TITLE OF PAPER: Girls, Bullying Behaviours and Peer Relationships: The
Double Edged Sword of Exclusion and Rejection
AUTHOR: Barbara Leckie
INSTITUTION: University of South Australia/Flinders University
E-Mail: barbara.leckie@unisa.edu.au
ABSTRACT:
Bullying is recognised to be a reliably identifiable sub-set of
children's aggressive behaviour (Dodge, Coie, Pettit and Price, 1990).
Whilst little appears to be known directly about girls' bullying
behaviours, recent research has shed considerable light upon related
fields. Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen, (1988) have revealed that
girls use indirect methods of aggression, such as spreading rumours and
excluding and ostracising others; and Crick, Bigbee and Howes (1996)
report that with relational aggression, girls' peer conflicts increase
in frequency and become more common as they move from middle childhood
to adolescence. Such socially manipulative strategies are also powerful
tools often used by girls to protect and maintain their peer
relationships and friendship dyads, which in turn reflect exclusivity,
intensity and disclosure. These behaviours appear to serve a dual
function: to protect existing friendships from the intrusion of others;
and to deliberately harm target girls through rejection and isolation.
Surveys which included both self report and peer nomination instruments
were administered to girls in individual classes from Year 6 to Year 10
(N = 987) in seven South Australian Catholic and Independent schools, 5
of which were single-sex and 2 were co-educational systems. This paper
will explore the apparent dual function of these behaviours and examine
the links between girls' peer relationships and bullying behaviours in
light of what is known about indirect and relational aggression.
Implications for co-operation and conflict management between girls in
schools will also be discussed.
RELATIONSHIP TO CONFERENCE THEME: RESEARCHING EDUCATION IN NEW TIMES:
Aggression and bullying in our schools are old problems. However,
little is known about girls' bullying behaviours, their perceptions of
these behaviours, the impact on the victim or the significance of their
friendships in relation to these behaviours. This research builds on
what is known and asks new questions relevant to a specific population
in our schools who have hitherto been ignored in this field: girls.
Introduction:
Bullying is recognised to be a stable, ongoing, intentional one-way
form of violent activity, involving a power relationship between a
victim who feels helpless and a perpetrator who has control (Olweus,
1978; Tattum, 1989; Smith, 1991; Slee, 1993; Rigby, 1996). Dodge,
Coie, Pettit and Price (1990) suggest that it can therefore be
considered to be a reliably identifiable sub type of children's
aggression.
Aggressive acts occurring between individuals involve a specific intent
to harm, but do not necessarily involve a power differential, nor
repeated negativity. These are distinctive characteristics of bullying
behaviours. It is therefore important to distinguish between aggressive
acts which occur between individuals/groups of equal
status/position/power, and bullying, where the victim generally feels
that they have less or no power. Acts of aggression can be considered
to involve a two-way process of attack and retaliation, whereby each
party has a relatively equal stake in the conflict. Bullying, however,
describes a one-way attack situation whereby the perpetrator has more
power and where the victim rarely retaliates or feels able to.
Whilst the key issues of: intent to harm; repeated and ongoing
negativity, and a power imbalance are generally agreed with, bullying
has however, been defined and conceptualised in many different ways by
researchers and educators. One of the earliest definitions was put
forward by Olweus who suggested that:
A bully is a boy who fairly often oppresses or harasses somebody else;
the target may be boys or girls, the harassment physical or mental
(Olweus, 1978).
The age groups and gender chosen by Olweus for his early studies in the
1970s reflected his interests in boy aggressors in the pre and
pubescent years and set the direction for the international research
that followed. Girls were largely ignored in this early bullying
research tradition, as their behaviours did not equate with the
traditional view of bullying: overt, direct physically aggressive
behaviours more usually associated with boys. Girls
appear to have been only commented on in passing within the bullying
hegemony.
The early reports thus indicated lower levels of girls' involvement in
bullying activities, which may have been an outcome of the definitions
used, or the overt, predominantly physically aggressive behaviours with
which they had to identify in previous research surveys. Thus, only
those girls who engaged in overt, physical bullying may have been
reported. The more subtle and covert forms of negative, aggressive
behaviour were not adequately recognised, identified or explored in
these earlier studies.
Girls have, however, more recently been compared to boys in terms of
incidence and age differences with regard to bullying. Research into
bullying has demonstrated that boys are more likely to be perpetrators
and victims of bullying behaviours than are girls (Siann, Callaghan,
Glissov, Lockhart and Rawson, 1994; Olweus, 1991; Rigby, 1994). Olweus,
(1991) further reported that boys were responsible for the large part
of bullying that girls are subjected to.
The gender of the bully and victim would seem of some importance here.
Most of the earlier research concentrated on male:male or male:female
bullying. Bullying and gender harassment, however, are not the sole
domain of male:male or male:female encounters. Given that there are
single-sex schools, where there are no boys present to be either the
perpetrator or the victim, any bullying which occurs in these
environments must be female:female. The corollary of this then, is that
co-educational schools would also have female:female bullying
incidents. To date, these behaviours which occur between girls have
been easily dismissed as girls "just being bitchy", and have thus been
vastly underestimated due to the fact that the main focus of bullying
investigations has been predominantly overt bullying.
The negative, aggressive interactions known to occur between girls, and
often referred to as "bitchy behaviour", reflect more subtle,
relatively invisible acts of aggression. Female:female bullying has not
specifically been investigated, however most recently, research in the
related field of aggression, has indicated that girls use indirect
forms of aggression (Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen, 1988) or
relational aggression (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995) when aggressing
against each other and that these are distinct characteristics of
girls' negative behaviours. In order to understand girls' bullying
behaviours more fully, then, it is necessary to understand the larger
set of girls' aggressive behaviours. Recent writings in the field of
bullying seem to have adopted these indirect and relational forms of
aggression as girls' bullying behaviours, without exploring whether
girls perceive them to be.
