Bullying, cyberbullying,pupil safety and wellbeing
An Indian-European Social SciencesResearch NetworkingProject
https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyingeuindian
Pupil safety and well-being, including bullying andcyberbullying, are vital issues.
Cross-national collaboration is limited, and contactbetween Indian researchers and European researchersalmost non-existent.
This network brings together four European and two Indianresearch teams to share their knowledge and expertise, andproduce joint publications and resources for practitioners,in five main themes.
Objectives of the network
The themes have been chosen for theirimportance in the field, and for the expertisepresent in our teams.
The aim is to increase knowledge concerning pupilsafety and well-being in school, and effectiveness ofprevention, intervention and anti-bullying work inall five countries.
Themes
Theme A: Use and abuse of new technologies includingcyberbullying
Theme B: Social networks in pupils including bullying roles andbystanders
Theme C: Life skills, health and risk-taking
Theme D: Influence of educational and cultural variables inmeasurement, explanation and theory-building
Theme E: Intervention strategies including teacher training,peer support and parent support
Themes
Dr Suresh Sundaram: [email protected]
Dr E. Joseph Alexander
G. Sajeethkumar
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, India
Punjabi University, Patiala, India
Dr Damanjit Sandhu: [email protected]
Dr Gurminder Sokhey,
Dr Naina Sharma,
Kirandeep Kaur, Shubhdip Kaur
Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Dr Alice Jones-Bartoli: [email protected]
Professor Adam Rutland
Fran Thompson
Hannah Smith
Emeritus Professor Peter K. Smith (Principal Investigator)
International Observatory of Violence in Schools, Nice, France
Professor Catherine Blaya: [email protected]
Dr Michael Fartoukh
Dr Rania Hanafi
Aurélie Berguer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany
Professor Mechthild Schäefer: [email protected] Manuel Stoiber
Anja Pfitzner
Tamara Bramböck
Catherine Hörmann
Netherlands Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, NetherlandsDr Frits Goossens: [email protected]
Dr Tjeert Olthof
Dr Nikki Lee
Dr Ruthaychonee Sittichai, Prince SongklaUniversity, Thailand
Professor Phillip Slee; Dr Grace Skrypiec; Dr Alison Wotherspoon, Flinders University,Australia
Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia
Dr Marilyn Campbell, University of Queensland,Australia
Associates
Munich, Germany: 21st-25th October 2012
Patiala, Punjab, India: 7th-11th April 2013
Nice, France: 7th-11th October 2013
Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India: 24th-28th
March 2014
Amsterdam, Netherlands: 4th-7th November 2014
London, UK: 6th-8th May 2015
Meetings
Bullying, Cyberbullying, Pupil Safety and Well-beingAn Indian- European Social Sciences Research Networking Project Principal Investigator: Emeritus Professor Peter K. Smith: [email protected]
Website: https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyingeuindian
Annamalai University, ,Annamalai
Nagar, India
Dr Suresh Sundaram: [email protected]..
Dr E. Joseph Alexander, G. Sajeethkumar …
Annamalai University,
Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Dr Alice Jones-Bartoli: [email protected] Adam Rutland, Fran Thompson, Hannah Smith, Emeritus Professor Peter K. Smith
International Observatory of
Violence in Schools, Nice, France
Professor Catherine Blaya: [email protected]
Dr Michael Fartoukh, Dr Rania Hanafi, Aurélie Berguer
Punjabi University, Patiala, India
Dr Damanjit Sandhu: [email protected] Dr Gurminder Sokhey, Dr Naina Sharma, Kirandeep Kaur, Shubhdip Kaur
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,….
Munich, Germany
Professor Mechthild Schäefer: [email protected] …………….
Manuel Stoiber, Anja Pfitzner, Tamara Bramböck, Catherine Hörmann
Netherlands Vrije Universiteit, .
