Intent to cause harm
Scoring strategies for each measure varied by publication. However, in over half of the measures (n = 21, 51.2%), responses were summed to yield a total score for the overall scale/index or subscale. This summed score was then used as a continuous outcome variable where higher scores were predictive of higher levels of perpetration, victimization, or bystander experiences. Eleven measures (26.8%) classified bullying into binary categories by either summing across responses and dichotomizing based on “never” versus “ever” or creating binary categories by using a cut-off score. For example, the Traditional Bullying and Cyber-bullying Scale ( Hinduja & Patchin, 2010 ) creates a summed score for each subscale (e.g., bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, cyber-bullying victimization, and cyber-bullying perpetration) and then dichotomizes each subscale into “never/once or twice” to denote no or low frequency of bullying versus “three or more times” to denote higher frequency of bullying. In another example, the California Bully Victimization Scale ( Felix et al., 2011 ) categorized participants into “bullied victims” by using a cut-off score where youths were classified as bullied victims if they reported victimization of one type of bullying (i.e., teasing) at least 2–3 times a month or more and endorsed at least one type of power imbalance. Scoring for measures that included peer nomination (n = 5, 12.2%) was mostly determined by calculating an individual score for each youth nomination and summing across all categories (i.e., victimization or perpetration). The Participant Role Questionnaire ( Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004 ) computes youths’ peer-evaluated sum scores on each of the five subscales and divides by the number of peer evaluators, which produces a continuous score from 0 (never) to 2 (a lot) for each student on each subscale. Scores range from 0 to 24 for victimization and 0 to 20 for perpetration, with higher scores indicating more experiences as a victim or bully.
All included measurement strategies reported validity and/or reliability statistics. However, not all strategies reported the same types of statistics. Specifically, 13 (31.7%) reported several types of validity tests such as face; construct (e.g., convergent and discriminant); and criterion validity (e.g., concurrent and predictive). For construct validity, scales were compared to other bullying scales such as the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire ( Solberg & Olweus, 2003 ) or The Swearer Bully Survey ( Swearer & Cary, 2003 ); teacher assessments and observations; and other student self-report measures such as prosocial behaviors or other behavioral or attitudinal predictor variables. Other scales, for example the Multidimensional Peer-Victimization Scale ( Mynard & Joseph, 2000 ), compared several bullying-related questions to ensure convergent validity. Youth were first asked to self-report victimization by answering yes or no to the question, “Have you ever been bullied?” and were grouped into “victims” and “non-victims.” Then youths responded to 16 behaviorally-based items that began with, “How often during the last school year has another pupil done these things to you?” Specific items included called me names, punched me, and made other people not talk to me. Comparisons found convergent validity with significant mean differences on self-reports of being bullied between victims and non-victims among all four main factors—physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, and attacks on property.
Of the 41 measurement strategies, 37 (90.2%) reported Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, 11 (26.8%) reported test–retest reliability statistics, and one (2.4%) reported split-half reliability. See Table 3 for details on the reliability of each measure.
Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.25–0.96 (mean = 0.82) for overall bullying perpetration and α = 0.68–0.97 (mean = 0.84) for overall bullying victimization.
Only one measure reported an overall test–retest (i.e., perpetration and victimization combined) correlation; r = 0.79 when youth ages 10–13 were surveyed two weeks apart. Test–retest correlations for victimization ranged from r = 0.61–0.94 (mean = 0.82) and perpetration ranged from r = 0.76–0.90 (mean = 0.83).
One measure reported split-half reliability, where the measure was split into two sections and scores for each section were compared to determine consistency in measurement. These correlations ranged from r = 0.55 to r = 0.82.
The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review and content analysis of bullying measures administered to youth, teachers, and parents in an effort to gain a better understanding of the strategies employed and the specific components of bullying being measured. Findings suggest that there are important discrepancies between bullying measurement strategies, such as the time frame used to assess when bullying occurred, the components included in bullying definitions, and the behavioral content of measures provided to participants. Of the 41 measures included in this review, most were implemented in school settings, and very few measured bullying occurring outside of schools or in homes. Cyber-bullying, which has traditionally been viewed as an issue not addressed by schools, was not assessed by most of the measures included in this study.
The most predominant method used to assess bullying was youth self-report. While self-report has been the most widely used method, many have suggested that challenges exist in using this method as the sole strategy to collect information on an individual’s behavior ( Furlong, Sharkey, Bates, & Smith, 2004 ; Leff, Power, & Goldstein, 2004 ). Because it is important to achieve the most accurate assessment of the frequency and magnitude of these behaviors, multiple methods should be considered. For instance, prevalence estimates may increase as the awareness of what constitutes bullying increases, thus self-report alone may not be sensitive enough to detect real changes in the rate of bullying. In addition, the field knows very little about the accuracy of self-report bullying measurement. Only a handful of studies have introduced peer nomination, school records, or parent report to supplement information gleaned from youth self-report ( Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004 ; Leff et al., 2011 ), and only four measures in this review used multiple reporters to assess bullying. In fact, research by Cornell and Brockenbrough (2004) found very low agreement among student self-report, peer nomination, and teacher nomination of students as victims of bullying in a rural sample of middle school youth. Interestingly, they found better agreement between peer nomination and teacher nomination at identifying both bullying perpetrators and victims. Because this research raises concern about the sole use of student self-report measurement methods, future research should aim to implement multiple-source reporting to assess bullying behaviors with a national sample of youth.