This research aims to assess girls' understanding of the concept and
nature of bullying as it relates to them, along with their perceptions
of indirect aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours.
Aggression:
Traditionally, research into aggression has shown that it was
considered to be a predominantly male phenomenon, defined generally as
behaviours that are intended to harm. Buss (1961) had reported that
female aggression was of little import and later studies supported the
belief that boys appeared to be more aggressive than girls (Maccoby and
Jacklin, 1974). Using predominantly observational techniques, this
research found that there were apparent gender differences, with males
preferring physical means, whereas females were more likely to adopt
verbal methods of aggression (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Block, 1993;
Parke and Slaby, 1993).
Feshbach (1969), in one of the earliest studies on the topic of gender
differences in aggression observed first graders responses to
unfamiliar peers and referred to the girls' responses as "indirect
aggression". Recent studies have further indicated that girls are
aggressive, but that they use qualitatively different methods of
aggression to those used by boys. Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen
(1988) identified indirect methods of aggression which are more common
to girls, such as spreading rumours, writing nasty notes, excluding and
ostracising others. These indirect behaviours are explained as being:
"socially sophisticated strategies of aggression whereby the
perpetrator can inflict harm on a target without being identified
(Bjorqvist, 1994, p179)".
Lagerspetz et al (1988) further suggested that girls' tighter social
structure made it easier for them to exploit relationships and
manipulate and harm others in these indirect ways. Bjorqvist, Osterman
and Kaukiainen (1992) referred to a type of
"social manipulation, whereby the aggressor makes use of the social
structure available to harm the target girl (p52)".
Whereas boys have been found to always be more physically aggressive
than girls, and both boys and girls have been found to engage in verbal
aggression to a similar extent, Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen
(1988) and Owens (1995) found that girls appear to adopt more indirect
methods as they get older.
Most recently, relational aggression (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995) has
been presented as being a form of aggression more typical of girls
which, like the work of Lagerspetz et al (1988) suggests that girls may
not be inherently less aggressive than boys, but instead express their
aggression differently. Defined as:
harming others through purposeful manipulation and damage of their peer
relationships (p 711)
relational aggression is concerned with such behaviours as:
purposefully withdrawing friendship or acceptance in order to control
or hurt the child; spreading rumours so that peers will reject her;
angry retaliation by excluding her from the play group (p711).
Further studies (Crick, Bigbee and Howes, 1996) assessed whether
children viewed relationally manipulative behaviours as "aggressive"
and found that relational aggression and verbal insults were the most
frequently cited harmful behaviours for girls. One reason that is
suggested for girls using relational aggression rather than overt
aggression, is because relationally aggressive behaviours damage goals
which are particularly important for girls (p 1003) and consequently
serve as effective means of gaining control or retaliating against
another girl.
Both indirect and relational aggression view the social structure as
the vehicle for these negative behaviours, due to the nature of girls'
peer relationships and friendships. Whilst little research has been
specifically conducted into girls' bullying behaviours, the current
research into the broader field of aggression: indirect and relational
aggression, sheds considerable light onto this field. The assumption
has been made, however, that these behaviours, because they are
predominantly found occurring amongst girls, are girls' bullying
behaviours
How girls themselves perceive these aggressive behaviours is of import.
If they consider them to be bullying behaviours, then they are
indicating that they represent not only an intent to harm, but they
fulfil the requirements of that sub-set of aggression: bullying: which
involves a power imbalance and is repeated over time. Girls would thus
be suggesting that these activities are one-way attacks, designed to
harm, where the perpetrator has power and control and the victim feels
helpless and powerless.
If they do not perceive them to be bullying, but do, as previous
research has already shown, perceive them to be aggressive, then girls
are indicating that these behaviours occur between parties of equal
strength/status/power and thus are part of the two-way attack and
retaliation process. As such, they may be part of the social repertoire
that girls have available to them to assist with the ebb and flow of
their friendships and relationships.
Friendship, Language, Acceptance and Rejection:
Since girls' aggressive behaviours appear to use the friendship and
peer relationship structure as a vehicle, it is of importance to
examine the nature of girls' friendships.
Research suggests that girls appear to have distinctive friendship
patterns that revolve around shifting, dyadic alliances which are
jealously guarded and reflect the notions of exclusivity, intensity,
intimacy and disclosure (Eder and Hallinan, 1978: cited in Adler, Kless
and Adler, 1992; Maccoby, 1990; Erwin, 1993; Thorne, 1993). These
fewer, but stronger friendships are suggested to contribute to girls
having better social skills, greater emotional intimacy and ease of
self-disclosure than do boys (Eder and Hallinan, 1978).
Traditionally, friendships are regarded as positive experiences for
children and are socially, cognitively and developmentally significant
(Bukowski, Hoza and Boivin, 1993; Parker and Asher, 1987; Parker and
Asher, 1993). The corollary of this then, is that girls who are not
accepted into friendships or the peer group, or who are rejected from
them, will suffer and be at risk for concurrent and long term
maladjustment (Kupersmidt, Coie and Dodge, 1990; Parker and Asher,
1987).
Communication between girls then, appears to be a central aspect of
their relationships. What is said, by whom, to whom and about whom
appears to assume increasing significance as budding friendships
develop, and girls' level of trust, loyalty and disclosure increases.
Once this bonding occurs, the relationship becomes something to be
jealously guarded and to be protected, which leaves the way open for
aggressive interactions between girls to occur when others try to
interfere in their relationships, take friends away, or cause these
relationships to falter.
