A dissertation submitted by to THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPELLAroneilfi/classes/Microsoft Word - Perceived...

The Perceived Parent-Child Relationship and the Effect on the

Child’s Pattern of Negative Peer Interactions

A dissertation submitted

by

RANDIE O’NEIL FIELDER

to

THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPELLA

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

General Psychology

This Prospectus is being reviewed by the faculty of

Capella University, Harold Able School of Psychology by

Dr. Phylis Acadia

Chair

Dr. Barry Trunk

Advisor

Dr. Rojeanne Jean

Advisor

Parenting style of bullies

ii

ii

September 20, 2005

© Copyright by

RANDIE O’NEIL FIELDER

2005


iii

iii

THE PERCEIVED PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE EFFECT ON THE

CHILD’S PATTERN OF NEGATIVE PEER INTERACTIONS

by

Randie ONeil Fielder

has been approved

January, 2006

APPROVED:

PHYLLIS ACADIA , Ph.D., Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

BARRY TRUNK, Ph.D., Committee Member

ROJEANNE JEAN, Committee Member

ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:

__________________________________________

Dr. Phyllis Acadia, Mentor Ph.D.

CAPELLA UNIVERSITY


iv

iv

ABSTRACT

The Perceived Parent-Child Relationship and the Effect on the

Child’s Pattern of Negative Peer Interactions

by Randie O’Neil Fielder

Chairperson of the Supervisory Committee:

Professor Dr. Phyllis Acadia

Dept. of Psychology

Many current studies indicate that incidents of bullying are on the rise. One in six

students now report being bullied on a regular basis. Over half of the students in middle

school report being involved in bullying during their schooling. Dan Olweus(1993)

suggested that incidents of bullying have become routine in the middle school in the

United States. Until recently, little attention was focused on the parental influence of

bullying behavior. This study will seek to uncover a connection between patterns of

bullying behavior and parenting style. Surveys will be used to gather data regarding the

parent-child relationship to determine if there is a connection between parenting style and

the child’s acts of bullying. The parent-child relationship of bullies will be compared to

the parent child relationship of non bullies.


v

v

Dedication

The author wishes to acknowledge my husband, Earl, for his support during this

process.


vi

vi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................8

Background of the Study .............................................................................................8

The Impact of Bullying on a School..........................................................................12

Origins of Bullying Behavior ....................................................................................14

Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................20

Purpose ......................................................................................................................21

Research Question .....................................................................................................21

Nature of the Study....................................................................................................22

Significance ...............................................................................................................23

Rationale....................................................................................................................24

Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................24

Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................26

Assumptions ..............................................................................................................26

Limitations.................................................................................................................27

CHAPTER II: RELEVANT INFORMATION REGARDING BULLYING ...................29

Overview ...................................................................................................................29

Theoretical Orientation..............................................................................................39

Synthesis of Literature...............................................................................................52

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................54

Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................54

Research Design ........................................................................................................54

Target Population ......................................................................................................54

Selection of Participants ............................................................................................55

Variables....................................................................................................................57

Procedures .................................................................................................................61

Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................61

Data Analysis Plans ...................................................................................................64

Expected Findings .....................................................................................................66

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS.................................................................................................67

Research Design and Methodology Summary ..........................................................67

Question 1..................................................................................................................73

Question 2..................................................................................................................78

Question 3..................................................................................................................79

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSError! Bookmark not defined.

Summary and Discussion of Results .........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Conclusions ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Recommendations for Future Research.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................99

APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................107


vii

vii

PARENTAL CONSENT FORM ............................................................................107

APPENIX B.....................................................................................................................108

STUDENT COSENT FORM..................................................................................108

8

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Americans like to regard themselves as members of a cultural melting pot, a place where

diversity is able to blend and cultures successfully mix. If a person were to observe any

elementary school playground or middle school cafeteria, they would however, most likely be

left with a different impression.

Bullying has entwined itself as an element of our society for many years (Li, 2001).

While significant amounts of information has been gathered on the issues of bullying, much

needs to be learned about why or how such behaviors exist or even the long term-effects of

bullying. In order to determine the reasons for and the long-term implications of these negative

interactions, bullying and its origins need to be explored. To understand bullying, an individual

must first examine the dynamics of this type of interaction. For every act of peer-to-peer

bullying, there is a bully, a victim, and often several bystanders. The bully wants to win or

impress the bystanders at the expense of someone else: the victim (Smith, 2003). Bullies are

compelled to dominate or control another child in order to bolster their self-esteem. The bully is

then able to feel better by being in control of someone else and having power over that person

(Olweus, 1993).

Evidence supports an increase in aggressive behavior among peers at an age when

children are looking for new friendships, especially as they enter adolescence (APA Monitor,

1999). In fact, a study conducted by the APA Monitor (1999) cited as many as 75% of the

students having been bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year. Another study

sampled 331 students attending a British secondary school (Maynard, 2000) using The Peer

9

Victimization Scale. Of the 136 respondents, 40% reported that they had been bullied during

their time at school. This indicates that bullying has become a common experience for many

children. As indicated by other studies, 10 out of 15 victims of bullies reported that such

incidence occur on a regular basis (Newquist, 1979). Once shrugged off as “kids will be kids,”

acts of bullying have in recent years drawn increasing amounts of attention. Incidents such as

the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School have lead to a heightened interest in the dynamics

of the bullying process.

Children who experience persistent bullying may become depressed or fearful

(Eslea,1998). A child who was once confident might, after being bullied, question what was

wrong with himself that caused him/her to be victimized. In this way, the child then suffers from

lower self-esteem. Furthermore, it is essential not to mistake bullying for normal childhood

conflicts or acts of anger. Some conflicts are to be anticipated. For example, children during a

baseball game may express emotion based on their interpretation of a decision by the umpire.

Bullies, on the other hand, may call or tease a child for missing a play or striking out.

Bullying may be a component of a cycle of abuse since bullies often have their origins in

families where parents chose physical forms of discipline. Thus, a victim of parental abuse goes

to school and has an opportunity to become aggressive (Smith, 2003). Bullies are usually not

model students, and often do not perform well academically. Even though bullies may appear to

be well-liked, they often cannot maintain close relationships (Olweus, 1993). Subsequently, they

become even more insecure, which can then escalate their frequency of bullying and their

victims become trapped in a hell they fear they cannot escape.

10

Not all acts of peer-to-peer violence are overt, and some may be very subtle (Simmons,

2002). For instance, young female adolescents tend to resort to more subtle forms of bullying,

such as exclusion, starting rumors, and gossiping. They tend to be exclusive and may target

another student simply because they do not like what a person is wearing or eating for lunch.

The situation can escalate as these young females attempt to influence others to exclude that

person, as well. The victim, often, has no insight as to what action or actions may have

antagonized her peers.

Electronic messaging on the Internet has evolved into a convenient tool for a wide range

of bullies. An otherwise innocuous incident during the school day could quickly escalate into a

school-wide event often due to the frequent use of the Internet and the so called “buddy list.” A

girl, upset with another student, could easily Email many other students secretly spreading

rumors (Smith, 2003).

Victims are found in all shapes and sizes. They may be children who wear braces or stand

out in some way by not conforming to popular styles or fashion and stand out in the eyes of the

bully who then makes them a target (Olweus, 1993)). Bullies want power and control and they

search for those they consider weaker (Beane, 1998). Ironically, both the bully and the victim

can share common allies or friends. For this reason, bystanders actually become co-conspirators,

essentially aiding the bully by not coming to the victim’s rescue. Many of these peers go along

with the crowd even though they are uncomfortable with the bully’s behavior (APA Monitor,

2000).

The effects of bullying can be dramatic. Many acts of bullying occur in seclusion and

many acts go unnoticed until the victims of bullying begin to show symptoms or signs that their

11

lives are not all right (Beane, 1998). Inconsistent school attendance may be an indication of

bullying, as victims tend to suffer from frequent illnesses or just don’t want to come to school to

avoid the acts of bullying they’re exposed to at school. Victims elect to become isolated from

their peers and will chronically arrive late, and leave early from school or abstain from recess.

Victims might prefer the company of adults and may talk about running away. Academic

performance may also be affected as their grades decline. They usually don’t eat or sleep well;

some will become potentially suicidal (Maynard, 2000).

Escalation in the number of acts of bullying has not gone unnoticed in the legislative

bodies. Elected officials on all levels of government have adopted legislation to ensure that the

rights of children are protected and enforced. One such statute is the Dignity for All Students

Act (Montgomery, 2002) that authorized the New Jersey State Legislature to establish policies to

combat harassment and discrimination because of race, gender, religion, disability, or sexual

orientation. Much of the bullying that occurs has been identified as having strong bias

motivation, comprising about 50% of bias crimes committed by young people between the ages

11 to 20 (Montgomery, 2002).

New Jersey Statue (NJSA) 18A:37-13-19 (2002) is specific anti-bullying legislation,

which mandates that all schools to have an anti-bullying programs. This statute was signed into

law on September 6, 2002, by then Governor, James McGreevey. The law is intended to ensure

the physical and emotional safety of all students. The initiative called, “New Jersey Cares about

Bullying,” will be overseen by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice Office of Bias Crime

and Community Relations, which is overseen by the Office of the Attorney General.

12

The Impact of Bullying on a School

As we examine the components and dynamics of bullying, we also begin to understand

the effect such negative acts can have on an individual, group, or an entire facility. The effects

of the bullying behavior appear to have a dramatic affect on the academic climate and overall

functioning of the school. The bullying behavior impacts all areas of a student’s life including

their individual self-esteem, overall well-being, socialization, even academic performance

(Perry, Hodges, Egan, 1999).

Students being bullied also indicated that their self-esteem had dropped after being

bullied. They claimed that they could not function effectively with peers as a result of the

treatment by bullies (Eslea, 2003). In this way, students tend to become introverted and lose

self-confidence. Most reported feeling helpless and powerless and didn’t want to interact with

any of their peers. This increase in anxiety even affects the physical well-being of the student, as

exhibited by increased reports of illnesses and absences on the part of the victim (Perry, Hodges,

Egan, 1999).

These findings were supported in a related study conducted by Bond, Carlin, Thomas,

Rubin, and George (2001) involving an Australian secondary school. In this cohort study, 2,680

students were studied at two times over a five-year time period and surveyed using a depression

and anxiety victimization scale. In this study, peer victimization was defined as being bullied at

either or both designated survey periods and the bullying could have occurred within an eight-

year period of time of the survey. Recurrent victimization was a predictor of self-reported

symptoms of anxiety or depression. Victims were those that had responded “yes” to having been

teased, having rumors spread about them, having been deliberately excluded from groups,

13

receiving physical threats, or suffering violence. Bullying was considered recurrent if the victim

reported “yes” in both surveys.

Studies also indicated that bullying behavior could affect a person’s overall health and

well-being. The investigation by LaFlamme et. al, (2003) concluded that students that had been

bullied felt that they had little control of their lives, and that their lives were controlled by

external factors. Those involved with incidents of bullying felt hopeless and that their lives were

controlled by others, specifically the bullies, and that they had little power over events in their

own lives. Those experiencing feelings of helplessness also tended to suffer poor health, as a

result. They generally reported a decline in overall well-being.

Students who are exposed to repeated acts of violence, such as bullying, leads to feeling

of being rejected by their peers, teachers and even parents (Boulter, 2004). These students often

feel less attached to their school. As a result, their overall academic performance may decline.

Often, they will dread attending school since they do not feel safe and are more likely to miss

school. Olweus (1993) estimates that 1 out of every 11 students have been absent from school

because of bullying. Students who are victims of violence tend to be more anxious and insecure

during an otherwise routine day.

These negative affects of bullying do not disappear over time. In fact, levels of

depression and poor self-esteem continue into adulthood. The victims of bullying have been

linked to serious emotional problems later in life. They are at an increased risk of suicide,

depression, anxiety, and are more likely to commit crimes (Perry, Hodges, Egan, 1999). In this

way, the effects of bullying are felt long after the bullying stops.

14

Bullies also have a pattern of traits that set them apart from their peers (Olweus, 1993).

Bullies will often surround themselves with one or two of their peers who support their behavior.

Although narcissistic with a strong positive view of themselves, they can be popular with their

peers. Bullies often have a positive attitude about violence and tend to work to dominate others.

This need to control is used to mask feelings of insecurities and is used to bolster their self

esteem. They often can demonstrate hostile or negative attitudes towards teachers and other

authority figures generally having negative feelings towards school. Their need to dominate

combined with a general lack of empathy towards others can make bullies a formidable force in

any school.

Since the impact of bullies may result in long lasting implications on those involved, it

becomes crucial to pinpoint the nature of bullying to truly develop effective strategies for

deterring future acts. Since most acts of bullying occur at school, much of the literature designed

to reduce the incidence of bullying focus on the school (Olweus, 1993).

Origins of Bullying Behavior

Whether a parent chooses to recognize it or not, what they do and say will ultimately

impact what their children do and say. Their child’s success (or lack of it) in a variety of areas

depends, in-part, on the lessons they learn at home. In this section, parental interaction, conflicts

in the home, and parenting styles that may affect children’s future peer-to-peer interactions will

be explored (Armsden, 2000).

A parent’s style of interaction is critical for the emotional well-being of a growing child.

The anger displayed by authoritarian parents becomes one component of the equation, yet, does

not sufficiently explain all incidents of bullying (Rifken, nd) since not all bullies grow up in a

15

conflicted family where parents openly argue or are consistently abusive. Therefore, the

parenting style of the parents needs to be considered in order to further identify the patterns that

place a child at risk for demonstrating future bullying behavior.

Family members are crucial to emotional socialization (DeBaryshe, 1998) whether

residing in a single parent home of traditional two-parent home. Such emotional responses start

to develop early in a child’s life. Even as an infant, the child learns what responses to expect

from its caretakers. A parent who is quick to respond to the needs of their children can quickly

soothe a fearful child. Bowlby, as reviewed by DeBaryshe (1998), believed that attachments are

formed between child and caregiver that can affect a child’s view of the world in later

development. If a mother does not respond to her infant’s cries in times of stress, the child will

learn not to depend on its caretaker in times of stress. If the parent is inconsistent in their

responses to their child, the infant becomes difficult to soothe and console. Secure attachments

will lead to more positive peer interaction with more pro social skills.

As children grow and develop, they need to believe that their parents empathize with

them. They want to know that they are cared for and that what they say matters (Crossman,

2002). Otherwise, they will be left in a state of distress that can create a physical arousal that

needs to be regulated, lest it develop into bullying. These children maintain a constant state of

alertness for being wronged and therefore, will lack empathy towards others because they are so

easily wounded. Such children have little tolerance for others. In this way, bullying could

develop into a pattern of an unregulated state of distress.

Parents who are more authoritative in their parenting tend to be fair with discipline and

are more likely to nurture the needs of their children (Baumrind, 1991). Since their children are

16

allowed to give input with regard to family matters, they tend to learn how to resolve conflicts in

a rational manner. Such behavior will then be carried into a child’s peer interactions.

Parental emotional attitude plays a large role in the development of the resilience of a

child, even before birth. Studies indicate that mothers who display less emotional warmth or

who suffer from their own emotional or behavioral problems are more likely to have children

with lower birth weights. Children with lower birth weights are, in turn, often at risk of

behavioral problems. They also demonstrate significantly higher rates of attention deficit

disorder (Caspi, 2004).

