See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304557292

Bullying and Discrimination in Schools: Exploring Variations Across Student Subgroups

Article in School psychology review · December 2015 DOI: 10.17105/15-0133.1

CITATIONS READS 6 449

2 authors, including:

Susan M Swearer University of Nebraska at Lincoln

90 PUBLICATIONS 2,697 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Susan M Swearer on 25 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. School Psychology Review, 2015, Volume 44, No. 4, pp. 504–509

Bullying and Discrimination in Schools: Exploring Variations Across Student Subgroups

Susan Swearer Bullying Research Network, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Shelley Hymel Bullying Research Network, University of British Columbia

Abstract. This commentary reviews the four articles included in a special issue of the School Psychology Review that address factors related to the bullying and discrimination among youth. The articles explore rather diverse topics within the broader literature on youth interpersonal violence, but each adds to our under- standing of the very complex nature of bullying involvement. In an attempt to understand this complexity, we view these studies through the lens of a social- ecological diathesis-stress model (Swearer & Hymel, 2015), considering the individual, family, peer, school community, and societal contexts in which youth interpersonal violence occurs, and how biological and cognitive vulnerabilities interact with stressors like to understanding the mechanisms at play in any particular incident of interpersonal violence. Together, the studies presented in this special issue contribute to our understanding of this complexity, reminding us that peers matter; educational placement matters; individual differ- ences in race, sexual orientation, and disabilities matter; and measurement mat- ters. It is perhaps this complexity that limits the effectiveness of current universal strategies for addressing such behaviors in school, but paves the way for more effective, multidimensional prevention and intervention efforts.

Bullying and discrimination are signifi- translating research knowledge to real solu- cant and long-standing social issues facing tions is proving to be more mysterious than students, educators, and adults; yet, the gap researchers could have predicted. The research between research findings and real, tangible presented in this special issue of School Psy- solutions seems to be growing. Researchers chology Review includes four theoretically and have studied these forms of youth interper- empirically derived, competently conducted sonal violence for decades (Hymel & Swearer, and analyzed studies, the results of which 2015), and why bullying and discrimination highlight four important factors that can in- happen is no longer a mystery. However, form translational research by expanding our

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to either Susan M. Swearer, Ph.D., Professor of School Psychology, 40 Teachers College Hall, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0345; e-mail: [email protected]; or Shelley Hymel, Ph.D. Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4; e-mail: [email protected]. Copyright 2015 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015, eISSN 2372-966x

504 Bullying and Discrimination

understanding of the truly complex set of also be influenced by the relationships that mechanisms and processes underlying youth exist and the roles that peers play. Defending interpersonal violence in our schools. Results might actually be related more to bravery and of these studies underscore how peers matter, courage than to empathy in such situations. As individual differences matter (race, sexual ori- illustrated in research by Rocke Henderson entation, disability), educational context mat- and Hymel (2011), student reports of defender ters, and measurement matters. We explore behavior are also predicted by reported feel- each in turn here. ings of anger, what Vigtalione and Barnett (2003) referred to as empathic anger in their Peers Matter research with adults. Poteat, Rivers, and Vecho, in their arti- Bullying has long been recognized as a cle, “The role of peers in predicting students’ peer-group phenomenon (Craig & Pepler, homophobic behavior: Effects of peer aggres- 1997; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Olweus, sion, prejudice, and sexual orientation identity 1993; Pepler, Craig, & O’Connell, 2010), with importance” shift our focus to the larger peer more than two decades of research demon- group. Applying a social-ecological lens and strating that the social structure of peer groups considering the influence of the peer group, greatly influences these behaviors (Faris & based on Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social Felmlee, 2011). Despite such recognition, the identity theory, Poteat and colleagues explore implications of peer processes for educational the unique and interactive effects of individual practice and prevention/intervention efforts re- and peer group factors (level of aggressive- main largely unexplored (e.g., see Farmer, ness, prejudice) on homophobic behavior. McAuliffe Lines, & Hamm; 2011; Hymel, They found that high school students were McClure, Miller, Shumka, & Trach, 2015). more likely to engage in homophobic aggres- Two of the studies in this special issue focused sion when they were in peer groups that were directly on peer influences in interpersonal aggressive and homophobic. Peer group violence. norms are a critical component in the perpe- Nickerson, Aloe, and Werth, in their ar- tration of bullying behaviors—rarely is bully- ticle entitled, “The relation of empathy and ing solely an individual or dyadic problem defending in bullying: A meta-analytic inves- (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Future research tigation” confirm through meta-analysis what aimed at understanding the interactions be- researchers and practitioners have assumed— tween individual values, identity and group that “upstanders” or witnesses who are willing norms, and collective identity will help edu- to defend and support peers who are victim- cators and researchers design interventions ized report greater empathy. Against this that take into account these important norma- backdrop, future research can focus on under- tive influences. standing the complexities of the relationship between empathy and the willingness of youth Individual Differences Matter (Race, to stand up and defend others in bullying sit- Sexual Orientation, and Disabilities) uations, as well as other factors that may fur- ther contribute to the likelihood of defending Three of the articles in this special issue behavior. For example, research by Vaillan- focus on recognized biases against others who court, Hymel, and McDougall (2003) empha- are somehow “different,” making them targets sizes the fact that bullying is about power and of discrimination and peer bullying. Research- powerlessness. How would defending behav- ers have long examined the relationship be- ior vary if the perpetrator is a friend? What if tween discrimination, race, ethnicity, and bul- a group of students is bullying? What if the lying (Juvonen & Graham, 2001). These three perpetrator is popular? A bystander in these studies extend our understanding of the com- situations might have high empathy but, actu- plexities of these relationships. As noted be- ally intervening and defending the victim may fore, Poteat and colleagues (this issue) dem-