Maltz and Borker (1983: cited in Maccoby 1990) report that among girls,
language is used as a social process, to either bind friendships, or to
reject others. Sheldon also found that when girls talk, they appear to
have a double agenda: to be "nice" and appear to sustain social
relationships, while at the same time are working to achieve their own
individual ends (1989: cited in Maccoby, 1990). This double agenda
then, raises questions of manipulation and intent: two of the key
factors in girls' aggressive behaviours.
Girls, then, use language more subtlely, manipulatively and indirectly
than boys, who have been found to use language more directively: to
command, threat or boast. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) suggest that girls
appear to have a higher level of verbal ability than boys and are
generally socialised to avoid overt, physically aggressive behaviours.
This may facilitate language being used as the central, manipulative
tool that serves to maintain, destroy or generally control
relationships in indirect ways. Bjorqvist, Osterman and Kaukiainen
(1992) suggest that when verbal skills develop, a rich amount of
possibilities for the expression of aggression is facilitated, thus
enabling girls to not have to resort to physical force (p 60). They
further posit that as social intelligence develops, so too does
indirect aggression. Rather than using overt, direct forms of
aggression and control, girls, with their higher level of verbal
ability and socialisation to avoid these behaviours, have developed
sharp tongues instead!
For the most part, girls' friendships represent positive and rewarding
experiences for those involved. Within this largely positive framework,
however, is a web of social complexity and manipulation that is
predominantly negative, not readily seen and is only just beginning to
be explored and understood by researchers. This negativity appears to
be part of the social fabric of girls' friendships and their peer
relationships as they go about accepting or rejecting others in the
peer group.
The negative interactions that occur between girls have often been
referred to as "bitchy behaviours" and are consequently often
trivialised and dismissed by parents and teachers without considering
the purpose, the impact or the ongoing effect on the target girl. If,
as it is now recognised that these behaviours form part of the
aggressive repertoire that girls have available to them, then they need
to be taken more seriously. Should girls perceive that these behaviours
are bullying, however, then they take on the mantle of being somewhat
more sinister than either mere bitchiness or outright aggression.
This paper will report on girls' understanding of the concept of
bullying and their perceptions of indirect aggressive behaviours as
bullying behaviours, within the context of the nature of girls'
relationships.
Method:
Subjects:
Surveys which included both self-report and peer nomination instruments
were administered to girls in individual classes randomly drawn from
Year 6 to Year 10 (N = 987) in seven South Australian Catholic and
Independent schools, 5 of which were single-sex and 2 were
coeducational systems. The schools were drawn from across Adelaide,
providing a socioeconomic and structural cross section. There was no
attempt to match schools due to the number of the variables involved. A
survey questionnaire was administered by the researcher, and the data
was collected between July and September (Term III) by which time the
girls had spent at least six months together. The sample was composed
of: 160 year 6 (Mean age 10.9); 162 year 7 (Mean age 11.9); 148 year 8
(Mean age 12.9); 184 year 9 (Mean age 13.9); and 148 year 10 (Mean age
14.9) girls. The mean age for the entire sample was 12.9 years.
Survey Instruments:
The survey booklet contained six sections, providing both quantitative
and qualitative data which explored the following:
A: Sociometric Status and Friendship: Is the Child Liked? (Coie, J.D.,
Dodge, K.A. & and Coppotelli, H. ,1982; Asher, S.R. & Dodge, K.A.,
1986)
B: Revised Class Play (Masten, A.S., Morison, P and Pelligrini, D.S.,
1985) What is the Child Like?
C: General Demographics
D: Modified Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ)(Rigby, K., and Slee, P.T.
,1995)
E: Modified Direct and Indirect Aggressive Behaviour Scale (DAIS)
(Bjorqvist, K. Lagerspetz, K.M.J. & Osterman, K., 1992)
F: Type of Language Used By Girls
This paper will only address certain aspects of the research undertaken
using the Modified Peer Relations Questionnaire and the Direct and
Indirect Aggression Scale (DAIS)
Modified PRQ:
Selected questions from this instrument, which was designed by Rigby
and Slee (1995) to reveal information about a student's bullying/victim
experiences at school developed, were included.
Validity:
Inter-correlations of the scores from the different measures of
peer-victimisation, for both boys and girls have been reported as
highly significant (p<.001, Rigby and Slee, 1995, p 4). Correlations
between peer nomination and self-reports also reveal significance
(p<.001), with correlations tending to be greater for boys and physical
bullying.
Reliability:
Cronbach alphas for the Victim scale are reported to be greater than
.75 for both boys and girls (p4) implying a level of acceptable
reliability.
To assess the girls' understanding of the concept of bullying in
general, this study, unlike previous research, did not give the girls a
definition of bullying. Rather, it presented them with the key
components of several definitions: Power imbalance; intent to harm; and
ongoing over time and asked them to indicate on a four point scale
ranging from 1=never to 4=always, which aspects they most agreed with:
* Bullying involves a more powerful student against a weaker student
* Bullying is when someone harms another student on purpose
* Bullying occurs repeatedly and goes on over time
To assess girls' understanding of the nature of girls' bullying, girls
were asked to use the same scale (1=never to 4=always) to determine
which activities they perceived bullying amongst girls to involve:
* Bullying is a physical act
* Bullying is a verbal act
* Bullying inflicts mental hurt on another student (psychological)
Modified DAIS:
Based on the items used by Bjorqvist, Lagerspetz and Ostermann (1992),
this instrument consisting of 22 different behaviours, is specifically
designed to elicit girls' experiences and perceptions of indirect
aggressive behaviours. Girls in this survey were asked to indicate
whether or not they perceived them to be bullying behaviours and to
also indicate on a three-point scale, how often they had been victims
(victim self-report) of these behaviours that year.
Validity:
The original instrument developed by Bjorqvist et al (1992) over
several studies with subjects of different age groups has revealed
through factor analysis, three scales which reflect different types of
aggression: direct physical; direct verbal and indirect aggressive
behaviours. Owens and MacMullin (1995) report that in their study, all
items loaded satisfactorily onto the principal factor (p25) and support
the precept that the items are valid measures of each scale.
Reliability:
Scales are reported to have high levels of internal consistency
(Bjorqvist et al, 1992) and Cronbach alphas ranging from .80 to .94 are
revealed. Owens and MacMullin (1995, p 25) report Kaiser-Caffrey alpha
reliability coefficients ranged from .78 to .96. The modified items of
indirect aggressive behaviours used in this survey presented a
reliability coefficient of .92.
Results
Bullying
Girls' Understanding of Bullying:
Mean responses from all girls: Years 6 to 10; report that their
understanding of the concept of bullying does support previous
research. Using a four point scale: 1=never; 2=sometimes; 3=often; and
4= always: girls perceive that bullying amongst girls:
* often involves a deliberate intent to harm (Mean response: 3.2);
* often involves a power imbalance (Mean response 3.0) and is
* often repeated and ongoing over time (Mean response 2.7) (see figure
1).
There is a lovely graph missing from here due to .txt format: Just
imagine it from the Mean responses of: 3.2 (Intent); 3.0 (power) and
2.7 (repeated)!!! This and the other graphs appear in the printed copy
of the paper.
Further analyses were conducted to ascertain whether girls from the
primary school years (6 & 7) differed from girls in the secondary
school years (8,9 & 10) in their understanding of the concept of
bullying. There were no differences found between the systems for each
of the three concepts indicating that girls in both primary and
secondary schools equally understand
the concept of bullying (see figure 2).
Another lovely graph is missing which demonstrated this point!
Girls' Understanding of the Nature of Girls' Bullying (Figure 3)
Mean responses from all girls: Years 6 to 10; report that their
understanding of the nature of bullying does support previous research.
Using a four point scale: 1=never; 2=sometimes; 3=often; and 4= always:
girls perceive that the nature of girls' bullying is:
* never physical (mean response 1.3)
* sometimes/often verbal (mean response 2.7) and
* often psychological (mean response 3.1)
These findings appear to reflect current research which reports that
boys more often engage in physical acts of bullying, and that girls are
more likely to use psychological means.
Another lovely graph is missing!
Further analysis explored the difference between primary and secondary
students in their understanding of the nature of bullying behaviours,
and found that for each of the three aspects: physical, verbal and
psychological, there was no significant difference between primary or
secondary students in their perceptions (see figure 4).
The last graph which is missing!!
Modified DIAS
Given that girls had established that their understanding of the
concept of bullying reflects previous research, analyses were then
conducted to assess their perceptions of the items on the Direct and
Indirect Aggression scale as bullying behaviours.
It was hypothesised that girls would perceive the direct physical,
direct verbal and indirect aggressive behaviours to be bullying, given
their understanding of the concept and nature of bullying.
Because the data were in the form of percentages, analyses involved
chi-square tests when the relation between two variables (Yes/No) was
assessed.
Girls' Perceptions Of Direct Physical Behaviours as Bullying Behaviours
Chi square analysis reveals that girls very clearly identify that
direct physically aggressive behaviours are bullying behaviours,
therefore indicating that there is deliberate intent to harm; a power
differential between the parties and that it is repeated and ongoing
over time (see Table 1).
Table 1
Girls' Perceptions of Direct Physical Behaviours as Bullying Behaviours
Behaviour: % Yes Response:Significance
Demanding money or valuables:85.6% yes: Chi Square (1) = 290.92,
p<.0001
Hitting is bullying:85.0% yes: Chi Square (1) = 282.32, p<.0001
Kicking is bullying:83.8% yes: Chi Square (1) = 264.04, p<.0001
Punching:83.0% yes: Chi Square (1) = 250.69, p<.0001
Pinching:70.3% yes: Chi Square (1) = 94.75, p<.0001
Girls' Perceptions of Direct Verbal Behaviours as Bullying Behaviours
The analysis reveals that girls also very clearly identify direct
verbally aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours, therefore
suggesting that they fulfill the requirements of the definition:
repeated, ongoing negativity, deliberately intended to harm, involving
a power differential between the parties involved.
Table 2
Girls' Perceptions of Direct Verbal Behaviours as Bullying Behaviours
Behaviour: % Yes Response:Significance
Teasing is bullying:85.7% yes: Chi Square (1) = 296.43, p<.0001
Hassling or Bothering Deliberately:84.1% yes: Chi Square (1) = 265.91,
p<.0001
Calling Names:77.8% yes: Chi Square (1) = 175.99, p<.0001
Criticising Other's Appearance:71.0% yes: Chi Square (1) = 100.39,
p<.0001
Telling Others They Have Germs/Nits/Disease:66.4% yes: Chi Square (1) =
61.46, p<.0001
Girls' Perceptions of Indirect Aggressive Behaviours as Bullying
Behaviours
These analyses indicate that girls across all ages and year levels
perceive most of these indirect aggressive behaviours to be bullying
behaviours. Of the ten behaviours presented:
7 were significant in the affirmative:
Spreading Rumours, Chi Square (1) = 87.41, p<.005
Writing Nasty Notes, Chi Square (1) = 66.73, p<.0001
Telling Bad/False Stories, Chi Square (1) = 57.58, p<.0001
Saying Bad Things Behind Backs, Chi Square (1) = 51.93, p<.0001
Gossiping, Chi Square (1) = 15.72, p<.0001
Shutting Out, Chi Square (1) = 9.24, p<.005
Deliberately Not Invite To Parties, Chi Square (1) = 5.54, p=.019
1 was significant in the negative;
Telling Others To Not Be With Certain Girls (Excluding), Chi Square
(1) = 14.02, p = .0002
and only 2 were not significant (see Table 3).
These results indicate that girls perceive that 7 of indirect
aggressive behaviours are bullying behaviours: spreading rumours;
writing nasty notes; telling bad/false stories; saying bad things
behind backs; gossiping; shutting out; and deliberately not inviting
others to parties and are thus ongoing and repeated over time; involve
a power imbalance, and are deliberately intended to harm the target
child.
The one behaviour that was significant in the negative: excluding,
indicates that girls do not perceive this behaviour to be bullying.
That is, they do not perceive that exclusion involves intent to harm, a
power imbalance or ongoing negativity.
Table 3
Girls' Perceptions of Indirect Aggressive Behaviours as Bullying
Behaviours
Behaviour: % Yes Response:Significance
Spreading Rumours:69.5% yes: Chi Square (1) = 87.41, p<.005
Writing Nasty Notes:67.2% yes: Chi Square (1) = 66.73, p<.0001
Telling Bad/False Stories:65.9% yes: Chi Square (1) = 57.58, p<.0001
Saying Bad Things Behind Backs:65.2% yes: Chi Square (1) = 51.93,
p<.0001
Gossiping:58.4% yes: Chi Square (1) = 15.72, p<.0001
Shutting Out:56.3% yes: Chi Square (1) = 9.24, p<.005
Deliberately Not Invite To Parties:55.0 yes: Chi Square (1) = 5.54,
p<.05
Revealing Others' Secrets:53.3% yes: Chi Square (1) = 2.53, p=.112
Deliberately Ignoring:50.8% yes: Chi Square (1) = 0.14, p=.707
Telling Others To Not Be With Certain Girls (Excluding):42.1% yes: Chi
Square (1) = 14.02, p = .0002
Age Related Changes
Further chi-square analyses were conducted to ascertain whether there
were any developmental differences in girls' perceptions that indirect
aggressive behaviours are bullying behaviours (see Table 4). Of the
seven behaviours previously determined as bullying behaviours across
the sample, significant age related differences in girls' perceptions
were found in five:
spreading rumours, Chi Square (4) = 16.60, p<.005);
writing nasty notes, Chi Square (4) = 9.88, p <.05;
telling bad/false stories, Chi Square (4) = 14.11, p=.007;
shutting others out, Chi Square (4) =10.12, p<.05;
deliberately ignoring, Chi Square (4) = 9.61, p<.05
These age related trends appear to support previous research which has
suggested that there is an increase in bullying around the beginning of
secondary school and tapers off over Years 9 and 10. (Rigby, 1996) (see
Table 4).
Table 4
Percentage of Girls' Responses to Indirect Aggressive Behaviours Are
Bullying
Behaviours By Behaviour Category and Grade
Behaviours:Yr 6:Yr 7:Yr 8:Yr9:Yr 10:Significant for Year Level
Spreading Rumours **:63:66:79:73:66: Chi Square (4) = 16.60, p<.005
Writing Nasty Notes *:64:70:72:66:65: Chi Square (4) = 9.88, p <.05
Talking Behind Others' Backs :66:64:69:60:68
Telling Bad/False Stories **:63:64:72:68:62: Chi Square (4) = 14.11,
p=.007
Gossiping :61:64:55:57:55
Shutting Others Out *:56:54:56:55:60: Chi Square (4) =10.12, p<.05
Deliberately Not Inviting :48:42:56:43:39
Revealing Secrets :56:53:58:51:50
Deliberately Ignoring *:49:47:54:50:53: Chi Square (4) = 9.61, p<.05
Telling Others Not to Be With Certain Girls (Excluding) :47:41:50:37:38
p<.05 * p<.01** p<.001*** For Whole Sample
Discussion
Girls' Understanding of the Concept of Bullying.
Unlike previous studies on bullying, this study selected a girl only
population, and all questions in the survey related to activities that
occur specifically between girls. Rather than present girls with a
definition of bullying, as has been done in the past, this study
presented girls with a series of choices, thus enabling them to
indicate which of the factors were relevant to them. Past research
definitions have focused on direct, overt behaviours which girls have
not necessarily engaged in, nor related to and thus girls appear to
have been under-represented in the bullying literature. By subdividing
the key issues, a clearer picture regarding girls' perceptions of
bullying emerges.
With regard to their understanding of the concept of bullying, girls in
this study have demonstrated that their perceptions of bullying are
consistent with previous research. They clearly understand that
bullying is about deliberate intent to harm; involves two parties of
unequal status/power and is not an isolated incident, but occurs
repeatedly. The finding of no difference between primary and secondary
students in their understanding, supports the view that there is a
common understanding of this phenomenon.
That girls did not determined bullying to be always about these issues
raises some interesting questions, however. By responding that bullying
was often about these issues, rather than always, it begs the
question....what else is bullying about for girls? If it is not always
about intent to harm, what is the intent? If it not always about power
imbalances, is it about struggles for power between similar status
girls? If it is not always repeated and continued over time, does it
only last for the life of the struggle? Continued investigations into
girls' perceptions and understanding of the concept of bullying are
thus required.
Girls' Understanding of the Nature of Bullying:
With regard to the nature of bullying, the mean responses reveal a
picture which indicates that amongst girls, bullying is often
psychological ; sometimes verbal; and never physical. These findings
are consistent with recent research into aggression, which suggest that
girls are aggressive, but are more likely to use more subtle and covert
means. Given that earlier research emphasised the more overt, physical
bullying behaviours, and did not address the more covert, psychological
modes of aggressing, it is not surprising that girls were initially
considered to be less involved in bullying.
Girls in this study have articulated that their understanding of
bullying revolves around deliberate intent to harm, power differences
and repeated negativity that goes on over time and that it is more
often psychological in nature. Given this, the structure of girls'
friendships would appear to be of importance in that it allows girls to
employ these methods.
Girls' friendships are predominantly tight dyads operating within
larger cliques, which promote exclusivity, intimacy and disclosure.
Within the safety of a friendship, girls often reveal intimate secrets
to each other, which assist in the bonding of the relationship. Because
girls self-disclose more readily to their friends, they may then be
more vulnerable to abuse when the relationship breaks down. Intimate
secrets, once part of the language of friendship, when deliberately
and maliciously revealed to others with the express intent to harm,
become the weapon to be used against the former friend, exposing the
girl to teasing, ridicule and rejection. A relationship which was once
equal in terms of power and status, thus becomes unbalanced, with one
girl gathering support from others, whilst the other is rejected,
ostracised and excluded.
The structure and nature of girls' friendships thus provides the
vehicle for bullying when a relationship breaks down, in that they
enable the power balance to become one-sided and allow for ongoing
manipulation and negativity by rallying others to assist and take
sides.
Girls' Perceptions of Direct Physical Behaviours As Bullying Behaviours
Direct physically aggressive behaviours: such as hitting; kicking;
pinching; punching; and demanding money or valuables; reflect the types
of behaviours generally addressed in earlier studies and represent the
stereotypical view of bullying as being an overt, aggressive act
involving physical intimidation of a weaker individual. That girls in
this study clearly accept these to be bullying behaviours, reflects
their belief in and acceptance of the stereotype: bullies are dominant,
overt, physical and hurtful.
Girls in this study have articulated that bullying between girls is
never physical, thus, whilst acknowledging that direct physical
behaviours represent bullying behaviours, they are indicating that they
do not represent activities in which they usually engage. This is not
to say that physically aggressive acts do not occur between girls, for
they do, but these results indicate that they are not indicative of
girls' bullying behaviours. In earlier research, girls were not given
the opportunity to articulate their perceptions of these behaviours.
They were simply asked whether or not they bullied others in these
ways. Their negative responses consequently generally reflected and
supported the perceived gender differences which existed at the time:
boys were the bullies, and girls were not! It is little wonder that
girls did not have a high "bullying profile" in the earlier research.
Girls' Perceptions Of Direct Verbal Behaviours as Bullying
The direct verbal behaviours: teasing; hassling; name calling;
criticising others' appearances; do however reflect activities in which
girls engage, and prior research has indicated that both girls and boys
are involved in these activities to a similar extent. These behaviours
have often been associated with girls being bitchy, however, by
asserting that these are bullying behaviours, girls in this study are
elevating them beyond this. They are suggesting that these behaviours
are not trivial, but are deliberate attacks designed to harm; to put
others down; to intimidate and control and are not one-off events.
These direct verbal behaviours appear to be the tools girls use to
assert their power, dominance and control over others. Girls do not
need to use physical force to assert themselves, when they can use
their knowledge of secrets as the language of power to attack and
mobilise others from a position of superior power or strength. As part
of this ongoing research, further investigation of the sociometric
status of the girls should reveal further information regarding their
perceptions of these behaviours. Controversial, popular and rejected
status girls may shed more light on girls' perceptions of these and the
other behaviours being examined.
Girls' perceptions of Indirect Aggressive Behaviours as Bullying
Behaviours
The following Indirect behaviours: spreading rumours; writing nasty
notes; telling bad/false stories; saying bad things behind their backs;
gossiping; shutting others out of the group; and deliberately not
inviting others to parties; are perceived to be bullying behaviours by
girls in this study. According to their understand of the concept and
nature of bullying then, they are suggesting that these are deliberate,
intentionally harmful, repeated activities which make use of power
differentials between the girls; are generally not physical acts, are
sometimes verbal but more often psychological in design. They are
therefore not activities to be trivialised or ignored in our schools.
These behaviours are not just girls being bitchy towards each other, as
has often been implied. Bitchiness implies nastiness, negativity,
spite, complaining about and fault finding in others, and is certainly
unpleasant, but does not imply oppression of others, dominance and
control, and deliberate intent to harm.
Unlike direct behaviours, indirect activities specifically involve the
use of other girls and are designed to alienate and harm victims
without the perpetrator being easily identified. This negative social
manipulation, which involves rallying and mobilising others into
support against another girl/s, deflects the attention away from the
initiator, thus allowing her to remain unidentified. As others become
involved, her aggression, her involvement, and her intent become
effectively disguised. This then enables the protagonist's reputation
to remain unsullied, which is important for her in terms of her ongoing
status and popularity with the peer group and even her reputation with
the teacher.
Because these indirect behaviours are more difficult to observe, and
are more covert they thus allow the perpetrator to disguise and conceal
her aggression and intent. It is little wonder that earlier studies
into bullying behaviours, which focused on overt, direct, mostly
physical acts, did not pick up on these activities which appear to be
related specifically to girls. Whilst the assumption has been made in
recent times that these behaviours are used by girls to bully others,
this study is the first which articulates girls' perceptions of these
activities.
The only behaviour declared definitely to NOT be bullying:
telling others to not be with certain girls (excluding)
is a surprising result and raises questions regarding the purpose of
this activity.
Girls in this study have indicated that this particular activity, of
manipulating and rallying others, of mobilising them to exclude another
girl/s does not meet the requirements of their understanding of
bullying behaviour. Anecdotal evidence, however, from teachers, parents
and girls, suggests that exclusion is one of the main negative
behaviours in which girls engage, and is one of the most hurtful.
In light of our knowledge of the exclusivity, intensity and intimacy of
girl's friendships, it could be that the intention of telling others
not to be with certain girls, or exclusion, is not to aggress, but is
to defend that which already exists: the status quo; the existing
relationship, or clique, which is perceived to be under threat from
other girls. Girls would be unlikely to construe this as an aggressive
or indeed bullying behaviour, then, if the intention of it is not to
harm.
Girls jealously guard their friendships, and select who is accepted or
not into the inner sanctum. Therefore, in order to protect and maintain
their important mutual friendships from interference by others who may
want "to take friends away", girls may purposefully, indirectly and
often via a third party, manipulate, ostracise and victimize others.
Here the intent is perceived as a positive action: to preserve that
which already exists; to defend the existing relationship against all
comers. Thus, whilst employing aggressive strategies, girls' motives
for doing so are, for their purposes, positive. This may account for
girls saying that they didn't mean to hurt anyone when questioned about
these behaviours. Certainly, they meant to exclude, ostracise and
reject, but their reason for doing so was prompted by the need to
preserve what they had and what was important to them.
When a friendship breaks down, however, girls no longer want to protect
it. If they feel that they have been unfairly dealt with by another
girl/s they want retaliation. They want to rally others to their point
of view, take their side, thus gathering support and ostracising the
target girl. They want to intimidate and exert power, dominance and
control now for a different reason: their intent is negative: they mean
to harm the target girl.
It would seem then, that there might be two issues working in concert
here. Indirect strategies, but exclusion in particular, may be employed
in two different ways, each involving a different intention. To date,
these strategies have only been associated with aggression, but this
study suggests that they may serve a dual function:
* a specific intent to aggress against others, perhaps in retaliation;
and
* a specific intent to protect and defend important friendships and
relationships from outsiders.
Exclusivity, intensity, intimacy and disclosure, those aspects of
girls' friendships which provide safety and security to the friendship,
would seem therefore to provide a structure for indirect activities
which can serve a dual purpose:
* in order to preserve and safeguard existing relationships girls
seemingly aggress by rejecting, ostracising and excluding others, and
* to deliberately aggress, in order to retaliate and exert dominance
and control.
Two activities in particular: revealing others' secrets and
deliberately ignoring others; revealed no significant differences, with
almost half of the girls suggesting that they were bullying, and half
reporting that they were not. These behaviours appear to provide
support that there might be reasons other than bullying for girls using
these behaviours. If one's intent were to protect a friendship or
relationship, engaging in both of these behaviours would be an
effective means of keeping others away.
Examination of the indirect behaviours perceived to be bullying,
suggests that, whilst significantly more girls reported that they were
bullying behaviours, many girls did not think that they were. Whereas
the data for direct physical and direct verbal behaviours being
bullying behaviours is much more clearly defined, with up to 85% of the
girls indicating that they were bullying behaviours, the indirect
behaviours presented some unsurety. Some activities resulted in up to
45% of the girls suggesting that they were not bullying. This indicates
that these behaviours might serve another purpose as well as bullying.
It also suggests that these behaviours might be more important at
different year levels.
The findings of this study suggest that indirect behaviours, whilst
considered bullying when the intention is to harm, may be perceived
entirely differently should the intent be something else. If the intent
to harm is deliberate, then these behaviours are designed to be
aggressive. Where the intent, however, is not to harm, but is to
protect the existing relationship, or to preserve the status quo, then
it would seem unlikely that girls would perceive them to be aggressive.
Indirect behaviours then, are powerful tools available to girls which
serve dual purposes. The implications of these findings for schools is
that not all girls may respond to interventions aimed at reducing these
behaviours if the girls themselves do not perceive that they are
engaging in negative, aggressive activities.
Age Related Trends:
These results indicate the girls' perceptions of indirect aggressive
behaviours changed over time, thus providing support for previous
research. Rigby, (1996) reported that bullying peaked around the
beginning of secondary school and was followed by a decline over the
next couple of years. Bjorqvist et al (1992; p126) in their studies of
indirect aggression, reported that of three age groups examined: 8yrs;
11yrs; 15yrs; "aggressive behaviour has its highest "peak" at age 11"
and Crick, Bigbee and Howes (1996) reported that relational aggression
was viewed as a more normative angry behaviour by older girls, compared
with younger girls (p1007) where her sample focused on ages 9-12.
As more girls in Year 8 reported that spreading rumours; writing nasty
notes; telling bad/false stories; and deliberately ignoring others were
bullying behaviours than in other years, there are clear implications
for schools. The transition from primary to secondary school is a time
of rapid emotional, physical and psychological growth and development.
Girls may be particularly sensitive to these behaviours at this time,
or they may be more socially intelligent and thus more adept at using
these behaviours in the negative, harmful manner.
Shutting Others Out was perceived by more Year 10s to be bullying,
indicating that this behaviour may have more valence in these years as
a bullying activity than in earlier years.
Taken together, these findings suggest that over time, girls' views of
indirect aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours change and that
these behaviours may be more impactful at different times, or are
employed more negatively at different times.
In sum, then, this study sheds new light on girls' bullying behaviours
by allowing the girls themselves to articulate their perceptions of
indirect aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours. Findings suggest
that indirect behaviours may serve a dual purpose. Where the intent to
harm is evident, then they are considered to be intentionally
aggressive. Where the added dimensions of a power imbalance and
repeated negativity are present, then they can be construed as bullying
behaviours. Where girls do not perceive that they are bullying
behaviours, however, raises the suggestion that these behaviours can
serve different purposes. Where the intent is to protect, defend or
preserve existing friendships or relationships, then these behaviours
may in fact be construed as positive defensive mechanisms which keep
others away from the important friendship/relationship.
This paper has focused on indirect aggression, but mention needs to be
made concerning the implications these findings may have for relational
aggression.
Whilst both make use of the peer network, and imcorporate similar
behaviours, indirect aggressive behaviours suggest that a third party
must be engaged or other girls must be mobilised and rallied in
support, with attention thus deflected away from the protagonist. One
of its purposes therefore seems to be to disguise the perpetrator's
role in the action. This study has also suggested that these behaviours
may not necessarily be perceived as aggressive, and subsequently
bullying either, if the intent is perceived to be protective of
existing relationships.
Relational aggression, with its intent defined as being purposeful
damage of the child's peer relationships, implies that the girls always
have a negative intent, and are deliberately being aggressive.
Relational aggression also seems to imply that the behaviours can be
both direct (You can't play!) or indirect (Spreading rumours). With
direct relationally aggressive behaviours, the purpose is clear, and
the protagonist is readily identifiable. With indirect relationally
aggressive behaviours, the findings from this study, suggests that
there may be two different motivations and intentions of the behaviour:
to protect or defend an existing friendship/relationship; and to
deliberately aggress. If this is the case, then these indirect
behaviours cannot always be assumed to be aggressive, and thus can not
be considered to be bullying.
References:
Adler, P.A., Kless, S.J. & and Adler, P. (1992) Socialisation to gender
roles: popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of
Education, 65:169-187.
Asher (1990) Recent Advances in the study of peer rejection. In S.R.
Asher and J.D. Coie (Eds) Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Asher and Dodge (1986) Identifying children who are rejected by their
peers. Developmental Psychology, 22 (4):444-449.
Bjorqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J. and Osterman, K. (1992)The direct and
indirect aggression scales. Vasa, Finland: Abo Akademi University,
Department of Social Sciences.
Bjorqvist, K., Ostermann, K. and Kaukiainen, A. (1992) The development
of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In
K. Bjorqvist and P. Niemela, (Eds.) Of mice and women. Aspects of
female aggression. San Diego: Academic Press.
Bjorqvist, K. (1994) Sex differences in physical, verbal and indirect
aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 30: 177-188.
Block, J.H. (1993) Diffferential premises arising from differential
socialisation of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54:
1335-1354.
Bukowski, W.M. and Hoza, B. (1989) Popularity and friendship: Issues in
theory, measurement and outcome. In T.J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd (Eds), Peer
relationships in child development . New York: Wiley.
Bukowski, W.M, Hoza, B. and Boivin, M. (1993) Popularity, friendship
and emotional adjustment during early adolescence: The development and
psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 11: 471-484
Buss, (1961)The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & and Coppotelli, H. (1982) Dimensions and
types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental
Psychology. 18 (4):557-570.
Crick, N., Bigbee, M.A. and Howes, C. (1996) Gender differences in
children's normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let
me count the ways. Child Development, 67:1003-1014.
Crick, N. and Grotpeter, J. (1995) Relational aggression, gender and
social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66: 710-722.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S. and Price, J.M. (1990) Peer
status and aggression in boys groups. Developmental and contextual
analyses.Child Development, 61: 1289-1309.
Eder, D. and Hallinan, M.T. (1978) Sex differences in children's
friendships. American Sociological Review 43: 237-250.
Erwin, P. (1993) Friendship and peer relations in children. Chichester:
John Wiley and Sons.
Feshbach, N.D. (1969) Sex differences in children's modes of aggressive
responses towards outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15: 249-258.
Kupersmidt, Coie and Dodge, 1990 The role of poor peer relationships in
the development of disorder. In S.R. Asher & J.D.Coie (eds.) Peer
rejection in childhood (pp 274-303). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lagerspetz, K.M., Bjorqvist, K. and Peltonen, T. (1988) Is indirect
aggression more typical of females? Gender differences in
aggressiveness in 11 and 12-year old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14:
403-414.
Maccoby, E.E.(1990) Gender and relationships. American Psychologist, 45
(4): 513-520.
Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. (1974) The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Masten, A.S., Morison, P and Pelligrini, D.S. (1985) A revised class
play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology 21 (3):
523-533.
Olweus, D. (1978) Aggression in schools: Bullies and whipping boys. New
York: Halstead.
Olweus, D. (1991) Victimization among school children. In R. Baenniger
Targets of violence and aggression. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
Owens, L. D. and MacMullin C.E.(1995) Gender differences in aggression
in children in South Australian Schools. International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth. 6:21-35.
Parke, R.D. and Slaby, R.G. (1993) The development of aggression. In
E.M. Hetherington (Ed.) P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialisation, personality and social development
(pp 547-642). New York: Wiley.
Parker, J.G. and Asher, S.R. (1987) Peer acceptance and later personal
adjustment: Are low accepted children "at risk"? Psychological
Bulletin, 102: 357-389.
Parker, J.G. and Asher, S.R. (1993) Friendship and friendship quality
in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of
loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29:
611-621.
Rigby, K. (1996) Bullying in schools and what to do about it.
Melbourne: ACER.
Rigby, K. (1994) School Bullies. Independent Teacher, April: 8-9.
Rigby, K. and Slee, P.T. (1995) Manual for the peer relations
questionnaire. Underdale: University of South Australia.
Siann, S.,Callaghan, M., Glissov, P., Lockhart, R. and Rawson, L.
(1994) Bullying: teachers' views and school effects. Educational
Studies, 19 (3): 307-321.
Smith, P. K. (1991) The silent nightmare: Bulling and victimisation in
school peer groups. The Psychologist, 4: 243-248.
Slee, P.T. (1993) Bullying at school: It's hard not to feel helpless.
Children Australia, 18 (4):14-16.
Tattum, D.(1989) Violence and aggression in schools. In D.Tattum and D.
Lane (eds.) Bullying in Schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Thorne, B. (1993) Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Windle, M. (1994) A study of friendship characteristics and problem
behaviours among middle adolescents. Child Development 65: 1764-1777.