 1), except that girls (16.47%) were victims of gossiping more than that of boys (9.78%) [χ2(1) = 12.18, p = .000]. Table 1. Observed victimization in male and females. Victimization Male Female χ2 Non-victim Victim Non-victim Victim Name calling 117(27.92%) 99(23.63%) 105(25.06%) 98(23.39%) .25 Teasing 157(37.47%) 59(14.08%) 140(33.41%) 63(15.04%) .70 Rejecting from group 168(40.09%) 48(11.46%) 155(36.99%) 48(11.46%) .12 Gossiping 175(41.77%) 41(9.78%) 134(31.98%) 69(16.47%) 12.18** Hitting 182(43.54%) 33(7.90%) 180(43.06%) 23(5.50%) 1.45 Damaging belongings 186(44.39%) 30(7.16%) 172(41.05%) 31(7.40%) .16 **p < .01. Table options In terms of bullying, 43.7% of students bullied others verbally (name calling and teasing), 16.55% of students bullied others indirectly (rejecting from group and gossiping), and only 10.35% of students bullied others physically (hitting and damaging belongings). Boys were verbal bullies with 29.53% [χ2(1) = 14.25 for “name calling” and 10.31, p < .01 for “teasing”, respectively] and physical bullies more than that of girls (2.89%) [χ2(1) = 4.21 for “hitting” and 4.24, p < .05 for “damaging belongings”, respectively] (see Table 2). Table 2. Observed bully behaviors in male and females. Bullying Male Female χ2 Non-bully Bully Non-bully Bully Name calling 142(33.97%) 73(17.46%) 167(39.95%) 36(8.61%) 14.25** Teasing 163(39.37%) 50(12.07%) 178(43%) 23(5.56%) 10.31** Rejecting from group 192(46.04%) 22(5.28%) 174(41.73%) 29(6.95%) 1.56 Gossiping 201(48.20%) 13(3.12%) 198(47.48%) 5(1.2%) 3.29 Hitting 191(46.02%) 22(5.30%) 192(46.27%) 10(2.41%) 4.21* Damaging belongings 204(49.04%) 9(2.16%) 201(48.32%) 2(.48%) 4.24* *p < .05; **p < .01. Table options By using cross-tabs, we identified students who were pure verbal bully (9.9%), pure indirect bully (2.4%), and pure physical bully (1.2%). Students were also categorized as pure verbal victim (22.9%), pure indirect victim (12.2%), and pure physical victim (6.2%). Additionally, 16.5% of students were verbal bully-victim, 3.8% were indirect bully-victim, and 1.7% of students were physical bully-victim. A pure victim is a person who is victimized by others but never bully others. A pure bully is a person who bullies others but never been victimized by others. A bully-victim is a person who bullies others and is victimized by others. Our findings suggest that more students were pure victims than pure bullies and bully-victims. Overall, boys (M = 5.91, SD = 3.93) reported higher levels of hopelessness than girls (M = 5.10, SD = 3.80), [t(417) = −2.13, p = .034]. Further, students who were victims of name calling (M = 6.07, SD = 3.76) and teasing (M = 6.42, SD = 3.82) reported higher levels of hopelessness than non-victim students (MName Calling = 5.03, SD = 3.93; MTeasing = 5.15, SD = 3.85), [t(417) = −2.74; −3.07, p < .01, respectively]. Similarly, the level of hopelessness of pure physical victims (MHitting = 6.61, SD = 4.11; MDamaging belongings = 6.69, SD = 3.94) was higher than those non-victims (MHitting = 5.36, SD = 3.83; MDamaging belongings = 5.32, SD = 3.84), [t(417) = −2.25; −2.56, p < .05, respectively]. However, no difference was found in the level of hopelessness between non-victims and pure indirect victims [t(417) = −1.24; −1.84, p > .05, respectively]. We performed General Linear Model Multivariate Analysis of Co-Variance (GLM MANCOVA) to see the effect of interaction between bullying and victimization on the level of hopelessness. Gender, education levels of mother and father were taken as co-variates in the analysis. As seen in Table 3, results showed that the interaction between bullying and victimization had a significant effect on the level of hopelessness, [F(4, 403) = 3.49, p = .008, ƞ2 = .034]. Students who engaged in bully behaviors every week (M = 9.52, SD = 4.13) reported higher levels of hopeless than non-bully students (M = 5.45, SD = 3.77), [F(2, 403) = 11.01, p = .000, ƞ2 = .052]. Effect sizes (ƞ) can be interpreted as small (ƞ < .20) in the result. Students who reported never talking to teachers and parents about victimization had more hopelessness than other students [F(2, 416) = 3.42; F(2, 416) = 7.04, p < .05, respectively]. Table 3. Bullying and victimization interaction on hopelessness. Source Type III SS df MS F p ƞ2 Corrected model 749,211a 11 68,110 4982 .000 .120 Intercept 964,636 1 964,636 70,555 .000 .149 Gender (covariate) 33,119 1 33,119 2422 .120 .006 Mother's education (covariate) 13,564 1 13,564 .992 .320 .002 Father's education (covariate) 29,635 1 29,635 2168 .142 .005 Victimization 12,960 2 6480 .474 .623 .002 Bullying 301,159 2 150,579 11,014 .000 .052 Victimization × bullying 191,009 4 47,752 3493 .008 .034 Error 5509,883 403 13,672 Total 18995,000 415 Corrected total 6259,094 414 a R2 = .120 (adjusted R2 = .096). Table options We also performed GLM MANCOVA to see the effect of interaction between schools from low and high SES, bullying, and victimization on the level of hopelessness (see Table 4). Gender, education levels of mother and father were taken as co-variates in the analysis. Data revealed that there was no significant effect of interaction between SES (schools), bullying, and victimization on the hopelessness [F(4, 414) = .47, p = .755, ƞ2 = .005]. Table 4. Bullying, victimization, and school SES interaction on hopelessness. Source Type III SS df MS F p ƞ2 Corrected model 855,413a 20 42,771 3119 .000 .137 Intercept 918,877 1 918,877 66,998 .000 .145 Gender (covariate) 20,474 1 20,474 1493 .223 .004 Mother's education (covariate) 15,577 1 15,577 1136 .287 .003 Father's education (covariate) 53,641 1 53,641 3911 .049 .010 Bullying 260,557 2 130,278 9499 .000 .046 Victimization 29,723 2 14,862 1084 .339 .005 School SES 65,609 1 65,609 4784 .029 .012 Bullying × victimization × school SES 25,989 4 6497 .474 .755 .005 Error 5403,681 394 13,715 Total 18995,000 415 Corrected total 6259,094 414 a R2 = .137 (adjusted R2 = .093). Table options We could not find any significant difference between schools from low and high SES according to hopelessness level [F(1, 418) = 2.31, p = .129, ƞ2 = .006]. In addition, we performed stepwise regression analysis to predict hopelessness level. All verbal, indirect, and physical bullying and victimization variables were included in the analysis as independent variable, and hopelessness was included as a dependent variable. The regression analysis yielded two models. In the first model, being a victim of teasing was the only variable that predicted hopelessness directly (R2 = .018, β = .14, F(1, 408) = 8.56, p = .004). In the second model, being a victim and being a bully of teasing independently were the two variables that predicted hopelessness (R2 = .030, βvictim = .12, βbully = .12, F(2, 407) = 7.38, p = .001).