505 School Psychology Review, 2015, Volume 44, No. 4

onstrate how individual and peer group factors disabilities. Students with intellectual disabil- interact in their contribution to youth ho- ities, however, were also more likely to per- mophobic behavior. petrate bullying and . The Tynes, Del Toro, and Lozada, in their primary focus of their research, however, was article, “An unwelcome digital visitor in the on variations as a function of educational classroom: The longitudinal impact of online placement, described in the next section. racial discrimination on school achievement motivation,” examined the connection be- Educational Placement Matters tween online racial discrimination and aca- demic motivation among African American It is clear from the research that school and Latino middle school and high school contexts are important contributing factors to students. Applying latent growth models in environments that either foster or inhibit bul- analyzing data over three years, they found lying and discrimination behaviors. Students that online racial discrimination negatively af- receiving special education services are gen- fected school achievement motivation, opera- erally seen as being at greater risk for involve- tionalized in terms of academic values and ment in bullying than are their counterparts in academic self-efficacy. Their findings under- general education (Swearer, Wang, Maag, Sie- score the far-reaching negative effects of dis- becker, & Frerichs, 2012). In their article, crimination on school performance and the “Bullying and students with disabilities: Ex- importance of school-based efforts to address amination of disability status and educational such behavior. The recent Ad Council cam- placement,” Rose, Stormont, Wang, Simpson, paign, “I Am A Witness,” might be an effec- Preast, and Green found that educational tive tool to combat online racial discrimination placement (i.e., whether students with disabil- (The Ad Council, n.d.). This campaign uses a ities were placed in a restricted versus inclu- free, downloadable keyboard with an “eye” sive school environment) also matters. That is, emoji that individuals can use to send a mes- students with disabilities who are placed in a sage that they “see” cyber-bullying. There are more restricted educational environment re- also supportive statements that can be mes- ported greater involvement in bullying (as saged to cyber-victims as well. This campaign bully and victim) than students with disabili- gives individuals electronic tools they can use ties who were placed in a more inclusive en- to combat cyber-bullying. vironment. Specifically, students with specific Finally, Rose, Stormont, Wang, Simp- learning disabilities and autism spectrum dis- son, Preast, and Green, in their article entitled, orders in inclusive classrooms, and students “Bullying and students with disabilities: Ex- with emotional and behavioral disorders and amination of disability status and educational intellectual disabilities in restrictive class- placement,” explore reports of peer bullying rooms, were more likely than their demo- and victimization among youth who have dis- graphically matched peers without disabilities abilities. Using data from a large-scale study to experience higher rates of fighting and vic- of students in grades 6 through 12, Rose and timization. In contrast to previous suggestions colleagues compared students with and with- that restricted educational settings might serve out disabilities who were matched in terms of to minimize the likelihood of peer victimiza- race, gender, and grade level, and documented tion (Rose, Espelage, & Monda-Amaya, variations in reported bullying and/or victim- 2009), restricted environments appear to be ization as a function of the type of disability less optimal in this regard, although it is not one has. For example, students with specific yet clear why this might be the case. One learning disabilities, as well as students with possibility is that students who are placed in intellectual disabilities, were found to be at such contexts tend to have more significant risk for greater victimization, including cyber disabilities and needs, placing them at greater and relational victimization, and were in- risk for bullying and victimization. Another volved in more fighting than students without possibility is that, in these restricted or segre-