Regardless of reporting method, almost all of the measures in this review captured both victimization and perpetration of bullying. With increasing evidence that youth are often both victims and perpetrators, it is important to continue to capture both behaviors in measurement. These individuals, also called “bully/victims,” report negative outcomes as much as, if not more than, individuals who are only victims or only perpetrators ( Haynie et al., 2001 ; Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004 ; Veenstra et al., 2005 ). In this review, few measures included items to better understand bystanding or witnessing behaviors even though there is mounting evidence that bystanders or witnesses also experience similar deleterious effects of bullying ( Nishina & Juvonen, 2005 ; Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009 ). Without capturing victimization, perpetration, and bystanding behavior measurement, it could be more difficult to target interventions for those most at risk.
The field of bullying is in desperate need of uniform terminology and definitions to describe these behaviors ( Swearer et al., 2010 ; Vivolo, Holt, & Massetti, 2011 ). In this review, authors used several terms to discuss bullying behaviors, including peer victimization and peer aggression. The use of inconsistent terminology is problematic for several reasons. First, specific to peer victimization and peer aggression, the term “peer” denotes someone of equal status, age, or grade. However, one of the key constructs in bullying definitions, as mentioned earlier, is the presence of a power differential or imbalance in the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. Thus, this terminology is in direct conflict with the construct of bullying.
Second, there is a growing literature that distinguishes aggression, fighting, and even legally-defined harassment, from bullying ( Crick & Dodge, 1996 ). Many researchers have developed subscales that measure fighting separate from bullying. For example, analyses of the Illinois Bully Scale ( Espelage & Holt, 2001 ; Espelage, Low, Rao, Hong, & Little, 2013 ) have demonstrated using confirmatory factor analysis that the items capturing physical fighting result in a subscale different from bullying, which included behaviors such as teasing other students, upsetting other students for the fun of it, excluding others from their group of friends, helping to harass other students, and threatening to hit or hurt another student. It is possible that these forms of aggression and violence differ by perceived reasoning and decision processes. Research by Crick and Dodge (1996) interpreted the differences between children who use proactive (i.e., a deliberate behavior to obtain a desired goal) and reactive (i.e., a response driven by anger, frustration, or provocation) aggression. Additionally, there is some evidence that interventions that target physical fighting and other forms of aggression or youth violence are unsuccessful in preventing bullying behaviors ( Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, 2013 ; Taub, 2002 ; Van Schoiack-Edstrom, Frey, & Beland, 2002 ), and some bullying prevention programs are not effective at preventing violence and aggression ( Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007 ). This illustrates the need to address bullying as a distinct construct that should be examined separately from physical fighting and aggression that is neither repeated, nor involves a power imbalance.
Further, this review uncovered 13 measures that included the term bullying in their strategy and 11 that included a bullying definition. Using the term bullying without providing additional guidance for youth in the form of a definition or list of behaviors may be problematic, as research is mixed on how youth perceive this term. Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, and Liefooghe (2002) found that terms like “bullying” and “picking on” clustered together while terms such as “harassment” and “intimidation” fell into a separate cluster; thus, these terms are not always synonymous with bullying. Using the term bullying in measurement may also impact prevalence. Results from Kert, Codding, Tryon, and Shiyko (2010) show that youth reported significantly less bullying behavior when the word “bully” was provided in a measure than youth not provided a measure with the term included. Another problem with using the term “bullying” in measurement is the fact that recent research suggests that youths may not perceive bullying as researchers do. Land (2003) presented several terms to students (i.e., teasing, bullying, and sexual harassment) and asked them to provide examples of what constituted these terms. The author found that a key component of bullying (e.g., repetition) was not included in students’ examples. Similarly, research from Vaillancourt et al. (2008) revealed discrepancies with respect to youths not including power imbalance and intentionality in a definition of bullying.
Skepticism around using a researcher-developed definition without explicit examples of bullying behaviors has increased over time. Vaillancourt et al. (2008) found that students who were given a definition of bullying in measurement reported less victimization than students who were not provided a definition. This finding has important implications for establishing accurate prevalence rates of bullying. In the current review, the components most often included in the definitions of bullying that prefaced bullying measures were power imbalance, intention to cause harm, and aggressive behaviors, and only four measures included all five components of bullying as recognized by experts in the field. The exclusion of specific components of bullying behaviors from measures of bullying calls into question the validity of the construct being measured.
The vast majority of publications included in this review did not provide a definition in their measurement strategy. Without a presented definition it remains unclear what the author’s a priori definition of bullying included. The current review provides a thorough examination of how measurement strategies with and without explicit definitions integrate the definitional components of bullying and can be used as a guide for bullying researchers in their plans for measuring bullying-related behaviors. Because bullying has been used as a catch-all phrase to encompass a broad category of behaviors (i.e., physical, verbal, relational), Cornell, Sheras, and Cole (2006) have asked “whether all these forms of bullying are psychologically equivalent.” For example, several definitions include multiple behaviors such as hitting, teasing, and spreading rumors; however, incorporating these behaviors in the same definition may fail to capture the nuances associated with each type of behavior.
The time frames used for reporting also vary drastically based on measurement strategy. In fact, most of the measures included in the review did not provide a specified time range, which presents problems in terms of both comparing bullying rates within the sample of interest and between multiple samples. Among those that did provide a time frame, there were variations in the time frames assessed (e.g., nine used the time frame “past 30 days”, four used “past 7 days/week”, two used “current school year”). Although these variations in reporting periods may seem slight, the differences can result in great disparities in prevalence estimates, particularly depending on the time of year when measures are administered. For example, measures administered in September with the time frame “past 30 days” may have students reporting on behaviors that occurred over the summer; a similar measure administered in February would likely yield different results, given that school is in session in the month of January and therefore the opportunity for bullying perpetration/victimization is theoretically higher. Further, four measurement strategies instructed youths to indicate the frequency with which behaviors occurred with respect to other time frames, such as “recently”. Estimating prevalence rates using such broad terms can be problematic since individuals may interpret the meanings of such terms differently. Overall, the differences in reporting time frames make comparing prevalence rates between samples difficult, if not impossible.
