CVs
The article presents the main global achievements in the field of studying school bullying (bullying); problematizes the topic of the social context that generates bullying; shows the need to develop technologies for studying and preventing bullying in Russia. Keywords: bullying, victim, stalker, witnesses, school, teenagers.
At first glance, bullying is a private phenomenon in the field of educational psychology. However, this term originated originally in the process of studying adult groups. It seems that bullying occurs in almost every gated community — whether it's a military unit or an elite college — and the fact that children regularly face bullying at school is just an example of how common it is. Working on this topic for many years, in 1993, Norwegian psychologist D. Olvaeus published the widely accepted definition of bullying among children and adolescents: bullying is intentional, systematic aggressive behavior that includes inequality of social power or physical strength (Olweus, 1993a). His work introduced the phenomenon of bullying into the space of psychological science and made it visible, and this topic quickly became a trend in world psychology, and research in the field of phenomenology and technologies for preventing and stopping bullying began to develop rapidly. Their relevance is very high due to the serious consequences of bullying participants, including suicides.
A distinction is made between direct bullying, when a child is beaten, called names, teased, his things are ruined or money is taken away, and indirect bullying, spreading rumors and gossip, boycotting, avoiding, manipulating friendship (“If you are friends with her, we are not friends”). Sexually colored comments and gestures, threats, and racist nicknames may also be used. Direct bullying occurs primarily in elementary school, and indirect bullying peaks in middle and high school transitions (Farmer, Xie, 2007). Boys are more likely than girls to engage in bullying in different roles (Cook et al., 2010); they are more likely to be victims of physical bullying, money is taken away from them and ruined, threatened and forced to do something, while girls are more likely to be victims of gossip, obscene language and gestures (Finkelhor etal., 2005; Nansel et al., 2001; Olen weus etal., 2007). With the spread of the Internet, a new form of bullying has appeared — “cyberbullying”, bullying using modern technologies — SMS, email, social networks, etc. Our next article is devoted to this topic as a special type of bullying.
The first anonymous study conducted by D. In the 1980s, in Norway and Sweden, Olveus showed that 15% of children regularly face bullying: 9% are victims, 7% are stalkers, 2% learn both roles (Olweus, 1993a). According to 2007, 32% of students in the United States had experienced school bullying — ridicule, spreading rumors, whipping, spitting, threats, denial of communication, being forced to do things they didn't want to do, or damage to their property (Roberset al., 2010). A cross-cultural study of teenage bullying in Europe showed a variation: from 9% of boys in Sweden to 45% in Lithuania and from 5% of girls in Sweden to 36% in Lithuania experienced two or more episodes of bullying in the past month (Craiget al., 2009; Zaborskis et al., 2005).
The roles of participants in a bullying situation (victim, stalker, witness) are not rigidly fixed and can change from situation to situation and from community to community. However, researchers often say that there are internal prerequisites that help a child most actively learn a particular of these roles. Bullying participants often have characteristic personality and behavioral traits and have a number of associated social risks.
Bullying victims (“victims”)tend to be sensitive, anxious, prone to tears, are physically weak, have low self-esteem, have few friends, and prefer to spend time with adults (Olweus, 1993b). A typical bullying victim is a withdrawn child with behavioral disorders, negative self-beliefs, and social difficulties (Cook et al., 2010). These features can be both the consequences of bullying and its prerequisites — “signals” to other children that it is easy to become a victim (Cluver et al., 2010; Fekkes et al., 2006). Children with learning difficulties (Mepham, 2010), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, diabetes, epilepsy (Kowalski, Fedina, 2011), children with weight loss (Falk ner et al., 2001; Wanget al., 2010) and other disabilities and chronic diseases, especially affecting appearance (Dawkins), are at risk of becoming victims 1996; Magin et al., 2008; Hamiwka et al., 2009). 82% of teenagers who are undefined about their sexuality and are perceived as “too feminine” (boys) and “too masculine” (girls) or present themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (Garofalo etal., 1998) face insults, physical assaults and threats. Two-thirds of them feel unsafe at school, and these children's avoidance rate is five times higher than average (Kosciw et al., 2011). Possible associated risks: children who are victims of bullying experience health and academic difficulties, are three times more likely than their peers to have symptoms of anxiety and depression, apathy, headaches and enuresis, and to attempt suicide (Kowalski et al., 2011; Van DerWal et al., 2001). They tend to present the world as full of dangers and as unable to influence what is happening.