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Dr Frits Goossens: [email protected] ……. Dr Tjeert Olthof, Dr Nikki Lee
The project: Pupil safety and well-being, including bullying and cyberbullying, are vital issues. Cross-national collaboration is limited, and contact between Indian researchers and European researchers almost non-existent. This network brings together four European research teams, and two Indian teams. We will share knowledge and expertise, and produce joint publications and resources for practitioners, in five main themes.
The themes have been chosen for their importance in the field, and for the expertise present in our teams. The aim is to increase knowledge concerning pupil safety and well-being in school, and effectiveness of prevention, intervention and anti-bullying work in all five countries. The themes are:
Theme A: Use and abuse of new technologies including cyberbullying
Theme B: Social networks in pupils including bullying roles and bystanders
Theme C: Life skills, health and risk-taking
Theme D: Influence of educational and cultural variables in measurement explanation and theory-building
Theme E: Intervention strategies including teacher training, peer support and parent support
Meetings: Munich, Germany: 21st-25th October 2012
Patiala, Punjab, India: 7th-11th April 2013
Nice, France: 7th-11th October 2013
Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India: 24th-28th March 2014
Amsterdam, Netherlands: 4th-7th November 2014
London, UK: 6th-8th May 2015
Associates: Dr Ruthaychonee Sittichai, Prince Songkla University, Thailand; Professor Phillip Slee; Dr Grace Skrypiec; Dr Alison Wotherspoon, Flinders University, Australia; Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia; Dr Marilyn Campbell, University of Queensland, Australia.
Indian-European NetworkTheme B: Groupdynamics
From an intercultural perspective to a prevention/intervention perspectiveMechthild Schäfer & Klaus Starch
RESEARCH QUESTION
Is there empirical evidence, that bullying is a robust phenomenon?
– Is bulling in indian classes as relevant as in german classes?
– Is bullying in indian classes as salient as in german classes?
SAMPLE
39.7
51.5
8.8
India (N= 911)
Girls (N=358) Boys (N=464) Missing (N=79)
28.4
64.5
7.1
Germany (N= 578)
Girls (N=164) Boys (N=373) Missing (N=41)
Instruments
• Participant Role Approach (Salmivalli et al, 1996)
–Social Status (Dodge, Coie and Copetelli, 1986)
• social preference (LM-LL), social impact (LM+LL)• perceived popularity
• Reading the mind in the eyes questionnaire(Baron-Cohen, 2001)
• Moral foundations questionnaire (Graham, Haidt & Nosek,
2008)
• Moral indentity questionnaire (Aquino & Reed, 2002)
Participant Role Approach (Salmivalli et al. 1996)
If kids are asked about preferred behaviors ofclassmates• nine in ten kids in class have a distinct role as
– bully– assistant– reinforcer– defender– outsider
Participant Role Approach (Salmivalli et al. 1996)
BullyDefender
Reinforcer
Assistants
Outsider
31.36
38.1
69.46
24.7521.86
46.61
23.3819.41
42.79
16.2313.38
29.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Sociometry PRQ Overall
Indian boys Indian Girls German boys German girls
AVERAGE NOMINATIONS RECEIVED BY SEX
6.412.9 13.1 11.5
26.3
10.2
19.6
2.4 2.4 3.7
37.8
22.6
9.1
22
5.49.9 9.7
1924.9
9.5
21.6
0
10
20
30
40
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim No role
Germany
Boys Girls Overall
5.48.8 10.3
18.1 21.1
10.3
25.9
2.2 3.4 5.3
23.719.6
8.9
36.9
3.7 6.7 8.1
19.9 21.2
9.4
31.1
0
10
20
30
40
Bully Assitant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim No role
India
Boys Girls Overall
PREAVALENCE RATES: INDIA - GERMANY
64.18 65.03 58.2449.6 52.98 54.56
35.82 34.97 41.7650.4 47.02 45.44
0
20
40
60
80
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
India
Boys Girls
68.75 65.3 68.5361.6 60.67
69.17
31.25 34.7 32.47 38.4 39.3330.83
0
20
40
60
80
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
Germany
Boys Girls
PERCENTAGE OF NOMINATIONS FROM BOYS AND GIRLS
80.85 80.89 76.7393.12 83.59 83.08
19.15 19.11 23.276.88 16.41 16.92
0
50
100
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
India: Boys and girls nominating boys
Boys Girls
76.47 70.83 70.85 76.29 69.88 70.29
23.53 29.17 29.15 23.71 30.12 29.71
020406080
100
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
Germany: Boys and girls nominating boys
Boys Girls
NOMINATIONS FOR BOYS?