Almost all of the included measures provided Likert-type response options, less than half used binary response options (e.g., yes/no, true/false) or open-ended questions, and two used multiple choice responses to assess bullying behaviors. The variation in response options likely impacts not only overall prevalence rates, but also the kind of information being reported. For instance, responses to open-ended questions may garner more or less detail about bullying behaviors, depending on the extent to which the respondent elaborates. Again, based on the various response options used in different measurement strategies, comparing prevalence rates of bullying overall, or even specific components of bullying behavior, becomes nearly impossible, as there is no clear way to draw parallels between behaviors that occur, for instance, “frequently” as judged by a 5-point Likert-type response option to those that have occurred at least once as judged by a “yes” response to a binary item.
Finally, in terms of scoring the measures that assess bullying behaviors, it is difficult to synthesize results across measures. Most often, measures were summed to yield a total score and then characterized as continuous. Eleven measures created binary categories by either summing across responses and dichotomizing based on “never” versus “ever” or creating binary categories by using a cut-off score. Five used peer nomination strategies by which youths identified peers as victims, bullies, and/or bully/victims. The characterization of bullying in a sample greatly depends on how measures are scored and on how bullies and victims are identified. Thus, scoring techniques are critical in establishing accurate estimates of bullying rates.
In addition to the variability in establishing solid prevalence estimates based on the criteria described earlier, most bullying measurement strategies used in the field lack sufficient psychometric properties, including reliability and validity. These characteristics are fundamental to accurately assessing bullying prevalence. In this review, almost all studies reported moderate to high reliability for their measures, indicating that they consistently yielded similar findings, but most did not assess the validity of the measure, thus leaving the question of whether the surveys accurately measured what they aimed to measure unanswered. Those that did assess validity mostly reported low convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and predictive validity, suggesting that these measures did not clearly assess the intended construct(s). While it is important for measures to be reliable so that researchers can be sure that they are consistently measuring their construct of interest, reliability does not imply validity. It is critical that researchers aiming to assess bullying behaviors are accurately measuring those behaviors, not only in terms readily interpreted by the researchers themselves, but also in terms that recognize the differing perspectives of the youths being surveyed. Thus, in future implementation of measurement strategies, researchers should determine both the reliability and validity of their measures.
There are several limitations of this review. One particular limitation is that several measures were excluded due to developer non-response to repeated emails for additional information. It is possible that the measures not included based on this factor may be different from the ones included, thus affecting our results. Second, the publications with enough information to describe the measurement strategy tended not to include prevalence data, and therefore we were unable to analyze the data on prevalence by measurement strategy. Next steps should determine how to capture best the relevant prevalence or incidence data to make comparisons across measurement strategies. Lastly, very few measures meeting our inclusion criteria included cyber-bullying items or were dedicated solely to measuring cyber-bullying behavior. A systematic review of cyber-bullying measurement conducted by Berne et al. (2013) included only measures that assessed web-based or electronic bullying behaviors. The authors found that very few cyber-bullying measures stated that their aim was to measure bullying, nor were most measures assessed for reliability and validity. Additional research is needed to better integrate cyber-bullying measures with traditional bullying measurement. Despite these limitations, the results of this study still provide important information about the measures currently being used to assess bullying behaviors, including the measurement strategies employed and the behavioral content assessed by the measures.
There is much inconsistency in the manner in which bullying is measured by researchers. These inconsistencies range from differences in terminology and temporal referent period to differences in definitional components and actual behaviors measured by the surveys. While these inconsistencies may seem minor, they most likely explain the wide variation in bullying prevalence rates obtained by researchers in the field. Our results further highlight the need for a consistent definition of bullying, which has major implications for the measurement of the construct and the prevention of its occurrence. Future research should focus on integrating a honed definition of bullying into the development of new or improved measurement strategies so that bullying can be more accurately and precisely assessed.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Laura Salazar for contributing feedback on drafts of the manuscript.
1 The term “measurement strategy” is used in this article to encompass the methods used to assess bullying such as reporter type, time frame, and content of behaviors. When the term “measure” is used, we are specifically describing the items and response options that comprise each scale or index.
Financial disclosure
The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
All authors certify that the abovementioned manuscript represents valid work and not been submitted for publication elsewhere. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Funding source
Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Bullying — Bullying In Schools: Causes, Effects, And Solutions
About this sample
Words: 1534 |
Published: Dec 16, 2021
Words: 1534 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read
Let us write you an essay from scratch
Get high-quality help
Dr. Heisenberg
Verified writer
+ 120 experts online
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
2 pages / 895 words
5 pages / 2604 words
2 pages / 998 words
2 pages / 797 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Kidscape. (n.d.). About Kidscape. Retrieved from https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/bullying-abuse-safety/types-bullying/
Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements [...]
In all fairness, and in all matters of life, including medicine and health science, the state of the human race is foremost, before any other considerations are made. This is why there is the use of non-human animal testing in [...]
Yesterday, I was scrolling through my Facebook feed and saw a picture of this week's newspaper dated for October 25, 2016, on the shooting at Union Middle School in Sandy, Utah. The article reported that a fourteen year old [...]