506 Bullying and Discrimination

gated settings, the peer group consists of other often underground behaviors that are low in identified students, all of whom may exhibit frequency but involve multiple participants less socially competent behaviors, which in and are influenced by multiple factors is that turn can increase the likelihood of bullying there may be no single “gold standard” for and victimization. On the other hand, students assessment. Measurement continues to chal- without disabilities may still interact with lenge research in this area, as is reflected in youth identified with a disability who receive some of the findings reported in this special more restrictive services in social or unsuper- issue. vised settings (e.g., hallways, cafeteria, gym- For instance, in their meta-analysis of nasium), where they may be more likely to be the relationship between empathy and peer singled out because of a lack of familiarity or defending behavior, Nickerson, Aloe, and noticeable differences. The factors contribut- Werth (this issue) found that stronger effects ing to the documented differences in bullying were obtained when longer measures, includ- across educational placements remain a ques- ing more items, were used to assess key con- tion for future research. Given the importance structs. Based on this finding, scales consisting of context, it is plausible that some school of multiple items would seem to be preferable environments may be more conducive to bul- in our research. Yet other studies described in lying involvement than others. Consequently, this special issue (e.g., Rose et al.) assessed results from this study add to our understand- multiple constructs using three- to five-item ing of the complex set of factors that contrib- measures. Such practices are both understand- ute to bullying and victimization, document- able and commonplace in large-scale investi- ing the interactive effects of disability status gations attempting to explore multiple vari- and educational placements. Although it is ables as efficiently as possible. However, in laudable that this study matched groups of doing so, we may be limiting our chances of students with and without disabilities, it is a identifying key relationships. Trade-offs be- limitation that matching at the school level tween psychometric quality of measurement was not done. Future research on bullying and breadth of coverage continue to plague among students with and without disabilities research in this area and may be inevitable should try to match school contexts in addition given the costs and compromises involved in to student characteristics to elucidate the mul- conducting research in the schools. Neverthe- tilevel effects of placement and school envi- less, we need to find the balance that provides ronment on bullying experiences among stu- the best possible methodologies and research dents with disabilities. results.

Measurement Matters Social-Ecological Diathesis-Stress Understanding of Bullying Good research depends on psychomet- rically sound measurement. And indeed, re- Decades of research on bullying, dis- searchers have long debated the best ways crimination, and peer victimization have led to assess these nuanced, social behaviors both researchers and educators to recognize (Swearer, Siebecker, Johnsen-Frerichs, & just how complex the social stressors of youth Wang, 2010), with measurement issues can be, influenced by individual (i.e., neuro- framed as the “Achilles heel” of bullying re- biological and psychological), peer (i.e., peer search (Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006). Dis- norms, social identify), family (i.e., coercive crimination researchers have also addressed family processes, modeling of aggression), issues of measurement, owing, in part, to the school (i.e., climate and classroom environ- fact that discrimination behaviors tend to be ment), community (i.e., neighborhood vio- low-frequency events, albeit potentially pow- lence and disengagement), and societal (i.e., erful ones (e.g., Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & religion, polities, and group values) factors. Way, 2008). The reality of assessing complex, To best support those involved, we must con-