12.12 10.53 9.81 5.15 8.76 9.77
87.89 89.47 90.19 94.85 91.24 90.23
0
50
100
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
India: Boys and girls nominating girls
Boys Girls
41.45 42.95 48.36 45.3956.62
44.9958.55 57.05 51.64 54.62
43.3855.01
0
20
40
60
80
Bully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
Germany: Boys and girls nominating girls
Boys Girls
NOMINATIONS FOR GIRLS?
-4
-2
0
2
4SP
PPSI
German pupils
-4
-2
0
2
4SP
PPSI
Indian Boys
-4
-2
0
2
4SP
PPSI
Indian Girls
Social Impact (SI), Perceived Popularity (PP), Social Preference (SP)
PROFILES FOR PARTICIPANT ROLES
Conclusions I
Bullying is interculturally robust phenomenon
– bullying-roles indicate a similarty of the bullyingprocess
– however in India restricted to a only-boys andonly-girls society even within one single class
METAANALYSES TELL ...
• most effective intervention comes out of the class itself
• in 25% of bullying incidents peersintervene
• two in three of these interventions area success
CRIMINAL LIABILITY VS VIOLATED RIGHTS
CLASS
VICTIM
DEFENDER
OUTSIDER
BULLY
ASSISTANT
REINFORCER
GROUPSDYNAMICS - neutralizing
Bully
Defender
GROUPSDYNAMICS – building up
BullyBully
Reinforcer
GROUPSDYNAMICS - downsizing
Reinforcer
Bully
Defender
LOOKING AT MORAL FOUNDATIONS
Individuating foundations– harm (empathy and caring is valued)– fairness (clear understanding of what`s wrong and
right)
Binding foundations– ingroup („one for all, all for one“)– authority (the necessity of leading is accepted)– purity (keeping one‘s record clear)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Harm
Fairness
IngroupAuthority
Purity
GermanyBully Assistant Reinforcer Defender Outsider Victim
MFQ PROFILES FOR PARTICIPANT ROLES
MORAL FOUNDATIONS
Bullies and Reinforcer• are higher on the binding foundations
(authority, purity & ingroup)• are lower on harm than other roles
Defender and Outsider• top the individuating foundations (harm,
fairness)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Harm
Fairness
IngroupAuthority
Purity
Germany: Probully GroupBully Assistant Reinforcer
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Harm
Fairness
IngroupAuthority
Purity
Germany: Antibully GroupDefender Outsider Victim
MFQ PROFILES FOR PARTICIPANT ROLES
Reinforcer
• are liked by bullies (like assistents) • perceived as the most popular in class
• reinforcers (like assitents) like bullies morethan bullies other bullies
• reinforcers nominate one in five bullies asmost popular (as defenders do)
OUTSIDER
• have an antibullying attitude• prefer indirect support for the victim• give direct support preferred to those they
are friend with
• have defending skills (30%)• can have aggressive tendencies (10%)
Prevention/Intervention
• is guided more by dealing with ressources thanby the intent to change behavior– might look for a social climate based on defenders
behaviors and values to protect the class frombullying
– might broaden up the perspective of reinforcers(high on ingroup) from within the probully group tothe whole class
– thus they might give less applause to the bulliesactions
– which might distract assistants attention fromthe bullies
CHANGING PERSPECTIVE IS CHANGING THE SYSTEM