That is a true story that came about in Japan in 1988. A 17-year vintage female named Furuta Junko was kidnapped after which tortured with the aid of four boys with a very inconceivable manner and in the end demise after [...]
The case below is of a judge (Patricia Doninger) who allowed her court marshals to degrade and sexually abuse a lady who was attending court hearings about her divorce case. After an investigation on the August 12 incident where [...]
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
Anti-bullying programs in schools may do more harm than good.
Bullying can exact a huge emotional and mental toll on the victims (Pic: Getty Creative)
Anti-bullying programs in schools may be doing more harm than good.
Programs that enlist fellow students to intervene or help support the victim can lead to an increase in bullying and make it worse for the victims, according to a new study.
Peer involvement is a popular feature of anti-bullying programs at many schools, prompted by the belief that they can prove more effective than teacher-led interventions alone.
This has seen many schools train students as playground buddies, given the job of trying to solve problems between children without the need for adult involvement.
Previous research has shown that the actions of bystanders, such as laughing or joining in, can intensify bullying, while the majority of playground incidents have been found to stop within 10 seconds of a peer intervention.
But there is little evidence that it was the peer interventions themselves that caused the bullying to stop, and no indication that training peers to intervene would have the same effect as spontaneous interventions based on feelings of empathy and injustice, according to the researcher behind the new study.
Instead, she identified that training peers to get involved in a bullying incident could increase both the severity of victimization and the level of distress among victims.
Victims can feel disempowered if peers intervene to protect them, the presence of trained anti-bullying students can actually reinforce or provoke bullying, and interventions can erode wider peer support for the victim, the study found.
Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.
‘Many school bullying prevention programs encourage and train peer bystanders (helpers) to get actively involved in assisting with possible instances of bullying,’ said Karyn L. Healy, research officer from QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, author of the study.
‘Although this approach is very common and well-intentioned, there is no evidence that it helps victims. Encouraging peers to actively defend victims of bullying may actually produce adverse outcomes for victims.’
Involving other students can make an incident more public, which can damage the victim’s social status, while if peers step in then it stops the victim from dealing with it themselves, making them look weak in the eyes of the bully, Healy said.
Students trained in intervention strategies may feel it gives them higher status or may enjoy the feeling of belonging, potentially leading them to misuse their power and intervene where it was not necessary, she added.
The apparent success of anti-bullying programs involving peers may be due to other elements of the strategies, such as staff training and interventions, parent newsletters or lessons incorporating anti-bullying messages, according to the study, published today in Child Development Perspectives, the journal of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Evaluation of anti-bullying programs can also often be based entirely on whether bullying incidents have fallen, and does not always take into account the overall impact on the victim, Healy said.
Instead, schools should focus on strategies that examine the outcomes for victims, as well as on the bullying incidents themselves.
Approaches are likely to be more effective if they support victims to stand up for themselves, are motivated by genuine empathy, rather than a desire to help, and do not provoke bullies or increase the visibility of victimization, Healy added.
Lucy Lawrence
EL Haynes PCS
We all know those signs: the ones about reporting bullying and speaking out-the signs in every school hallway. Those signs that, like most kids, you never give a second glance. Do those signs and other more assertive anti-bullying programs actually help reduce bullying? According to research, they don’t have much of an impact at all. In fact, bullying and anti-bullying efforts have almost synonymous results because both have negative effects on people’s futures.
As bullied children grow older, their social and emotional lives tend to be less content than people who were not bullied. Bullied children tend to become less mentally stable when they get older, compared to their non-bullied counterparts. This could mean that kids who were bullied end up less happy when they get older, or it could even mean that being bullied as a child could increase the chance of someone getting mentally sick when they’re older. A study of roughly 18,000 kids in Europe tracked how bullying, or the lack thereof, affected them later in life. “The researchers found that people who were bullied either occasionally or frequently continued to suffer higher levels of psychological distress decades after the bullying occurred.”(Kaplan, paragraph 6). This evidence shows that anyone who is bullied, whether it’s often or not, ends up suffering from it years later. As a result, bullying affects people’s brains and makes them less psychologically healthy in the future.
Bullying also causes people to become more anti-social. “Adults who were bullied as kids were more socially isolated too. At age 50, bullying victims are less likely to be living with a spouse or a partner; less likely to have spent time with friends recently; less likely to have friends or family to lean on if they got sick.” (Kaplan, paragraph 8). This shows that people who are bullied end up less mentally stable, that they don’t have many friends, and that they isolate themselves. People who were bullied, overall, end up with a much sadder life than those who weren’t bullied. It’s important that we recognize the significance of bullying and the effect it has on the victim’s mental health, even if the amount of bullying is small, it will still change someone’s life, be it in a small way or a life altering way.
Anti-bullying programs are not as distinguished and effective as they could be, and sometimes have the opposite effect they were intending. In fact, anti-bullying programs can lead to children getting bullied more often. For example, in an article from USA Today by Amanda Oglesby, it talks about how teens experience bullying in schools with anti-bullying programs compared to those in schools without programs. “In the study of 7,000 students ages 12 to 18 who completed a survey in the 2005-06 school year, researchers found that a higher percentage of students who attended schools with anti-bullying programs had reported experiencing bullying than in schools without programs.” (Oglesby, paragraph 4). The fact that more students are bullied in those schools with the program is proof that anti-bullying programs don’t work, according to those who know best: the students.