507 School Psychology Review, 2015, Volume 44, No. 4

sider the interactions among these factors, REFERENCES coupled with the experience of stressful Bradshaw, C. (2015). Translating research to practice in events such as bullying or discrimination bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70, 322– (see Swearer & Hymel, 2015 for a more 332. doi:10.1037/a0039114 in-depth discussion of the social-ecological, Cornell, D. G., Sheras, P. L., & Cole, J. C. (2006). Assessment of bullying. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. diathesis-stress model of bullying). As a re- Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and sult, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to inter- school safety: From research to practice (pp. 191– vention can only bring limited success at 210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of best. Given the complex nature of bullying bullying and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian and discrimination, and the many factors Journal of School Psychology, 13(2), 41–60. doi: that influence the likelihood of such behav- 10.1177/082957359801300205 Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observa- ior as demonstrated in this special issue, it is tions of bullying in the playground and in the class- likely that multiple approaches will be room. School Psychology International, 21, 22–36. needed to effectively address such problems doi:10.1177/0143034300211002 Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on in schools (see Rigby, 2012). To this end, and victimization: What have we learned the authors in this special issue have at- and where do we go from here? School Psychology tempted to consider the implications of their Review, 32, 365–383. Retrieved from http://www. nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/publications/ findings for education and intervention/pre- about-spr vention efforts. Given increasing demands Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network for knowledge translation and mobilization, centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross- gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76, such efforts have become a common and 48–73. doi:10.1177/0003122410396196 important feature in recent research. How- Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe Lines, M., & Hamm, J. V. ever, it is important to be cautious in the (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teach- ers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of Applied recommendations made regarding the impli- Developmental Psychology, 32, 247–256. doi:10.1016/ cations of findings from correlational re- j.appdev.2011.04.006 search, always recognizing the speculative Hymel, S., McClure, R., Miller, M., Shumka, E., & Trach, J. (2015). Addressing school bullying: Insights from nature of such recommendations until exper- theories of group processes. Journal of Applied De- imental research that can demonstrate cau- velopmental Psychology, 37, 16–24. doi:10.1016/j. sality is conducted. appdev.2014.11.008 Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of Not surprisingly, reviews and meta- research on school bullying: An introduction. Ameri- analyses regarding the impact of antibullying can Psychologist, 70, 300–310. doi:10.1037/a0038928 efforts over the past few years have shown Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2001). Peer harass- ment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and vic- some reductions in overall rates of bullying, timized. New York, NY: Guilford. although results vary across contexts and Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying inter- across programs (see Bradshaw, 2015; Mer- vention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention re- rell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Ttofi & search. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42. doi: Farrington, 2011 for reviews), with no evi- 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26 Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Cambridge, MA: dence of significant effects among secondary Blackwell Publishing. school youth (Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O’Connell, P. (2010). Peer pro- 2015). It is only when we fully understand the cesses in bullying: Informing prevention and interven- tion strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & complex nature of bullying and discrimina- D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in tion, and work collectively and compassion- schools: An international perspective (pp. 469–479). ately to create a culture of acceptance of all New York, NY: Routledge. Rigby, K. (2012). Bullying interventions in schools: Six individuals and groups, that such interpersonal basic approaches. London, England: Wiley-Blackwell. violence might cease to exist. Rivas-Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2008). A closer look at peer discrimination, ethnic identity, and psy- chological well-being among urban Chinese American FOOTNOTES sixth graders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 12–21. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9227-x Both authors contributed equally to the Rocke Henderson, N., & Hymel, S. (2011, March/April). manuscript. Peer responses to school bullying: The role of emo-

508 Bullying and Discrimination

tions and friendships in early adolescents bystander Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. problem-solving. In M. Sandstrom (Chair). Sympo- 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. sium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society The Ad Council (n.d.). I am witness. Retrieved from for Research in Child Development, Montreal, PQ. http://iwitnessbullying.org/ Rose, C. A., Espelage, D. L., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness (2009). Bullying and rates among stu- of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A sys- dents in general and special education: A comparative tematic meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimen- analysis. Educational Psychology, 29, 761–776. doi: tal Criminology, 7, 27–56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010- 10.1080/01443410903254864 9109-1. Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). bullying dynamic: Moving toward a social-ecological Bullying is power: Implications for school-based inter- diathesis-stress model. American Psychologist, 70, vention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychol- 344–353. doi:10.1037/a0038929 ogy, 19(2), 157–176. doi:10.1300/J008v19n02_10 Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen-Frerichs, L. A., Vitaglione, G. D., & Barnett, M. A. (2003). Assessing & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimiza- a new dimension of empathy: Empathic anger as a tion: The problem of comparability across studies and predictor of helping and punishing desires. Motiva- methodologies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & tion and Emotion, 27, 301–325. doi:10.1023/A: D. L. Espelage (Eds.) Handbook of bullying in schools: 1026231622102 Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. An international perspective (pp. 305–327). New (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs York, NY: Routledge. among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Maag, J. W., Siebecker, A. B., meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- & Frerichs, L. J. (2012). Understanding the bullying chology, 37, 36–51. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 dynamic among students in special and general educa- tion. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 503–520. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.001 Date Received: November 16, 2015 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity Date Accepted: November 16, 2015 theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Guest Editor: Chad A. Rose Ⅲ

Susan M. Swearer, Ph.D, is the Willa Cather Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her research has examined the relationship between internalizing and externalizing psychopathology and involvement in bullying and peer victimization. Current research is examining the effectiveness of an individualized, cognitive-behavioral intervention for bully perpetrators. Shelley Hymel, Ph.D., holds the Edith Lando Professorship in Social and Emotional Learning and is a Professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education at the University of British Columbia. She has studied human social development for over 30 years, with a focus on social-emotional learning in educational settings. Dr. Hymel works regularly with schools on issues of bullying, and has directed summer camps and classroom programs to facilitate social growth.

509 Copyright of School Psychology Review is the property of National Association of School Psychologists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats