Title: SRCD Biennial Meeting April 2003: The stability of victimisation behaviour
1SRCD Biennial Meeting April 2003 The stability
of victimisation behaviour
Sarah Woods, Dieter Wolke and Muthanna Samara
University of Hertfordshire, U.K.
VICTEC Virtual ict with empathic Characters
University of Bristol, U.K.
2Background
- Well documented evidence that social, cognitive,
behavioural and family factors are concurrently
related to bullying behaviour (e.g. Wolke et al.,
2001). - Few studies have considered the stability of
victim roles and have instead focused on the
stability of bully roles. - Paucity of evidence concerning the risk factors
associated with remaining, escaping or becoming
involved in victimisation.
3Background
- Studies have tended to focus on secondary school
samples rather than primary school. - Little is known about the stability of relational
victimisation in comparison to direct
victimisation. - Reliance on peer nominations (by class) does not
allow for comparison of bullying frequency across
schools.
4Research Questions
- What is the stability of direct and relational
victimisation behaviour among primary school
children in the U.K. over 2-4 years? - 2) What combination of factors predicts
- Remaining involved in victimisation?
- Escaping victimisation?
- Becoming involved in victimisation?
- for both direct and relational
victimisation.
5Study Design
- Longitudinal Investigation involving 17 primary
schools in Hertfordshire London, U.K. - Baseline Assessment Carried out 1996-1998 with
children aged 6-9 (years 2 4) - Follow-up Assessment Carried out when children
were aged 10-11 (year 6) 2 or 4 years after the
baseline assessment.
6Sample Data
N 666 potential children from 17 schools
Time 1
N 634 Assessed at baseline
N 202 original drop-out (3 non consent, 12
absent, 85 moved school
Time 2
N 432 Longitudinally Assessed
7Instruments Baseline follow-up
- Standard Individual Bullying Interview or Qaire
(Olweus, 1991) - TYPE
- Direct Bullying (e.g. hit/beaten).
- Relational Bullying (e.g. exclusion by friends).
- FREQUENCY
- Never bullied rarely/hardly ever bullied
- frequently bullied about once week/few times a
week.
8Instruments BaselineBehaviour Problems
- Strengths Difficulties Qaire (Goodman, 1997)
1.Emotional Symptoms Total Difficulties 2.Hyper
activity SDQ score 3.Conduct Problems 4.Peer
Problems 5.Prosocial Behaviour
9Instruments BaselineHEALTH
- Health Questionnaire (Wolke et al. 2001)
- 2 sections
7 items about physical health problems (PHP) e.g.
headache, tummy ache, sickness
7 items about emotional health problems (EHP)
e.g. bed wetting, nightmares
7- point scale (0-6 or more times over past 6
mths)
5 point scale (never to most days over past 6
mths)
10Instruments Baseline
- Other variables measured
- Special Educational Needs (SEN)
- No. friends/best friends
- No. rejected children
- Information about siblings
- Childs home situation (biological parents,
single parent, etc).
11Bullying Classifications
- Children were classified for direct (physical
verbal) bullying and relational bullying as - pure bully
- pure victim
- Bully/victim
- Neutral
12RESULTS
- Drop-out analysis and relational bullying.
- Stability of direct and relational victimisation.
- Risk factors predicting remaining,escaping or
becoming involved in victimisation.
13Relational Bullying status and drop-out rate
P lt .01
14Other factors associated with drop-out rates
- Children who had fewer friends within their
class. - Drop-outs rejected fewer children than those who
remained in the study.
15Risk Analysis
Risk factor
Outcome
Yes (a c)
Yes (a b)
a
c
b
No (b d)
No (c d)
d
16Relative risk and stability of victimisation
- Children classified as direct victims at baseline
had a two fold increased risk of remaining a
direct victim at follow-up compared to
non-victims at baseline becoming victims at
follow-up. - No long-term risk for children classified as
relational victims at baseline to remain a
relational victim at follow-up.
17Relative risk stability of direct victimisation
Baseline Time 1
Follow-up Time 2
N 37 (38.1)
Victim N 104
Victim N 97
N 60 (61.9)
N 67 (20.0)
Not victim N 335
Not victim N 328
N 268 (80.0)
RR 1.91 95 CI 1.37 2.66, chi-square
13.52, p lt 0.001
18Factors predicting remaining vs escaping direct
victimisation
Model chi-square 30.83 df 11 p lt 0.001, N
52
19Factors predicting remaining vs escaping
relational victimisation
Model chi-square 16.61 df 6 p lt 0.011, N 44
20Factors predicting becoming involved in
victimisation or remaining a non-victim
21Summary of findings Drop-outs
- Relational Drop-outs
- Have fewer friends.
- Are more frequently relational victims or
bully/victims - Reject many children.
22Summary Stability of direct vs relational
victimisation
- Direct victimisation is a stable behaviour among
primary school children over 2 yrs. In contrast
relational victimisation is not - Relational bullying becomes more prominent over
time. - Falling out with friends is frequent at primary
school. - The most affected victims had left the school
(selective drop-out).
23Summary Risk Factors
- Health problems served as a risk factor for
prolonged victimisation - More days absent from school.
- Appear weaker to peers and easy target.
- Friendships are a protective factor
- Allow children to develop adaptive successful
coping mechanisms. - Being female
- Females may not have other female or male peers
to help protect against direct victimisation.
24Conclusions
- Direct victimisation is a stable phenomenon
already among primary school children. - Relational victimisation is a less stable
behaviour among primary school children. - A lack of friendships, physical and emotional
health problems and being female all serve as
risk factors for remaining involved or becoming
involved in victimisation.
25Future Directions
- Important implications for early recognition of
victimisation among primary school children. - Befriending or peer network schemes.
- Early intervention strategies that allow learning
and adaptive coping.
26A New Intervention Victec
Victec (Virtual ict with Empathic Characters) is
a European funded project which aims to develop a
new and innovative approach to aid the reduction
of bullying problems in schools through the use
of synthetic characters and drama in a virtual
learning environment.
27Scenarios for VICTEC
- Our role is to help design scenarios for the VLE
about bullying, victimisation and friendship for
children aged 8-12 years old.
28Victimisation Scenarios
- Work has commenced towards developing scenarios
comprised of several episodes to depict bullying
behaviour. - There will be a maximum of 3 4 characters per
episode (e.g. bully, victim and bystander). - The environment to be modelled will focus on the
school context.
29Real vs Cartoon schools
REAL
CARTOON
30Victimisation Scenarios
- The scenario will begin with an introduction to
the main character (e.g. victim). - A tour of the school and classroom will then be
given highlighting some of the schooling history
and the other characters. - The first victimisation event will then occur.
The victim will ask the user what he/she should
do?
31Victimisation Scenarios
- Several subsequent episodes will follow depicting
similar incidents of direct victimisation but
maybe in different locations. - Users will be given the opportunity to try out
different coping responses after each episode. - Justification questions are to be used throughout
the VL interaction (e.g. Why did you choose to
tell the teacher?)
32Victimisation Scenarios
- Theory of Mind (ToM) questions are to be asked at
some point during the VL interaction to determine
whether there are individual differences between
b, v, b/v. - Possible endings for the scenarios might be to
give the child a summary story that has been
generated during the VL interaction.
33The VLE Demonstrator