In the same article, the author elaborates on why the anti-bullying programs don’t work. “…bullies may simply choose not to practice prevention techniques, or perhaps, learned more effective bullying techniques through the programs.” (Oglesby, paragraph 6). This shows that anti-bullying programs aren’t only defective due to the fact they don’t do much to prevent bullies, but also because they are helping bullies become better at being bullies. So even if anti-bullying programs were intended to be helpful, they end up hurting more than doing good.
Some believe that anti-bullying programs are at least making kids more aware of bullying, and that helps to slow bullies from harming other students, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. In one article, the author makes the claim that children in communities with the anti-bullying programs are more likely to report bullying than children without that resource. “Students who are aware of bullying because of programs report it more often than children who know little about it.” (Oglesby, paragraph 6). Children reporting bullying is a start, but all that’s saying is that students are reporting bullying. It isn’t saying anything about how adults then react to said report. Adults and administrators could just ignore these kids who are reporting all this bullying. The people who have the power could not be doing anything, which could be a major factor in the statistics. The adults who have the power to change the situation are not doing everything necessary to solve the problem.
Another recent study shows that the results of anti-bullying programs show little progress. “…investigations into harassment, intimidation or bullying happened in New Jersey schools in the 2012-2013 school year…that number decreased by nearly 5,000 from the prior year- a decrease of 19%…” (Oglesby, paragraph 9). Even though the number of bullying investigations has gone down by 5,000, or 19%, is 19% really a significant difference, considering the time and money put into these anti-bullying programs? For these reasons, anti-bullying programs may help kids report more bullying, but it doesn’t really help with how administrators and teachers respond to said bullying. And, the actual results show that they don’t help as much as was intended.
Bullying is a huge problem, and it changes children’s lives forever, but the methods that are being used to combat bullying today aren’t working. In some cases, these anti-bullying programs are even making bullying worse. At some schools, the teachers monitor kids more carefully, checking in and watching in the hallways. This may be a very invasive option, but it really helps more than any poster or bullying awareness assembly. We need to find an anti-bullying program that works, holding both the students and teachers accountable of making the school a better place.
Works Cited
Kaplan, Karen, “Victims of Bullying Live With the Consequences for decades, study says,” LA Times, April 2014.
Oglesby, Amanda, “Researchers Unsure of Success of Anti-Bullying Programs,” Asbury Park USA Today 20 Mar. 2014, News sec. Web
Just because it's mean doesn't make it maladaptive..
Posted November 29, 2015 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
When it comes to assessing hypotheses of evolutionary function, there is a troublesome pair of intuitions which frequently trip many people up.
The first of these is commonly called the naturalistic fallacy, though it also goes by the name of an appeal to nature: the idea that because something is natural, it ought to be good. As a typical argument using this line might go, because having sex is natural, we ought to — morally and socially — approve of it. The corresponding intuition to this is known as the moralistic fallacy: If something is wrong, then it’s not natural (or, alternatively, if something is good, it is natural ). An argument using this type of reasoning might (and has, more or less) gone, because rape is morally wrong, it cannot be a natural behavior. In both cases, "natural" is a bit of a wiggle word but, in general, it seems to refer to whether or not a species possesses some biological tendency to engage in the behavior in question.
Put another way, "natural" refers to whether a species possesses an adaptation(s) that functions so as to bring about a particular outcome. Extending these examples a little further, we might come up with the arguments that, because humans possess cognitive mechanisms which motivate sexual behavior, sex must be a moral good; however, because rape is a moral wrong, the human must not contain any adaptations that were selected for because they promoted such behavior.
This type of thinking is, of course, fallacious, as per the namesakes of the two fallacies. It’s quite easy to think of many moral wrong which might increase one’s reproductive fitness (and thus select for adaptations that produce them), just as it is easy to think of morally-virtuous behaviors that could lower one’s fitness: infanticide is certainly among the things people would consider morally wrong, and yet there is often an adaptive logic to be found in the behavior; conversely, while the ideal of universal altruism is praised by many as morally virtuous, altruistic behavior is often limited to contexts in which it will later be reciprocated or channeled towards close kin. As such, it’s probably for the best to avoid tethering one’s system of moral approval to natural-ness, or vice versa; you end up in some weird places philosophically if you do.
Now, this type of thinking is not limited to any particular group of people: Scientists and laypeople alike can make use of these naturalistic and moralistic intuitions (intentionally or not), leading to cases where hypotheses of function are violently rejected for even considering that certain condemned behaviors might be the result of an adaptation for generating them, or other cases where weak adaptive arguments are made in the service of making other behaviors with which the arguer approves seem more natural and, accordingly, more morally acceptable.
With that in mind, we can turn to the matter of bullying : aggression enacted by more powerful individuals against weaker ones, typically peaking in frequency during adolescence . Bullying is a candidate behavior that might fall prey to the former fallacies because, well, it tends to generate many consequences people find unpleasant: having their lunch money taken, being hit, being verbally mocked, having slanderous rumors about them being spread, or other such nastiness. As bullying generates such proximately negative consequences for its victims, I suspect that many people would balk at the prospect that bullying might reflect a class of natural, adaptive behaviors, resulting in the bully gaining greater access to resources and reputation; in other words, doing evolutionarily useful things. Now that’s not to say that if you were to start bullying people you would suddenly find your lot in life improving, largely because bullying others tends to carry consequences; many people will not sit idly by and suffer the costs of your bullying; they will defend themselves. In order for bullying to be effective, then, the bully needs to possess certain traits that minimize, withstand, or remove the consequences of this retaliation, such as a greater physical formidability than their victim, a stronger social circle willing to protect them, or other means of backing up their aggression.