In pursuers (“bullies”) There is a willingness to use violence for self-affirmation and impulsiveness; they are easily frustrated, have difficulty following rules, demonstrate rudeness and lack compassion for victims, and are aggressive with adults (Olweus, 1993a). Although these children may appear to be loners with social skills deficits, they are not: they are less depressed, lonely, and anxious than their peers, and often have a high social status among them (Faris and Felmlee, 2011; Juvonen etal., 2003) and at least a small group of accomplices (Olweus, 1993a). They are good at recognizing others' emotions and mental states and are successful at manipulating children (Sutton et al., 1999). The main motives for bullying are the need for power, satisfaction from causing harm to others, and rewards — material (money, cigarettes, other things taken from the victim) or psychological (prestige, social status, etc.) (Olweus, 1993a). Possible associated risks: low academic performance and absenteeism, fighting, theft, vandalism, weapons possession, alcohol and tobacco use (Byrne, 1994; Garofalo et al., 1998; Haynie et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993a).
About 3% of children combine both roles: they aggressively provoke other children to harm themselves, or in some relationships in class they demonstrate patterns of aggressor behavior, while in others they become victims — these are the so-called “bully/victims”, or “provocative victims” (Olweus et al., 2007). They are often hyperactive, impulsive, clumsy, short-tempered, less mature than their peers (Kowalski et al., 2011); they often have behavioral problems, poor self-control, low social competence, difficulty concentrating and studying, and anxiety and depressive symptoms (Haynie et al., 2001; Gini, Pozzoli, 2009). These children are few, but they are the most difficult for teachers to work with (Olweus, 1993b), and they are the least popular among peers. Names but they show the highest rates of suicide and autoaggressive behavior (Kim et al., 2005).
Witnesses' position (“bystanders”) most participants are occupied by bullying situations. According to Canadian data, 68% of high school students have witnessed bullying at school (Trach et al., 2010). Almost all children (but the older the less often) report feeling pity for the victim, but fewer than half try to help her (Olweus et al., 2007), although the reaction of witnesses is extremely important in what is happening: joining the bullying and even the slightest approval (smiling, etc.) of witnesses rewards the stalker, and resistance or acceptance of the victim prevents further violence (Hawkins et al., 2001).). The social dilemma of witnesses: they should try to stop bullying while at the same time terribly losing their own safety and status in a children's team, which may be harmed by protecting the victim or reporting the incident to adults. Witnesses of bullying feel that the environment is insecure, afraid, helpless, ashamed for their inaction, and at the same time, a desire to join the aggressor. If the bullying persists, the ability of witnesses to empathize decreases. Bullying worsens the social climate in any community, contributing to the growth of a “silent majority” (Kowalski et al., 2011).
In addition to the individual and personal prerequisites of participants, the social context contributes to bullying. The family of bullying victims often practice either domestic violence (Ahmed, Braithwaite, 2004) or hyperprotection, which reinforces the child's helplessness (Smokowski, Kopasz, 2005); children who initiate bullying are also often abused in the family (Kowalski et al., 2011). The teacher's behavior determines the child's subjective sense of safety in the classroom; the teacher is a figure who can stop or support violence. The broadcast of violence in the media and the danger of the environment and community affect children's behavior; the risk of bullying increases in socially disorganized environments, with high levels of crowding, alcoholization and drug addiction (Ibid.). Bullying is a continuation of authoritarian ways of governing and oppressing the community as a whole. Bullying is not equally likely to occur at different times; family crises (e.g. divorce, parental remarriage) significantly increase a child's aggressiveness and vulnerability, increasing the risk of bullying as a victim or aggressor (Hong, Espelage, 2012).
Bullying has traditionally been seen as part of the “normal” path of growing up and a peculiar element of the educational process. The situation has only begun to change in the past 30-40 years. The studies carried out as part of the socio-constructivist approach made it possible to more clearly see the causes and ways of escalating bullying. Education is based on the transfer of knowledge and social principles within the framework of “student-teacher” power relations, where traditionally a student is perceived as a passive recipient and a teacher as an active donor of “good”. It is obvious that children use the same methods as teachers to streamline statuses and reduce anxiety about their position in the social hierarchy (for example, in the classroom), building relationships on power and control. Teachers respond to bullying based on various beliefs about bullying: a) normative (which does not involve special teacher intervention), b) assertive (which assumes the importance of children resolving difficulties on their own and developing their confidence and determination); c) avoidant (involving the teacher organizing a distance between the stalker and the persecuted and advising children on mutual ignoring) (Kochender Fer-Ladd, Peld, Peld Letier, 2008). Many myths about school bullying (bullying is the moment of growing up; teachers easily notice and stop bullying; bullying is caused by the child's exceptionality; some children will be bullied in any group, while others are never in danger) amnesty aggressors, blame victims and support the non-intervention of witnesses (Kutuzova, 2007, 2011), thereby stabilizing its ubiquity. The main responsibility for the presence of bullying at school falls on teachers who directly or indirectly give permission to this form of relationship.
The topic of bullying has been relevant to Russian culture and mentality for a long time, since coercion in conditions of inequality of power is traditionally and intensively present both in vertical relationships (parent-child, teacher-student, boss-subordinate) and in horizontal relationships (between colleagues, peers, spouses, siblings). This topic is included in studying the safety of the educational environment (Bayeva, 2002); a quarter of modern Russian teenagers have participated in bullying at least once (Sobkin, Markina, 2009), 13% of schoolchildren have experience as victims, 20% have experience as aggressors, and in big cities the level of bullying is higher than in rural areas (Enikolopov, 2010). However, the discussion of bullying and its socio-cultural background in Russia is mainly initiated by foreign studies and Russian examples (Kohn 2009); there are very few case studies, and they focus mainly on the characteristics of bullying participants. Thus, V.R. Petrosyants suggests that the choice of a role in a bullying situation is due to personality characteristics; victims are characterized by decreased self-esteem, self-acceptance, and strong self-blame, while persecutors are characterized by a positive self-attitude, self-esteem, self-acceptance, and high dependence on the group (Petrosyants, 2010). However, it is difficult to judge what characteristics are the cause and what are the consequences of participating in bullying situations. M.M. Kravtsova gives a phenomenological description of situations involving the treatment of outcast children, analyzes “name calls” and “teases” among adolescents, and, in order to stop bullying, suggests developing tolerance among teenage aggressors and increasing confidence in an outcast teenager (Kravtsova, 2005). This approach is quite traditional for Russian pedagogical practice, but it is more aimed at coping with the “symptom” than at preventing its causes.
However, bullying is not unique to the educational environment. Research in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and in military units has also shown the presence of destructive relationships hidden from the teaching staff, including coercion, threats, humiliation, various types of alienation of group members, and the use of physical force (Achitayeva, 2010). In modern sociological studies, conscripts are defined as “multi-level status systems of organized violence”, and it is not surprising that the space for humane communication in them is extremely limited. Violence acts as a consolidating factor (conscription, the formation of groups by force) and a means of self-organization (bullying, bullying). At the same time, bullying seems to be partly a way to cope with the emotional stress of being in forcibly formed groups. Soldiers' lack of motivation to complete their tasks (like many schoolchildren) also leads to the use of power differences to regulate obedience. In this case, bullying serves as a mechanism for ensuring appropriate behavior and is therefore secretly supported by teachers/officers (Achitayeva, 2010; Bannikov, 2000; Belanovsky, Marzeeva, 1991).
The “invisible” factors of bullying are the most difficult to study. Although there are components of violence and abuse of power in the family, in the professional sphere, in everyday life, in education, and in medicine, it is difficult for a researcher to discern violence and the conditions that support it in a habitually organized situation. A number of additional cultural-specific factors can contribute to bullying in Russian schools: the value of patience in children; the idea of the benefits of naturally “recycling” students' aggressiveness within the classroom; the authority of violence as a form of interaction; and the disruption of communication rules declared and practiced in education. To overcome these difficulties, educational work is needed with teachers to change the perception of bullying situations, their consequences for all participants, and ways to change the psychological climate in the study group. Important research focuses on the role of witnesses to bullying; the role of adults; and the development of adequate technologies to help participants.
In general, they loom three main approaches to studying bullying. In the first one, let's call it “dispositional” — the approach focuses on the individual characteristics of participants in bullying situations, the intrapersonal prerequisites that contribute to the child being a victim or aggressor in them. In the second, conditionally, “temporal”, the approach studies the uneven implementation of risks throughout life and emphasizes the existence of periods of sensitivity to life events that increase the child's vulnerability and increase the risk of developing the role of aggressor or victim in situations of bullying. The third one — let's call it “contextual” — emphasizes the role of the environment, the group's microclimate and systemic processes in the community in that the method based on inequality of power is becoming the dominant way of interaction between people: the context actualizes intrapersonal prerequisites and makes bullying from a risk to reality.
These approaches differ in terms of the goals of psychological work aimed at ending bullying situations. As part of the dispositional approach, the goal is to develop certain skills and qualities among the victim (primarily self-confidence and communication skills) and the aggressor (develop tolerance), and to work with their vulnerabilities. Working based on a temporal approach involves providing psychological support to children during age-related crises and difficult life situations and developing children's resilience and ability to use available socio-psychological resources. As a systemic phenomenon, bullying fulfills the task of establishing and maintaining a social hierarchy (Farmer, Xie, 2007): the initiator of bullying in this way maintains his status and lowers the status of another, and witnesses use this process to gain their place in the hierarchy. Therefore, in the contextual approach, the goal is to change the system of relations within a group or organization as a whole — to develop an alternative method for determining statuses in a group, where the important factor is not the difference in power, but the value of respectful relationships. This approach is more promising in terms of the long-term effect.
So, we tried to describe the main directions and results of bullying research. There is a serious shortage of such studies in Russia. An ambivalent attitude towards this topic is obvious, which is due, on the one hand, to the general negative experience of being an oppressed victim and the inability to resist the bearer of power, and on the other hand, to the familiarity of this method of communication and difficulties in choosing alternative practices.
We have shown different social levels and systems in which bullying behavior can be practiced. The discourse of coercion and violence is not born in a particular family or school; it is backed by layers of politics and culture, and we must remember that these levels are interrelated. In order to detect cases of disguised violence and reduce the manifestations of bullying in a particular institution, it is necessary to turn to the metaposition and ideas of social constructionism and study the dominant and marginal discourses in the community regarding power. Only by taking a clear ethical position and reflecting on the ideas of respondents and researchers themselves regarding the treatment of authorities can we consistently deploy alternative communication strategies to those based on inequality in status and power.
Achitayeva I.B. Destructive relationships in training groups of educational institutions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia: Abstract of thesis... PhD in psychological sciences M.M., 2010.
Bayeva I.A. Psychological safety in education: monograph.St. Petersburg: Soyuz Publishing House, 2002.
Bannikov K.L. In the army, as if in a zone: violence and humiliation have become the norm//NP NIA “On the trail of the Fatherland”. 12. 30.03.2000. [Electronic resource]. URL: //old. na sle -die.ru/voenpol/14_14/article. php／art=17.
Belanovsky S.A., Marzeeva S.N. Dedovshchina in the Soviet Army//INPRAN. 1991. [Electronic resource]. URL://www.sbelan.ru/content/de Military in the Soviet Army
Enikolopov S.N. Psychological problems of safety at school (stenogram).//Materials of the project “Education, Wellbeing and the Developing Economy of Russia, Brazil and South Africa” Psychological problems of school safety (stenogram). 2010. [Electronic resource] .URL: //psyjournals.ru/edu_econo-my_wellbeing/issue/36278_full.shtml
Kon I.S. The boy is the father of a man. M., 2009.
Kravtsova M.M. Outcast children: Psychological work with a problem. Moscow: Genesis, 2005.
Kutuzova D.A. Bullying at school: what is it and what you can do about it//Journal of a Practical Psychologist. 2007.No 1. C. 72—90 Kutuzova D.A. Bullying at school. Myths and Reality. 2011. [Electronic source] .URL: //medic labbor.ru/? p=294.
Petrosyants V.R. Psychological characteristics of high school students participating in bullying in the educational environment //Amis Siya. Electronic scientific journal. 2010. [Electronic throne resource]. URL:http://www.emissia.org/offline/2010/1479.htm
Sobkin V.S., Markina O.S. The impact of the experience of “school bullying” on teenagers' understanding of the film “The Scarecrow”//Bulletin of Practical Psychological Education, 2009. No. 1.C. 48-57.
Ahmed E., Braithwaite V.Bullying andvictimization: Cause for concern for bothfamilies and schools//Social Psychologyof Education. 2004. 7. 35—54.
Byrne B.J.Bullies and victims in schoolsettings with reference to some Dublinschools//Irish Journal of Psychology.1994. 15. 574—586.
Cluver L., Bowes L., Gardner F.Risk andprotective factors for bullying victimizationamong AIDS-affected and vulnerable chil-dren in South Africa//Child Abuse AndNeglect. 2010. 34. 793—803.
Cook C.R., Williams K.R., Guerra N.G., Kim T.E., Sadek S.Predictors of bullying andvictimization in childhood and adolescent:A meta-analytical investigation//SchoolPsychology Quarterly. 2010. 25. 65—83.
Craig W., Harel-Fisch Y., Fogel-Grinvald H., Dastaler S., Hetland J., Simons-Morton B. etal. A cross-national profile of bullying andvictimization among adolescents in 40countries//International Journal of Pub -lic Health. 2009. 54. 216—224.
Dawkins J.L.Bullying, physical disability, and the pediatric patient//Deve lop -mental Medicine and Child Neurology.1996. 38. 603—612.
Falkner N.H., Neumark-Sztainer D., Sto -ry M., Jeffery R.W., Beuhring T., Resnick M.D.Social, educational and psychological cor-
relates of weight status in adolescents //Obesity Research. 2001. 9. 32—42.
Faris R., Felmlee D. Status struggles:Network centrality and gender segregationin same- and cross-gender aggression //American Sociological Review. 2011. 76.48—73.
Farmer T.W., Xie H.Aggression andschool social dynamics: The good, the bad, and the ordinary//Journal of SchoolPsychology. 2007. 45. 461—478.
Fekkes M., Pijpers F.I.M., Fredriks A.M., Vogels T., Verloove-Vanhorick S.P. Do bul-lied children get ill, or do ill children getbullied? A prospective cohort study on therelationship between bullying and gealth-related symptoms//Pediatrics. 2006. 117.1568—1574.
Finkelhor D., Ormrod R., Turner H., Hamby S.L. The victim of childrenand youth: a comprehensive, national survey//Child Maltreatment. 2005. 10. 5—25.
Garofalo R., Wolf R.C., Kessel S., Palf-rey S.J., DurAnt R.H. The association betweenhealth risk behaviors and sexual orientationamong a school-based sample of adolescents//Pediatrics. 1998. 101. 895—902.
Gini G., Pozzoli T. Association between bul-lying and psychosomatic problems: A me ta-analysis//Pediatrics. 2009. 123. 1059—1065.
Hamiwka L.D., Yu C.G., Hamiwka L.A., Sherman E.M.S., Anderson B., Wirrel E.Arechildren with epilepsy at greater risk forbullying than their peers? //Epilepsy &Behavior. 2009. 15. 500—505.
Hawkins D.L., Pepler D.J., Craig W.M.Naturalistic observation of peer interventions in bullying//Social Development.2001. 10. 512—527.
Haynie D.L., Nansel T., Eitel P., Crump A.D., Saylor K., Yu K., Simons-Morton B. Bullies, victims and bully/victims: Distinct groupsof at-risk youth//Journal of EarlyAdolescence. 2001. 21. 29—49.
Hong J.S., Espelage D.L. A review ofresearch on bullying and peer victimizationin school: An ecological system analysis //Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012. 17.311—322.
Juvonen J., Graham S., Schuster M.A.Bullying among young adolescents: Thestrong, the weak, and the troubled //Pediatrics. 2003. 112. 1231—1237.
Kim Y.S., Koh Y., Leventhal B.Schoolbullying and suicidal risk in Korean middleschool students//Pediatrics. 2005. 115.357—363.
Kochenderfer-Ladd B., Pelletier M.E.Teachers' views and beliefs about Bullying:Influences on classroom managementstrategies and students' copying with peervictimization//Journal of School Psy cho -logy. 2008. 46. 431—453.
Kosciw J.H., Greytak E.A., Bartkiewicz M.J., Boesen M.J., Palmer N.A. J.G., Diaz E.M., Greytak E.A.The 2011 National SchoolClimate Survey: The Experiences OfLesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nationality's Schools. [Electronic resource]. URL://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/2897.html
Kowalski R.M., Fedina C.Cyber bullyingin ADHD and Asperger Syndrome popula-tions//Research in Autism SpectrumDisorders. 2011. 5. 1202—1208.
Kowalski R.M., Limber S.P., Agatston P.W.Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital Age.N.Y.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Magin P., Adams J., Heading G., Pond D., Smith W.Experiences of appearance-relatedteasing and bullying in skin diseases and their psychological sequelae: Results of aqualitative study//Scandinavian Journalof Caring Sciences. 2008. 22. 430—436.
Mepham S. Disabled children: The rightto feel safe//Child care in practice. 2010.16. 19—34.
Nansel T.R., Overpeck M.D., Pilla R.S., Ruan W.J., Simons-Morton B., Scheidt P.Bullying behavior among U.S. Youth:Prevalence and association with psychologi -cal adjustment//Journal of the AmericanMedical Association. 2001. 285. 2094. —2100.
Olweus D. Bullying at school: What weknow what we can do. N.Y.: Wiley-Black -well, 1993a.
Olweus D.Victimization by Peers:Antecedents and long-term outcomes //K.H. Rubin, J.H.B. Asendort (eds). Socialwithdrawal, inspiration, and Shyness.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993b. P. 315—341.
Olweus D., Limber S.P., Flerx V.C., Mul -lin N., Riese J., Snyder M.Olweus bullyingprevention program: Schoolwide Guide.Center City, MN: Hazelden, 2007.
Robers S., Zhang J., Truman J., Snyder T.D.Indicators of school crime and safety. 2010. [Electronic resource]. URL: //nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011002.pdf
Smokowski P.R., Kopasz K.H. Bullying inschool: An overview of types, effects, familycharacteristics, and intervention strategies// Children and Schools. 2005. 27. 101—110.
Sutton J., Smith P.K., Swettenham J.Social cognition and bullying: Social inade-quacy or skilled manipulation? //BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology.1999. 17. 435—450.
Trach J., Hymel S., Waterhouse T., Neale K.Bystander responses to school bullying: Across-sectional investigation of grade andsex differences//Canadian Journal of School Psychology. 2010. 25. 114—130.
Van der Wal M.F., de Wit C.A.M., Hirasing R.A. Psychosocial health among victims and offenders of direct andindirect bullying//Pediatrics. 2001. 111.1312—1317.
Wang J., Ianotti R.J., Luk J.W.Bullyingvictimization among underweight and
overweight U.S. youth: Differential associations for boys and girls//Journal of OfAdolescent Health. 2010. 47. 99—101.
Zaborskis A., Cirtautiene L., Zemaitiene N.Bullying in Lithuanian schools in 1994—2004// Medicina (Kaunas). 2005. 41. 614—620.
Alexandra Alekseyevna Bochaver, Head of the Laboratory for Social and Psychological Problems of Growing Up at the Perekrestok Center for Social and Psychological Adaptation and Development of Adolescents, Senior Researcher at the Laboratory for Social, Psychological and Sociological Monitoring Research of the Interdepartmental Resource Center for Monitoring and Expertise of the Safety of the Educational Environment of the Moscow State Pedagogical University, Candidate of Psychological Sciences
Kirill Daniilovich Khlomov, Head of the Center for Social and Psychological Adaptation and Development of Adolescents “Perekrestok”, Senior Researcher at the Laboratory for Social, Psychological and Sociological Monitoring Research of the Interdepartmental Resource Center for Monitoring and Expertise of the Safety of the Educational Environment of the Moscow State Pedagogical University, Candidate of Psychological Sciences
.png)