Accordingly, only those in certain conditions and possessing particular traits are capable of effectively bullying others (inflicting costs without suffering them in turn). Provided that is the case, those who engaged in bullying behaviors more often might be expected to achieve correspondingly greater reproductive success, as the same traits that make bullying an effective strategy also make the bully an attractive mating prospect. It’s probably worse to select a mate unable to defend themselves from aggression, relative to one able and willing to do so; not only would your mate (and perhaps you) be exploited more regularly, but such traits may well be passed onto your children in turn, leaving them open for exploitation as well. Conversely, the bully able to exploit others can likely can access to more plentiful resources, protect you from exploitation, and pass such useful traits along to their children. That bullying might have an adaptive basis was the hypothesis examined in a recent paper by Volk et al (2015). As noted in their introduction, previous data on the subject is consistent with the possibility that bullies are actually in relatively better condition than their victims, with bullies displaying comparable or better mental and physical health, as well as improved social and leadership skills, setting the stage for the prospect of greater mating success (as all of those traits are valuable in the mating arena). Findings like those run counter to some others suggestions floating around the wider culture that people bully others precisely because they lack social skills, intelligence , or are unhappy with themselves. While I understand that no one is particularly keen to paint a flattering picture of people they don’t like and their motives for engaging in behavior they seek to condemn, it’s important to not lose sight of reality while you try reduce the behavior and condemn its perpetrators.
Volk et al (2015) examined the mating success of bullies by correlating people’s self-reports of their bullying behavior with their reports of dating and sexual behavior across two samples: 334 younger adolescents (11-18 years old) and 143 college freshman, all drawn from Canada. Both groups answered questions concerning how often they engaged in, and were a victim of, bullying behaviors, whether they have had sex and, if they had, how many partners they’ve had, whether they have dated and, if so, how many people they’ve dated, as well as how likable and attractive they found themselves to be. Self-reports are obviously not the ideal measures of such things, but at times they can be the best available option.
Focusing on the bullying results, Volk et al (2015) reported a positive relationship between bullying and engaging in dating and sexual relationships in both samples: controlling for age, sex, reported victimization, attractiveness , and likability, bullying not only emerged a positive predictor as to whether the adolescent had dated or had sex at all (about 1.3 to 2 times more likely), but also correlated with the number of sexual and, sometimes, dating partners; those who bullied people more frequently tended to have a greater number of sexual partners, though this effect was modest (bs ranging from 0.2 to 0.26). By contrast, being a victim of bullying did not consistently or appreciably affect the number of sexual partners one had (while victimization was positively correlated with participant’s number of dating partners, it was not correlated with their number of sexual partners. This might reflect the possibility that those who seek to date frequently might be viewed as competitors by other same-sex individuals and bullied in order to prevent such behavior from taking place, though that much is only speculation).
While this data is by no means conclusive, it does present the possibility that bullying is not indicative of someone who is poor shape physically, mentally, or socially; quite the opposite, in fact. Indeed, that is probably why bullying often appears to be so one-sided: those being victimized are not doing more to fight back because they are aware of how well that would turn out for them. Understanding this relationship between bullying and sexual success might prove rather important for anyone looking to reduce the prevalence of bullying. After all, if bullying is providing access to desirable social resources – including sexual partners – it will be hard to shift the cost/benefit analysis away from bullying being the more attractive option barring some introduction of more attractive alternatives for achieving that goal. If, for instance, bullying serves a cue that potential mates might use for assessing underlying characteristics that make the bully more attractive to others, finding new, less harmful ways of signaling those traits (and getting bullies to use those instead) could represent a viable anti-bully technique.
As these relationships are merely correlational, however, there are other ways of interpreting them. It could be possible, for example, that the relationship between bullying and sexual success is accounted for by those who bully being more coercive towards their sexual partners as well as their victims, achieving a greater number of sexual partners, but not in the healthiest fashion. This interpretation would be somewhat complicated by the lack of sex differences between men and women in the current data, however, as it seems unlikely that women who bully are also more likely to coerce their male partners into sex they don’t really want. The only sex difference reported involved the relationship between bullying and dating, with the older sample of women who bullied people more often having a greater number of dating relationships (r = 0.5), relative to men (r = 0.13), as well as a difference in the younger sample with respect to desire for dating relationships (female r = 0.28, male r = 0.03). It is possible, then, that men and women might bully others, at least at times, to obtain different goals , which ought to be expected when the interests of each sex diverge. Understanding those adaptive goals should prove key for effectively reducing bullying; at least I feel that understanding would be more profitable than positing that bullies are mean because they wish to make others as miserable as they are, crave attention , or other such implausible evolutionary functions.
Volk, A., Dane, A., Marini, Z., & Vaillancourt, T., (2015). Adolescent bullying, dating, and mating: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology , DOI: 10.1177/1474704915613909
Jesse Marczyk, Ph.D. , studies evolutionary psychology and writes the blog Pop Psychology.
Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.
Try AI-powered search
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
W hen Tinder , a mobile dating app, launched on college campuses in America in 2012, it quickly became a hit. Although online dating had been around since Match.com, a website for lonely hearts, launched in 1995, it had long struggled to shed an image of desperation. But Tinder, by letting users sift through photos of countless potential dates with a simple swipe, made it easy and fun.
Soon Tinder and its rivals had transformed courtship. A report published last year by the Pew Research Centre found that 30% of American adults had used an online dating service, including more than half of those aged between 18 and 29. One in five couples of that age had met through such a service. Usage surged during the pandemic, as lonely locked-down singles sought out partners. The market capitalisation of Bumble, a rival to Tinder, surged to $13bn on its first day of trading in February 2021. Later that year the value of Match Group, which owns Tinder, Hinge and scores of other dating services, reached nearly $50bn. Today roughly 350m people around the world have a dating app on their phone, up from 250m in 2018, according to Business of Apps, a research firm. In June Tokyo’s government even said it would launch a matchmaking app of its own to pair up singles in the city.
Yet lately online dating has lost its spark. The apps were downloaded 237m times globally last year, down from 287m in 2020. According to Sensor Tower, another research firm, the number of people who use them at least once a month has dwindled from 154m in 2021 to 137m in the second quarter of this year (see chart 1). On August 7th Bumble reported revenue growth of just 3%, year on year, in the quarter from April to June, and lowered its forecast for the full year to 1-2%. Its shares plunged by a third in after-hours trading. On July 30th Match Group reported that its revenue for the same quarter grew by only 4%. Both companies’ market values have cratered since Bumble’s listing (see chart 2). That reflects users’ increasing disillusionment with dating apps, decreasing willingness to pay for them—and growing interest in offline alternatives.
Start with the disillusionment. Apps that once felt fun have, for many, become wellsprings of frustration. The network effects that initially propelled services such as Tinder, in which a widening choice of partners lured in ever more users, have now made them exasperating. Users grumble about spending hours sorting through tens of thousands of profiles. Half of women surveyed by Pew said they felt overwhelmed by the number of messages they received. It doesn’t help that 84% of Tinder users are men. So are 61% of those on Bumble, which is targeted at women. Many users also fret about scams.
Younger adults are growing especially weary of the apps. One survey commissioned last year by Axios, a news site, found that only a fifth of American college students were using them at least once a month. “It’s not fun, it’s so superficial and it’s also just like really exhausting,” laments one youthful influencer on TikTok, a short-video app. “I’m kind of over it,” sums up Wunmi Williams, a 27-year-old who, after years of swiping and matching, has been unable to find a partner through a dating app. In a sign of growing despair, the Marriage Pact, an annual event in which participants are matched with a “backup” spouse should their future romantic endeavours fail, has spread to 88 college campuses across America.
All this helps explain why dating-app developers are struggling to convince users to part with cash—the second reason for their lacklustre performance. In an effort to boost margins, dating apps have been peddling paid upgrades to supplement their lowly ad revenues. Hinge has a separate feed with popular profiles it thinks you might like, but demands that you hand over $3.99 for a “rose” before you can chat with them. Tinder’s paid plans range from $17.99 a month (which gives you unlimited swipes and lets you change your location) to a hefty $499 a month (which lets you see the most popular profiles on the app and message users you haven’t matched with).
Online dating may no longer look desperate, but users seem to worry that paying for it might. The share of people who are willing to spend money on dating apps has been falling. Tinder’s paid users have declined for seven consecutive quarters. Men are more likely to cough up, which may be worsening the feeling common among women of being bombarded by messages on the apps.
Perhaps the biggest threat to the future of dating apps, though, is the growing share of singles looking offline for love. Last year some began wearing an aqua-coloured ring, made by a startup called Pear, to show their openness to being wooed. Thursday, a company that organises in-person events for singles, has expanded its service to roughly 30 cities, from Stockholm to Sydney. Its app works only on Thursday, when the events are held.
The romance is not confined to bars. Running clubs have become a place for athletic types to meet. Cooking classes, too, have become a place to look for partners, says Julia Hartz, the boss of Eventbrite, a ticketing platform. Attendance at its singles events rose 42% between 2022 and 2023. “You are bonding with someone, you’re having an experience, even if they’re not the love of your life,” says Casey Lewis, a blogger on youth culture, of such events.
Dating apps are looking for ways to lure users back. Some are hoping to spice things up with artificial intelligence ( AI ). Whitney Wolfe Herd, Bumble’s founder, recently mused that the future of courtship could involve one person’s AI bot going on “dates” with another’s. One new app, Volar, has begun offering just that.
In time, society might be willing to leave matchmaking to machines—but it is hard to imagine the strategy paying off just yet. A more fruitful approach for dating apps may instead be to focus on narrower markets. Grindr, an app for gay men, continues to grow quickly. So does Feeld, which targets the polyamorous. In the past few years Match Group has launched apps targeted at gay men (Archer), single parents (Stir), ethnic minorities ( BLK , Chispa) and snobs (The League). Revenue from this portfolio of brands grew by 17%, year on year, in the second quarter of 2024.
In addition to offering a smaller pool of partners, such apps also serve as a community for like-minded people. Grindr, for example, acts as a travel guide for tourists looking for gay bars and a hub for information on HIV . The company says its average user sends 50 messages a day, about the same as for WhatsApp, a messaging service. Its success in that regard might explain why Lidiane Jones, the chief executive of Bumble, has said she wants her firm to be known as a “connections company, rather than a dating company”. Pulling off such a rebrand may prove tricky. But love has never been an easy business. ■
To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line , our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline “Swiped out”
China’s manufacturers are going broke, china is overhauling its company law, what can olympians teach executives.
Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents
Brian Niccol faces three big challenges
A new book considers the complex relationship between presidents and company bosses
Beware the costs
Citius, altius, spurious
Its leaders want to make business less volatile—and easier to control
Overcapacity is leading to soaring bankruptcies
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Mental Health Impact. One of the primary consequences of bullying in schools is its impact on the mental health of the victims. Studies have shown that victims of bullying are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues than their peers who have not been bullied. The constant fear and stress caused by bullying ...
We could prevent unnecessary deaths by teaching children the importance of respect and acceptance. Bullying victims are twice as likely to bring a weapon to school. 1. Depression and Suicide. One of the worst-case outcomes from bullying is, of course, depression and suicide.
Walk away: Walking away online involves ignoring the bullies, stepping back from your computer or phone, and finding something you enjoy doing to distract yourself from the bullying.; Don't retaliate: You may want to defend yourself at the time.But engaging with the bullies can make matters worse. Keep evidence: Save all copies of the cyberbullying, whether it be posts, texts, or emails, and ...
Bullying is considered to be a significant public health problem with both short- and long-term physical and social-emotional consequences for youth. A large body of research indicates that youth who have been bullied are at increased risk of subsequent mental, emotional, health, and behavioral problems, especially internalizing problems, such as low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and ...
Kids who are bullied are more likely to experience: Depression and anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, changes in sleep and eating patterns, and loss of interest in activities they used to enjoy. These issues may persist into adulthood. Health complaints. Decreased academic achievement—GPA and standardized test scores—and ...
Psychological Effects. The psychological effects of bullying include depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, self-harming behavior (especially for girls), alcohol and drug use and dependence, aggression, and involvement in violence or crime (especially for boys). While bullying can lead to mental health problems for any child, those who already ...
Bullying behavior is a serious problem among school-age children and adolescents; it has short- and long-term effects on the individual who is bullied, the individual who bullies, the individual who is bullied and bullies others, and the bystander present during the bullying event. In this chapter, the committee presents the consequences of bullying behavior for children and youth. As ...
To combat bullying effectively, a multi-pronged approach is necessary, involving individuals, families, schools, and communities. Here are some key solutions: Educational Programs: Schools should implement comprehensive anti-bullying programs that educate students about the consequences of bullying and promote empathy and tolerance.
School violence, including bullying, is widespread: one in three learners is bullied at school every month globally. The growing use of digital devices has exacerbated cyberbullying. In 2019, at least 10% of learners aged 8-10 had experienced cyberbullying, rising to 20% of learners aged 12-14. School violence can leave long-lasting impacts on learners' safety, physical and mental health ...
Bullying in childhood is a global public health problem that impacts on child, adolescent and adult health. Bullying exists in its traditional, sexual and cyber forms, all of which impact on the physical, mental and social health of victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children perceived as 'different' in any way are at greater risk of ...
500+ Words Essay on Bullying. Bullying refers to aggressive behavior so as to dominate the other person. It refers to the coercion of power over others so that one individual can dominate others. It is an act that is not one time, instead, it keeps on repeating over frequent intervals. The person (s) who bullies others can be termed as bullies ...
5. Larger Audience. Cyber bullying is very much public, and because it is published it has the ability to reach a very broad audience. Furthering the humiliation of the person being harassed. Filed Under: Psychological Articles and Infographics. All of the pros and cons to consider about the new form of bullying, cyber.
The main types of bullying within school, especially within secondary schools, these are physical school bullying, emotional/verbal school bullying, electronic bullying or Cyber - bullying and sexual/homophobic bullying. Physical bullying is when an individual bully or a group of bullies physical harm their victim, examples of this type of ...
Bullying is a public health issue that persists and occurs across several contexts. In this narrative review, we highlight issues and challenges in addressing bullying prevention. Specifically, we discuss issues related to defining, measuring, and screening for bullying. These include discrepancies in the interpretation and measurement of power imbalance, repetition of behavior, and ...
The Effects of School Bullying. School bullying has far-reaching and detrimental effects on the lives of those involved. These effects extend beyond the school environment and can impact the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of individuals: Psychological Impact: Victims of bullying often experience anxiety, depression, low self-esteem ...
The disadvantages of bullying in the twenty-first century are that many types of bullying exist, which include cyber, physical, verbal and emotional bullying. The reckless acts leave a large amount of long-term damage towards too many victims. "Every year at least 3.2 million children are bullied in any type of form" (11 Facts About ...
1. Introduction. Bullying is a form of interpersonal violence that can cause short- and long-term physical, emotional, and social problems among victims, and is, therefore, a serious public health concern (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2009).However, the magnitude of the problem, the prevalence of bullying behavior, the common antecedents ...
Published: Dec 16, 2021. It is common to see bullying happen in the high school age group. Many teenagers often believe they can get away with bullying due to their lack of consequences or unclear consequences. Due to the advancement of technology, kids now have another source of bullying; social media. Children are no longer able to escape the ...
getty. Anti-bullying programs in schools may be doing more harm than good. Programs that enlist fellow students to intervene or help support the victim can lead to an increase in bullying and make ...
This shows that anti-bullying programs aren't only defective due to the fact they don't do much to prevent bullies, but also because they are helping bullies become better at being bullies. So even if anti-bullying programs were intended to be helpful, they end up hurting more than doing good.
In the essay "Beyond Bullying" by Krissy Darch and Fazeela Jiwa the readers got a chance to further their understanding of the injustice many victims bullying receive in Canada. The essay starts off with focusing mainly on two victims of bullying; Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons. These two victims cases were posted on social media under the ...
Bullying is a candidate behavior that might fall prey to the former fallacies because, well, it tends to generate many consequences people find unpleasant: having their lunch money taken, being ...
Read this essay on Advantage and Disadvantage of Bullying\. Come browse our large digital warehouse of free sample essays. Get the knowledge you need in order to pass your classes and more. ... Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Networking in English Language Learning POSTED ON AUGUST 3, 2013 Social Networking in Language Learning ...
Younger adults are growing especially weary of the apps. One survey commissioned last year by Axios, a news site, found that only a fifth of American college students were using them at least once ...