At the opposite end of the spectrum are parents that literally give too much by being very

permissive. While parental neglect has proven to develop negative pathology, permissive

parenting can similarly prove detrimental to childhood development (Peters, 2004). Parents

who allow their children too much freedom and few restrictions produce an overdeveloped sense

of entitlement in their children. A spoiled child begins to think that the world literally revolves

around them. They don’t suffer the consequences of their actions and begin to believe they

should have everything they want. Unfortunately, a parent giving in to a child’s demands is

establishing the basis for the child to have frustrations later in life (Walsh, 2003). Used to

having their own way, spoiled children will feel wronged and betrayed when they enter school

and are forced to interact with the many children who share their classroom.

Children of permissive parents become conditioned to having things their way and

become frustrated by the perceived shortcomings of others. So they are caught up in their own

sense of entitlement and they lack empathy for others (DeBaryshe, 1998). They tend to target

other children in order to establish themselves as superior. Girls, in particular, are likely to

17

spread rumors, become exclusive when considering who will participate in activities, and resort

to turning others against a victim (Wiseman, 2003). The victim may have no insight into what

actions led to such negative attention.

Parenting style thus seems to stand out as a factor that can have a significant effect on a

child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1991). Overly authoritarian parents, who try to wield absolute

control over their children at the same time displaying little warmth, can stifle a child’s ability to

express emotions (Thurber, 1997). Children of authoritarian parents find themselves lacking

spontaneity and curiosity. Social skills are therefore hindered, leading to what can become

extreme measures to gain acceptance by their peers. They may begin to feel that being feared is

better than being ignored.

Permissive parents will unwittingly encourage their children to be impulsive, since they

have not had proper boundaries enforced. Baumrind (1991), who studied parenting styles,

suggested that the children of such parents are unable to accept responsibility for their actions

and tend to have immature socio-emotional responses to situations (Thurber, 1997). This

impulsive behavior may prove detrimental during peer interactions especially since the children

are not considering the consequences of their behavior or the effect they will have on others.

Children learn best when exposed to healthy role models who provide healthy

expressions of emotion (DeBaryshe, 1998). Parents who are more authoritative allow children to

discuss feelings openly and without judgment. Children of authoritative parents tend to be more

independent and socially savvy. Wiseman (2003) agrees that parents that encourage

independent thought in order to increase the chances of their children making correct decisions in

18

social situations. Children need to be taught the appropriate techniques to navigate issues that

arise and not allow themselves to serve as an outlet for the frustrations of others.

Dealing with frustrations on a day to day basis, children can become conditioned by

recurring patterns of negative behavior and begin to model this negative behavior when they

interact with their peers (Chang, 2004). Not all families with conflicts perpetuate this pattern,

yet, a result of parents’ engaging in unresolved conflicts and display negative forms of

communication, they are, in fact, teaching their children a pattern of angry behavior that may

establish a pattern of socialization their children will carry with them to the playground and into

the classroom (Namka, 1997). As the children grow, they begin to perpetuate this pattern of

angry interaction. Such children may begin to display behavioral problems that result in low

academic performance (DeBaryshe, 1998). They may have difficulty empathizing with the other

students and become intolerant of individual differences. Individuals with this pattern of

interaction who are raised in an angry or negative household can develop an attitude in which

they attempt to get their needs met by developing a sense of entitlement (Namka, 1997).

Children in this situation have an attitude of “I want what I want when I want it,” and they will

act in any manner necessary to get it. This lack of empathy coupled with a lack of regard for

consequences, may cause them to develop a pattern of bullying behavior to satisfy their own

needs.

Many families have obstacles that they will have to overcome. Parents may be

experiencing difficulties including depression, substance abuse, unemployment, or other

stressors that can often strain the entire family, yet certain families seem to handle such stressors

more effectively or successfully than others. Married couples or unmarried partners with a solid

19

foundation of communication are proven to be effective in navigating such difficulties. Even so,

there may be situations where such stressors will create a drain on a relationship (Rifken, 2005).

As collateral victims of their parent’s stress, children can suffer. When a parent becomes

injured, sick, or incapacitated, the child will need to care for themselves in order to survive

(Howe, 2004). Over time, such children may need to tend to their own needs, taking over some

parenting responsibilities (Rifkin, 2005). This parentification can have profound and long-lasting

effects on the child’s future development. Since children are expected to remain in touch with

the feelings of their parents, their own feelings must be subjugated. Over time, they can feel

neglected (L’Abate, 1993). Anger can often be a by-product for children who are asked to take

on adult roles. Just as parents exhibit angry behavior towards their children, a child could exhibit

anger and frustration as a negative part of a young person’s peer-to-peer interaction process.

The development of bullying behavior can best be explained as a by-product of family

dynamics. Most research suggests that bullying is an adaptive process to family circumstance

(Grille, 2005). A family system approach would view bullying as a part of a larger process of

interaction that finds its roots at home. Rather than labeling a bully as bad, a more appropriate

approach would be to work with the parents of those identified as aggressive in bullying

situations. Any approach must recognize that parents may be trying their best to raise their

children and may be overwhelmed by the actions of their children. In addition, the parents of

victims need to understand the bullying process so that they can empathize with and support their

children. Schools and parents need to work together actively to target and eliminate negative

peer interaction.

20

Even children who adopt positive skills can find themselves at the other end of the

bullying spectrum as the victims. Victims are those who find themselves being rejected by their

peers (Bishop, 2004). Many young adults face some form of ridicule on a regular basis. Some

are hurt or pushed; others are taunted and declared “geek” or “freak”. All are viewed as weaker

than their aggressive counterparts, who intentionally harm others to gain respect or impress

others in their own peer group.

Victims come to be viewed as socially awkward in the eyes of the bully. This may

simply be a result of a social agenda that differs from that of the bully (Bishop, 2004). An

otherwise normal, non-athletic student may be a target for the more athletic, non-academic types.

In such a situation, parenting has been a positive influence on a child only to have the child fall

victim to a bully.

Many victims work hard to follow the rules established by their parents (Harris, 2002).

In fact, many children are taught to play fair and to be nice to others, and come to a playground

or classroom with an expectation of positive peer interactions. This environment can quickly

transform itself into a fearful place at the hands of a bully, however, and the victim is usually ill-

equipped to handle such acts of aggression and may suffer in silence.

Statement of the Problem

As established by Olweus (1993), the level of negative peer interaction seems to be on

the raise. Schools have noticed a mark increase in the number and severity of negative acts of

peer interaction. For this reason, schools have begun to implement programs to curtail incidents

of bullying. Most programs have been met with only limited success.

21

One explanation may be that the schools have just not found a program that is truly

effective. Another answer could lie in the implementation of the program itself. The program

may not be implemented fully or as intended by the originator of the program. The school may

not have the resources on hand to deliver the type of program necessary to combat the growing

incidents of bullying.

Another answer as to why programs have not been effective may lie in that the programs

do not fully address the true origin of the bullying behavior. Schools have focused little attention

in child-parent relationships. Exploring the perceived parenting styles as well as the perceived

strengths of relationships may provide a strategy for dealing with the growing phenomenon of

adolescent bullying.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the parents and their

child, as perceived by the child, to determine if any factors in that relationship may be predictive

of bullying behavior. The research will explore the perceived style of parenting as well as the

perceived strengths and weaknesses of the parent-child relationship that may lead to negative

acts of peer aggression. Factors such as permissive, authoritarian or authoritative will be

explored in order to determine factors that lead a child to develop a pattern of bullying behavior.

Upon review of the data collected, a researcher should be able to determine if there is a

relationship between the perceived parent-child relationship and a child’s peer interaction.

Research Question

The question explored with this research was, to what extent, does the perceived

parenting style of a child correlate with incidents of negative peer-to-peer interaction? The study

22

explored whether a child’s pattern of socialization was related to a pattern of parental interaction.

The research was also able to determine if a relationship exists at all or rather determine that

parenting style may have little effect on peer relationships.

How children will treat others, in essence, has been developed through their interaction

with their parents. Children who perceive difficulties with their parents with regard to security,

trust and/or responsibility may have difficulties in peer relations and resort to bullying behavior.

Therefore, both parenting style and the strength of the parent-child relationship in a continuum

will be factors in a child’s peer-to-peer relationships. The stronger the parental relationship in all

areas of trust, security and responsibility, the stronger the peer to peer relationships and the less

likely a child will resort to bullying behaviors.

The following research questions will be reviewed during this study:

• What affect does parenting style have on a child’s socialization?

• What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?

• Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern of peer

socialization with regards to bulling?

Nature of the Study

The study will be a quantitative study that will gather data that includes information

about a child’s perceived behavior as well as information regarding the family pattern of

interaction. A quantitative study will allow the researcher to review a significant amount of

23

information regarding the child-parent relationship in addition to examining a correlation

between that relationship and a child’s socialization. Data gathered can then be analyzed using

a multiple regression to determine which factors of parenting, if any, contribute the most to a

child’s pattern of socialization.

Significance

As we begin to examine the dynamics of bullying, we also begin to understand the effect

such negative acts can have on an individual, group, or even the entire facility. Many students

who admit to being victims of bullying show indications of suffering from post traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD), with symptoms consistent with PTSD appearing in self-reported surveys. For

this reasons, schools across the county have implemented programs to reduce the number of

bullying incidents.

Although schools have implemented programs, the number of incidents of bullying seems

to have only decreased marginally since the programs inception. The programs themselves may

be ineffective since they do little to stop the development of bullying behavior at the origin. In

other words, the programs developed by schools try to modify behavior rather then try to prevent

the socialization pattern from forming. To properly deal with negative peer socialization, studies

can begin to identify the origins of bullying behavior.

Little attention has been paid to exploring factors that may have precipitated those acts,

themselves. More specifically, the relationship between the parent and the child may have lead

to poor socialization habits resulting in bullying behavior. Beginning early in an individual’s

life, parents and or guardians interact with a child and in essence begin to formulate a pattern of

24

socialization. This pattern of socialization will then be translated into a child relationship with

their peers. Examining the parent-child relationship may be instrumental understanding what

factors in that relationship increases the likeliness of negative peer socialization. In this way,

prevention programs could be developed to ultimately reduce the number of bullying incidents.

Rationale

This study is crucial to a thorough understanding of the bullying process. Until now, the

focus of studies has been to examine the dynamics of negative socialization while at school. To

truly develop prevention strategies, one must examine the origins of the behavior being

investigated. Implementing programs at schools is tantamount to waiting for the behaviors to

manifest. By exploring the relationship of the child and parent, a therapist may be able to

accurately pinpoint the cause of the behavior and prevent the likelihood of that behavior

manifesting itself.

Theoretical Framework

A child’s success in many areas depends, in part, on the lessons they learn at home. This

research will explore the role of parental-child relationship with regard to parental support,

involvement and responsiveness that may affect children’s peer-to-peer interactions. The areas

to be examined will include the child’s perceived level of parental trust, security and

responsibility (Hutchinson, 2003).

With so much evidence of negative peer-to-peer activities, a question must be raised

about the families and their role in this process. Many parents try to prepare their children for

the rigor of school and the academic world, yet some children seem better equipped than others

to deal with the many demands of the educational process. Many parents don’t consider that one

25

of the skills their child needs for school is appropriate socialization and that socialization

depends on what is learned at home through family dynamics.

Baumrind (1991) rated parents based on the style of child interaction. In her research she

examined a parents interaction by reviewing the areas of control of a child’s behavior, attach

with their children, a child’s ability to become self reliant and establish self control. Rating

parents in these areas, Baumrind established the four types of parenting style permissive,

authoritative, neglecting and authoritarian. Each parenting style identified was an attempt to

describe the quality of the family environment (Joronen, 2005).

The role of parenting styles has been used previously to determine the correlation

between internal and external behavior problems (Aunola, 2005). Aunola and Nurmi (2005)

conducted this longitudinal study to examine the role of parenting style in regards to a child’s

internalizing or externalizing problem behavior. Parents were reviewed based on combination of

parenting characteristics including affection, responsiveness, involvement and supportiveness.

In a study to track the academic and motivational progress of 5 to 6 year old Finnish

students, permission was granted to review 196 students. Structured interviews were used to

assess a child’s internal and external problem behaviors. External behavior problems were

considered those with negative emotions directed at others and were exhibited through acts of

frustration and anger. Internal behavior problems were exhibited by directing negative emotions

at oneself such as overly strong self regulation.

The study concluded that parental style could impact on a child’s pattern of problem

behavior. The study also concluded that warmth is often not enough to ensure proper patterns of

26

behavior. They determined that inconsistent parenting such as high in affection and high in

psychological control could lead to negative patterns of behavior.

Definition of Terms

Bullying – acts of negative peer interactions that include both indirect and direct forms of

teasing or harassment.

Indirect acts of bullying – include but are not limited to acts of name calling, spreading

rumors and exclusion.

Direct acts of bullying – include but are not limited to physical acts of aggression such

as pushing and shoving, direct intimidation and threats.

Parental relationship – determined by how close or attached a child feels towards a

parent. Based on the perceived level of trust, closeness, and security.

Parental style – based on Buamrind theory of parental style that establishes four distinct

styles of parental interaction, authoritarian, authoritative, negative and permissive.

Assumptions

The survey to be completed will be a sample of convenience in that selected population is

easily accessible to the researcher. While the population may not represent a complete cross

section of the adolescent population, results can be compared to normative outcomes from

standardized bullying surveys. Once a pattern of bullying is compared to other outcomes,

familiar patterns being reviewed in the survey can be reviewed. In this way, if the school being

27

surveyed displays bullying results consistent with past bullying studies, then the results of the

family interaction could be consistent as well.

Fundamental to this study is the belief that children will answer questionnaires to the best

of their ability and honestly. Data collected relies on a child’s assessment of the relationship

he/she has with their parents. Intrinsic to the study is the honest feedback of that relationship, as

well as an honest interpretation of their behavior.

This design will not include the insight of the parents. Due to the limitations of the

sample and the limited availability of siblings and other family members, the family will not be

asked to give their perceptions of their relationship with their child. Instead, the researcher will

concentrate on the perceptions of the children and how that relates to their behavior. Since

students will be answering questions anonymously, in a setting away from their parents and at

the same time as their classmates, anxieties should be reduced and the students should be

comfortable answering questions honestly. The school has performed similar studies in the past

with fewer then 1% of the parents declining to allow their child from participating.

Limitations

Randomness. This survey of necessity is not random, and therefore cannot be accurately

generalized to the population. The sample is intended to be a representation of a small, middle

class suburban district.

Anonymity of Surveys. The anonymity of the surveys may lead to student bias, as they

may not take the survey seriously. Such action could influence the results by not accurately

portraying the feelings of the students. Underreporting or over reporting may equally limit the

results. Olweus (2001) recommends discarding up to 2% of results that may appear inconsistent

28

in the responses. He also has determined that such inconsistencies should not render the survey

invalid.

Language and Culture Barrier- Although both surveys are considered to be age-

appropriate, they are both written in the English language. The meaning of the term “bullying”

may also vary in different cultures, thereby affecting the results of the survey. For this reason,

information regarding ethnic background will be provided on the survey instrument.

Geography- This study is limited to a sample of middle class, suburban students from

Bergen County, NJ. While the population is diverse in nature, further study will need to be

conducted to indicate whether the findings can be generalized to other students in other parts of

the country.

Statistical design- The design of this study was based on data available from the school

itself. While other surveys may be more comprehensive, the data gathered by the ADAS was

sufficient to indicate whether a correlation exist among the variables and should be considered

valid and reliable for the purpose of establishing a correlation.

Researcher bias- The researcher in this study developed this study based on interactions

with her current population of students available to her. In this way, the research design itself

was developed to meet the needs of the current population. Such findings may or may not be

applicable to other populations outside her sphere of influence.

29

CHAPTER II: RELEVANT INFORMATION REGARDING BULLYING

Overview

Evidence supports an increase in aggressive behavior among peers at an age when

children are looking for new friendships, especially as they enter adolescence (APA Monitor,

1999). In fact, a study conducted by the APA Monitor (1999) cited as many as 75% of the

students having been bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year. Another study

sampled 331 students attending a British secondary school (Maynard, 2000) using The Peer

Victimization Scale. Of the 136 respondents, 40% reported that they had been bullied during

their time at school. This indicates that bullying has become a common experience for many

children. As indicated by other studies, 10 out of 15 victims of bullies reported that such

incidence occur on a regular basis (Newquist, 1979). Once shrugged off as “kids will be kids,”

acts of bullying have in recent years drawn increasing amounts of attention. Incidents such as

the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School have lead to a heightened interest in the dynamics

of the bullying process.

The effects of bullying can be dramatic. Many acts of bullying occur in seclusion and

many acts go unnoticed until the victims of bullying begin to show symptoms or signs that their

lives are not all right (Beane, 1998). Inconsistent school attendance may be an indication of

bullying, as victims tend to suffer from frequent illnesses or just don’t want to come to school to

avoid the acts of bullying they’re exposed to at school. Victims elect to become isolated from

their peers and will chronically arrive late, and leave early from school or abstain from recess.

Victims might prefer the company of adults and may talk about running away. Academic

30

performance may also be affected as their grades decline. They usually don’t eat or sleep well;

some will become potentially suicidal (Maynard, 2000).

With so much evidence of negative peer-to-peer activities, a question must be raised

about the families and their role in this process. Many parents try to prepare their children for

the rigor of school and the academic world, yet some children seem better equipped than others

to deal with the many demands of the educational process. Many parents don’t consider that one

of the skills their child needs for school is appropriate socialization and that socialization

depends on what is learned at home through family dynamics.

Baumrind (1991) rated parents based on the style of child interaction. In her research she

examined a parents interaction by reviewing the areas of control of a child’s behavior, attach

with their children, a child’s ability to become self reliant and establish self control. Rating

parents in these areas, Baumrind established the four types of parenting style permissive,

authoritative, neglecting and authoritarian. Each parenting style identified was an attempt to

describe the quality of the family environment (Joronen, 2005).

Review of Literature

When discussing the topic of bullying, first and foremost is the work of Dan Olweus and

his team of researchers in Norway. In 1973, after the suicide of three students that had been

bullied, Dan Olweus conducted research in Finland to review the incidents of bullying in

schools. Olweus conducted large-scale studies of school-age children across Norway and

Sweden, using the Bully/Victim Questionnaire that he had developed. Two versions of the

questionnaire were designed age-appropriate for grades 1-4 and 5-9 and higher. To safeguard

the confidentiality of all questionnaires, they were answered anonymously and administered by a

31

teacher in a school setting. In Finland, Olweus selected 830 schools to participate. Of the

students participating in the study, 715 of them provided valid data representing a quarter of the

population of students. The researchers then deemed first grade students as not having attained

the reading level necessary to complete the survey, and they were not entered into the study. A

similar study was also conducted in Sweden, with 17,000 students responding. This same

questionnaire was used to validate the success of his anti-bullying program implemented in the

various schools.

By answering the questionnaire, students self-report on perceived incidents that they had

personally witnessed, experienced, or caused. The survey accounts for styles of bullying

common to both males and females specific style of bullying. Those surveyed did not have to

identify whether or not they believe that this bullying was an issue, but simply establish if an act

had occurred. This was simply designed to gather information on the number of negative peer

interactions that a person had experienced in a period of time, either as the victim or as the bully.

By using this particular test, insight was gained into the perceived level of anxiety students had

experienced while at school. Those determined to be bullies or victims were those falling below

a certain cut-off line in terms of frequency of actions.

The method of data collect for the studies depended on self reports from students. Since

the researchers were dealing with student perceptions, the data gathered could suffer from

limitations since it deals with individual perception. These perceptions can vary from day to day

and person to person. If a test taker is experiencing a particularly bad week, the results may be

skewed to indicate a larger problem than actually exists (Breakwell, 2000). The test is also

32

limited, in that is does not account for bullying that is based on racial bias. This can be

accounted for by adding a section that identifies the ethnic background of the test taker.

Olweus and his team realized that bullying was not a new issue, but they wanted to

determine whether incidents of bullying were on the rise. What he discovered convinced him

that bullying was a larger problem than had been originally thought, and that the issue should be

dealt with. According to Olweus (1993), as many as 1 in 6 students are exposed to acts of peer

aggression in a given week. In fact, another study cited as many as 75% of students having been

bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year (APA Monitor, 1999). Other studies

using The Peer Victimization Scale sampled 331 students attending an English Secondary School

(Maynard, Stephen & et al, 2000). Of the 136 respondents, 40% reported that they had been

bullied during their time at school. This would indicate that bullying has become a common

experience for many children. Of those students being bullied, 10-15 report such incidents occur

on a regular basis (Newquist, 1979). Such studies indicate a current trend of bullying behavior

that could stand as a serious barrier to the educational process.

The work of Olweus has indicated that a person who is bullied becomes anxious and

fearful. Many even have difficulty attending school because of the fear of being bullied

(Olweus, 1993). These responses can become conditioned over time and can elicit chemical

reactions from the brain (Psychological Self Help, 2004), fear response initiates the fight-or-

flight response that can actually bypass the cognitive region of the brain through nerve impulses

(Psychological Self Help, 2004). Over time, a person suffering from certain traumas such as

bullying and who exposed to the fight-or-flight anxiety response can actually experience this

33

response even after the threat has passed. Repeated often enough, the brain can be altered and a

pattern develops that will carried into adult life.

According to Olweus’s research (1993), few parents actually understand or appreciate the

implications of adolescent behavior and have disregarded bullying as a type of rite of passage.

Others minimize the actual effects by saying “boys will be boys”. For this reason, researchers

need to be careful not to generalize the adult feelings and findings to adolescent behavior

(National Institute of Health, 1998). As adults, we work to protect the rights of the young and

the vulnerable. In the process we can unfortunately fail to entire the world of the adolescent, and

have an incorrect understanding of what it means to be an adolescent.

Indeed, the data collected has proven beneficial for a variety of reasons, including

drawing attention to the incidence of bullying. What the survey does not provide is insight to the

nature of the problem, itself. Although broad in scope, the study is limited to gathering

information and reporting on the occurrence of events as reported by the individual student. This

was acceptable for the research objective as defined by Olweus, and has proven instrumental in

the establishment of anti-bullying programs throughout the world. However, without a full

understanding to the fundamental mechanism of the nature of bullying behavior, programs will

be designed to curb act of bullying as they occur. Programs have not been designed to prevent

the formation of patterns of bullying behavior.

Instrumental to an understanding of bullying is the work of Ken Rigby from Australia.

His research followed along the lines of Olweus and corroborated much of his findings. Rigby

(1999) studied 38,000 Australian students to determine whether bullying was a factor in schools.

34

He concurred with Olweus that one in six students are bullied on a weekly basis, and that 50% of

students are bullied during their time at school.

In a paper presented at the Children and Crime Victims and Offenders Conference

convened by Australian Institute of Criminology in Brisbane, June 1999, Rigby reviewed his

research findings and discussed the implications of bullying behavior. While his early findings

and methods of study were similar to those of Olweus, he felt that the surveys being used were

inconclusive. For example, the victims of bullying indicated that they were more likely to suffer

from physical illnesses such as headaches and stomachaches. One explanation could be that

there is a correlation between victimization and the health of the person. Rigby was not satisfied

with this explanation, however, and felt that one could not conclude that an illness was related to

the bullying, since no data were collected to determine which came first or whether their were

other factors to explain the onset of illness.

Rigby felt that a retrospective study would be more appropriate to determine the harm of

bullying behavior. For this reason, as explained during his presentation (1999), he conducted a

longitudinal study that started in 1994 and included 400 males and 350 females. During this

study, he gathered data that would determine the factors related to bullying as well as other data

such as strained family relations which could cause stress and illness. Such factors, he reasoned,

could also increase the likeliness that a person was singled out by a bully.

Rigby (1999) determined that bullying was a primary factor in the health and well-being

of victims, who were more likely to suffer from depression, social dysfunction, and anxiety.

These findings indicate that victims of bullying lose their ability to relate in a positive way to

35

their environment and are more likely to be absent from school. In this way, peer interaction was

a significant factor in a person’s overall development.

During this conference that reviewed his major works (1999), Rigby explained his insight

into the development of bullying behavior, a theory that aligns with T. Bowlby’s theory of

attachment. That is, Rigby believes that a child’s attachment (or lack of attachment) to his/her

parents influences the development of bullying behavior. Thus, relationships that are low in

parental care and high in controlling tactics can be a precursor to a child’s negative peer-to-peer

relationships and that may lead to bullying.

Such research has illustrated the need for schools to respond to the negative form of

interaction. Initially starting in Europe, schools began to examine methods to prevent incidents

of bullying. Schools around the world and later in the United States have implemented the

program developed by Olweus. Dr. Olweus’s approach involved several components. The first

step was to administer a school-wide survey to better understand the scope and nature of the

problem. Next, there is a school-wide involvement of the staff through in-services so that

professionals could better understand and deal with bullying. Staff involvement would also

become instrumental by providing increased supervision at targeted hot spots of bullying

activities (Leff, 2003). In addition, groups would be developed to discuss ongoing issues and

concerns with staff. Parents would also become included through ongoing communication with

staff. For this reason, issues of bullying would even be discussed at local Parent Teacher

Organization (PTO) meetings.

The approach developed by Olweus has been adopted by many agencies in Europe and

the United States. One such program was developed in Lane, Oregon, by the staff of Prevention

36

Strategies and it is called Steps to Success. Agencies adopting the Steps to Success strategies

follow similar program strategies as those outlined by Olweus (1993). The program is designed

to increase staff awareness of bullying through staff in- services and workshops. The staff then

teaches the children—through lessons and interventions—how to be more socially responsible

by fostering the social and emotional skills of the children. In this way, adults oversee the

implementation of the program and monitor student progress (Frey, 2005).

The State of New Jersey has adopted a plan called New Jersey Cares About Bullying

(2002). This program is also based on the research of Dan Olweus and is designed to curb the

effects of bias crime. Similar initiatives also exist that encourage teachers to use character

education in lesson plans to deliver a message that bullying is not considered acceptable behavior

by their peers. In these initiatives, the onus to change school climate is on the bystanders. In

other words, efforts are made to persuade students idly watching the bully to actually begin to

stand up and be heard. In this way, a climate is created that demonstrates support rather than

secrets and silences (Strauss, 2003), and students are taught the difference between tattling and

reporting. Fundamentally this program educates both children and adults to the various

aspects of bullying and establishes guidelines and rules for handling situations as they occur.

Adults are expected to monitor problem areas and intervene as necessary. Students who are

bystanders of bullying behavior are encouraged to stand up and defend their classmates. This

can be done by contacting a teacher or administrator. Individual interventions are then

conducted to reinforce the message that bullying is not allowed or tolerated. This program has

claimed to reduce bullying by fifty percent.

37

Even if this program reduces bullying by fifty percent, one in three students are still being

bullied. For this reason, not all of those utilizing programs based on Olweus’s work have been

satisfied with the results. The British Department of Education and Skills in particular, had

decided to review this issue. They funded a national study to determine the success of their

bullying programs. The study was conducted by the Thomas Crown Research Institute (Oliver

& Candappa, 2003) and was a comprehensive look at the secondary education system in

England. This was the first study of its kind that focused on the opinion of the students.

England had been using a telephone hotline called Childline for students who sought

assistance with difficult issues. The single largest concern established by Childline in terms of

sheer numbers of callers was the issue of bullying (Oliver & Candappa, 2003). For this reason,

the British government decided to make bullying reform a top priority. Oliver and Candappa of

the Thomas Crown Institute set out to examine what worked in preventing bullying, according to

the young people themselves. They were particularly concerned since England had adopted a

comprehensive anti-bullying program and children were still calling Childline to discuss

incidents of bullying. Twelve schools from different parts of England were asked to participate.

In total, 953 students participated in the study, of which 230 participated in a qualitative study

that utilized discussions and interviews to gather data. Although the research also utilized

standard surveys, the primary focus of the study was data collected through qualitative means.

As a result of this study, a new program, Childline in Partnership with School (CHIPS),

was instituted that focused on bringing students together to tackle the problem. The study

indicated that students are not comfortable sharing details about bullying situations with adults

(Oliver & Candappa, 2003) but are more likely to tell a friend about an act of bullying. Those

38

responding to the survey indicated that at least half of them had been bullied during the marking

period, but few told either a parents or a sibling. Therefore, any program that centered on adult

interventions, such as the one designed by Olweus, would eventually fail. Instead, programs

were adopted that encouraged students to work with teachers to organize peer support

organizations.

During this study, the students who were interviewed were asked open-ended questions

that allowed them to provide a wide range of answers; more focused data were collected through

a questionnaire. The study indicated that preliminary data were consistent with previous

quantitative studies such as those conducted in Olweus. What proved to be unique were the data

collected through the qualitative means in the structured interviews in which students were free

to provide their own answers rather than choose from the selection provided by adults. The

interviews were conducted in a small group environment and, apparently, the students were thus

able to respond openly to the “interviewer” in this regard (Oliver & Candappa, 2003).

Establishing a proper rapport with the students while ensuring their rights are protected during

this process is fundamental to success of this study.

Just as British Department of Education and Skills had questioned the effectiveness of the

school-based bullying intervention programs, others also began to look into the roots of bullying

behavior. Many researchers began to question the feasibility of waiting for bullying acts to occur

before an intervention is made. Instead, researchers wanted to develop programs that would

target strategies for the prevention of the patterns of negative peer socialization. Such behaviors

tend to begin to manifest during the formative years of development. For most individuals this

developmental period begins during the middle school years and continues through the

39

adolescent years of high school (Mclean, 2003). During this time, children experience many

biological and emotional changes as they continue on their path to adulthood. Young children

take the skills acquired at home and begin to apply them to their own lives. As they become

more independent of their parents, their daily interactions help to influence and mold them as

they continue to grow.

Theoretical Orientation

Such models of socialization are not new. Beginning in the 1950’s, researchers including

Skinner and Bandura, were beginning to recognize the importance of modeling behavior as a

factor in the newly developing field of social learning (Thurber, 2003). As part of a study

conducted by Bandura, children were observed interacting with inanimate toys. At times, adults

would become involved by interacting with the toys in the same environment. Children who

observed aggressive behavior directed at Bobo, a punching bag, also became aggressive with

Bobo. Researchers subsequently theorized that learning had occurred subliminally with no

reinforcement (Thurber, 2003).

This study supports the concept that bullies are, first and foremost, models of some

learned behavior or behaviors. If this is the case, bullies can be presumed to have been exposed

to some form of bully-related behavior during their lifetimes. Since children tend to model adult

authority figures, bullies would be modeling a form of interaction witnessed at home, the source

most likely being their parents. Yet not all bullies are witness to aggressive behavior at home.

In this way, the modeling theory does not go far enough in explaining bullying behavior.

Research needs to focus on patterns of learned behavior that, over time, could lead to acts of

40

bullying, specifically looking at what an adult does or does not do that could translate into a

child’s maladapted socialization pattern.

The socialization starts at home but continues as children interact with their peers. Many

factors will ultimately mold the individual throughout adulthood. Each person also interacts with

their environment, which includes schools, medical care, and economic factors that contribute to

the overall emotional stability of that person. With so many others factors contributing to the

development of a child, preventing socially aggressive children becomes a daunting task.

To curtail the incidence of bullying, researchers became interested in those traits or

variables that may begin at home and follow a person as they develop and mature. Possible

explanations of bullying behavior include child rearing, parental involvement, family stress, and

anger. Researchers wanted to determine what factors influence a child’s interaction and

socialization. The following studies attempt to identify factors that will lead to bullying or

disruptive behavior in children. While many theories exist to explain this behavior, clear-cut

answers have proven evasive at best.

Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005) evaluated theories that focused on parents being crucial

to the social development of children. They wanted to determine what dimensions or aspects of

the family affected school attendance. They examined whether peer attachment or family

attachment was more influential to a child’s socialization. They felt that the quality of the family

environment and parenting style could be linked to adolescent relationships and school

attendance (2005).

Using a qualitative approach, they wanted to describe a teenager’s experience with

regards to family and peers to determine the effects on school attendance. The survey included

41

28 individuals ranging from age twelve to seventeen, twelve of whom were females. The sample

was selected from 245 pupils of Finnish schools. Each student was interviewed in locations of

the participant’s choosing. All participants were white, Lutheran, and considered mainstream in

Finland. The interviews were semi-structured and lasted from 25 to 90 minutes. The taped

interviews were then reviewed using qualitative methods that categorized vocabulary.

Findings indicated that students felt that positive family experiences related to their peer

relationships and influenced their school attendance. Teens who felt that their parents were

interested and warm to their friends were thought to be supportive and trusting to the teen. In

addition, teens indicated that parents who encouraged school attendance and achievement were

perceived by the teen as a positive and supporting influence. In this way, parenting style directly

affected a child’s socialization and attitude.

These findings support the characterization of parenting style as defined by Baumrind.

During Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005) study, parents were identified by their style of

interaction with children regarding peer interaction and the effects on school attendance. Those

parents deemed to be neglectful and controlling tended to have children who felt their parents

restricted their autonomy. Some parents were characterized as coercive in their interactions with

their children. A coercive parent uses force and threats to regulate a child’s life. Teens with

coercive parents felt that they had little control of their lives and would take measures to take

some control by missing school.

The study determined that school attendance was based on multiple relationships in a

child’s world. Both parents and peers can interact in both a positive or negative manner to

influence a child’s behavior and school attendance. While Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005)

42

support the role of parenting style as a factor of peer interaction, it focused on school attendance

rather then the quality of peer relationships. It did not explore the positive or negative quality of

peer relationships, but only explored the nature of the parent-child relationship. In this way, this

study does support the exploration of parenting styles as a factor in peer relationships.

A more direct link between the parent-child relationship and problem behavior was

explored by Aunola and Nurmi (2005). In this study, parenting style was characterized by

degree of affection, behavioral control, and psychological control. The study sought to

determine which factors were the most influential in predicting a child’s internal and external

behavior problems.

During a longitudinal study, 196 children starting at age 5-6 were examined six times

from kindergarten to second grade. At each stage, the children were reviewed to determine their

problem behaviors. The mothers and fathers were also asked to fill out questionnaires once a

year that measured their parenting style.

Results of this study indicated that parenting style tended to remain constant over time.

This tended to be true of mothers and fathers who participated in the study. Aunola and Nurmi

(2005) did not include socialization as a factor of parenting style. They were concerned with

problem behavior in general and the parenting factors that may predict such behavior. The study

also indicated that the parental level of affection and psychological control predicted problem

behavior. Mothers who showed high levels of psychological control and high levels of affection

had the highest level of internal behavior problems. Those mothers who had low level of

psychological control along with any level of maternal affection had no effect on internal

43

behavior problems. External behavior problems were predicted only by the level of maternal

affection.

While the study does suggest a connection between parenting styles and a child’s

behavior, the study did not examine peer relationships. In addition, the study did not examine

the time frame for the origin of the behavior problems or other possible causes for such behavior.

For this reason, the researchers could not determine which factors came first, the problem

behavior or the parenting style. In other words, it was unclear whether the parents were

responding to the child or the child to the parents?

Another study examined a child’s use of free time and the parental expectation of the use

of free time. Hutchinson (2003) developed a method to measure the situation in which a parent

structures, supports and regulates an adolescent’s behavior in their spare time. Hutchinson was

trying to determine what parental practices lent a more positive use of free time.

Hutchinson felt that parenting style was comprised of two dimensions: demandingness

and responsiveness (Baumrind, 1971). She believed that parenting style ultimately shapes the

emotional climate environment of the parent and child. In this way, the researchers believed that

the overall demandingness and responsiveness of the parent will shape the child which, in turn,

establishes the parent-child relationship. This relationship in then transferred to the child’s peer

choices and academic achievement.

Using a qualitative research design, families were asked to provide interview data for a

multiple case study. Such a design would allow for both descriptive data as well as explanations

of parenting practices. The research design allowed for further explanation of the research

question and would provide more insight to such practices. This study included 17 parent and

44

adolescent groups from both rural and urban backgrounds. The parent and child were then

interviewed separately at their home. Questions were semi-structured to identify how the

adolescents spend their free time.

Researchers realized that adolescent activities were shaped by adult values and practices.

They determined that parents set up guidelines through parenting styles that establish the

boundaries of appropriate behavior. Children are then expected to operate within the established

guidelines. While most parents had a clear priority of things they wanted their children to do, the

style of establishing this behavior varied. For example, some parents allowed for negotiations of

activities while others did not.

The family management techniques used by the parents by means of communication,

enforcement, expectation, and monitoring of free time were used to determine the parenting

style. The parenting style was then reviewed with regard to the child’s use of free time. Results

in this study are complex and do not show a clear correlation between parenting style and the use

of free time. Instead, parents may be at odds with the adolescent’s use of free time when the

activities are not something a parent values. For example, a parent who has instilled a sense of

autonomy in their child may be at odds with that child’s independent choice of leisure activities.

In this way, a positive parenting quality that promotes a sense of independence may actually put

parents at odds with their child.

The research was inconclusive about the role of parenting style in the use of an

adolescent’s free time; however, the role of parents in establishing parameters and rules for an

individual was clear. The scope of this study may have been too broad in nature to allow the

45

researchers clear-cut answers. Research with a more focused and precise nature may provide

more definitive answers.

Establishing clear linkages between parents and child behavior does not in and of itself

ensure an answer to the question of bullying behavior. For example, connections between angry

and authoritarian parents have clearly been linked to patterns of childhood aggression. This

connection does not seem to go far enough to explain all acts of bullying since not all parents of

bullies have been identified as having authoritarian parents.

The development of bullying behavior can best be explained as a byproduct of family



interaction that finds its roots at home. If this is the case, bullies can be presumed to have been

exposed to some form of bullying-related behavior during their lifetimes. Since children tend to

model adult authority figures, bullies would be modeling a form of interaction witnessed at

home, the source most likely being their parents.

In this way, children who grow up experiencing conflict can become conditioned by

recurring patterns of negative behavior and begin to model this negative behavior when they

interact with their peers (Chang, 2004). Not all families with conflicts perpetuate this pattern,

yet parents’ engaging in unresolved conflicts and displaying negative forms of communication,

does not in fact, teach their children a pattern of angry behavior. That, in turn, will establish a

pattern of socialization their children may involuntarily carry with them to the playground and

into the classroom (Namka, 1997). As the children grow, they begin to perpetuate this pattern of

angry interaction. Such children may begin to display behavioral problems that result in low

46

academic performance (DeBaryshe, 1998). They may have difficulty empathizing with the other

students and become intolerant of individual differences. Individuals with this pattern of

interaction who are raised in an angry or negative household develop an attitude in which they

attempt to get their needs met by developing a sense of entitlement (Namka, 1997). Children in

this situation have an attitude of, “I want what I want when I want it,” and they will act in any

manner necessary to get it. This lack of empathy, coupled with a lack of regard for

consequences, may cause them to develop a pattern of bullying behavior to satisfy their own

needs.

Parents may be experiencing difficulties that strain the entire family including depression,

substance abuse, unemployment, or other stressors. Married couples or unmarried partners with

a solid foundation of communication are proven to be effective in navigating such difficulties;

even so, there may be situations where such stressors will create a drain on a relationship. As

collateral victims of their parents stress, children can suffer during such times of stress.

Likewise, when a parent becomes injured, sick or incapacitated, the child will need to care for

themselves in order to survive (Howe, 2004). Over time, such children may need to tend to their

own needs, taking over some parenting responsibilities (Rifkin, 2005). Such a child’s

“parentification” can have profound and long-lasting effects on the child’s future development.

Since children are expected to remain in touch with the feelings of their parents, their own

feelings must be subjugated. Over time, they can feel neglected (L’Abate, 1993). Anger can

often be a by-product of the children who are asked to take on adult roles. Anger and frustration

can manifest themselves as negative peer-to-peer interaction. Repeatedly, the anger displayed by

authoritarian parents becomes one component of the equation yet, does not sufficiently explain

47

all incidents of bullying (Rifken, nd). Not all bullies grow up in a conflicted family where

parents openly argue or are consistently abusive. Therefore, other parenting styles need to be

considered in order to further identify the patterns that place a child at risk for demonstrating

future bullying behavior. A parent’s style of interaction is crucial for the emotional well-being

of a growing child, and determining which actions can potentially put a child at risk for bullying

behavior could be the key to eliminating that behavior from occurring.

Rather than looking strictly at anger as a predictor of bullying behavior, Douglas and

Emory (1996) studied the effects of stress on a child and the parent-child relationship. Douglas

and Emery (1996) tested 131 highly stressed fourth and sixth grade urban youths. Parents were

also interviewed in order to determine four aspects of the parent-child relationship: warmth,

involvement, discipline style and discipline consistency. They wanted to determine the role of

stress in the development of youth with regard to measured outcomes. Such indicators of child

development included self esteem, adjustment, locus of control, empathy, and social problem

solving. The researchers believed that there was a relationship between parenting practices and

the development of a child’s coping skills.

Parents were asked to review the child’s developmental history, family relationship and

parental family history. Parents were paid for their participation in structured interviews that

asked 36 open-ended questions regarding their parental attitudes, involvement, and discipline.

The children were asked to answer several questionnaires that identified their perceived

competence, self esteem, locus of control, empathy, and social learning.

Parental attitudes and warmth were found to be associated with a child’s formation of self

image, social competence, and self regulation. Those children who reported a warm, caring

48

relationship with the caregiver tended to relate better social skills and socialization. In this way,

the level of stress a family faced was not an indicator of a child’s self image rather; the quality of

the parent-child relationship had proven more influential with regards to a child’s overall

outlook. The study supports the idea that positive parental relationships can be protective factors

on a developing youth.

The study does not include a review of peer socialization as factors but does clearly show

a relationship between the parent-child relationship and the child’s adjustment. The study is

limited because the population studied was a highly stressed urban population that may not

generalize to other populations. Despite the level of stress noted in this population, a correlation

was established that indicated that the parent/child relationship can be a powerful influence on a

child.

In a study by Hastings and Coplan (1999), maternal parenting styles were investigated.

In this study, however, researchers looked at the correlation between maternal beliefs and

responses to a child’s misdeeds, to determine what maternal goals or beliefs correlated with the

response. The researchers also wanted to determine the effects of maternal beliefs on a child’s

social outcomes. Families that participated tended to be middle class, Caucasian, and had two

parents living at home. For this study, seventy-five mothers and their preschool children ranging

from thirty to seventy months at the start of testing (forty males) participated.

Mothers were asked to respond to short scenarios regarding a child’s behavior. They

then had to choose a response about parenting beliefs. Many of the scenarios included acts of

aggression or defiance. Several months after the mother responded to their questions, teachers

49

were given a rating scale that would index problem behaviors. Included in the scale was a

subsection that pertained to a child’s aggressive, destructive or hyperactive tendencies.

The mother’s data were then analyzed using three-way mixed ANOVA using parenting

goal, child misbehavior, and child gender as factors. Data indicated that gender was a factor in

goals of behavior. Mothers of daughters placed a higher importance on parent-centered goals

than they did for their sons. Mother’s goals for their sons tended to be relationship centered.

Data also indicated that a mother’s response to a transgression varied for more serious

transgressions. If a mother felt that an act was serious in nature, the mother would have a

stronger response.

Mothers also tended to be protective of their child’s actions and tended to feel that their

actions were not intentional but circumstantial. Such beliefs have a great impact on parenting. If

a parent feels the act is not intentional, then they don’t have to act. With respect to bullying, if a

parent’s belief is that a child did not mean to hurt another’s feelings, then the child may suffer no

consequences. Mothers also tended to view acts of violence with boys as typical and not as

misbehavior.

Hastings and Coplan (1999) determined that a child’s socialization was correlated to

maternal beliefs and goals. Those students who were determined to be low in parent-centered

response and high in relationship-centered responses tended to be less socially competent and

more likely to externalize problems. Many of the mothers responded to acts of aggression as if

they were not typical behavior for their child. Unless there was eminent threat of harm, mothers

tended to minimize the acts of aggression as transitory. This may have been a protective action

for the parent who did not know how to respond.

50

This study has shortcomings in that it does not address the child directly. Responses are

those of the mother and a teacher. Each may have a very different view of a child’s behavior and

the motivating factors behind a child’s behavior. Failing to include the child exposes a serious

weakness in the study, in that parents may answer the scenarios in a way that will please the

tester. The answers may not depict the actual experience or actions of the parent.

While viewed with caution due to the limitations stated, the study does seem to draw a

correlation between parenting beliefs that are then enacted through a parenting style and a child’s

social outcomes. Specific actions of the parents are not reviewed but have been categorized

based on responses to scenarios. In this way, the study identifies the beliefs but not the actions

of the parents that may be behind those beliefs.

In a study more directly related to bullying, E. Rock (2003) developed a program to

curtail incidents of bullying by teaching children empathy. The researcher believed that children

that were not taught proper socialization skills may not be able to comprehend the feelings of

others. In this way, the researcher believed that children would be not able to empathize with the

victim in bullying situations.

Rock (2003) studied ten children who had been identified by teachers as being easily

aroused to anger or having bullying behaviors. Subjects ranged in age from nine to eleven years,

with six of the subjects being male. The students were interviewed to determine the cognitive

and affective framework used by the child. The questions were designed to determine whether

the child could identify the feelings of others. Other questions tried to determine whether the

child thought of the consequences of his actions, for himself and the other child involved. The

51

final stage of questioning was geared towards exploring the origins of the behavior and how the

behavior continued to be reinforced.

They discovered that the children seemed to understand the consequences of their

actions, i.e., that someone was being hurt in some way. Most could even relate on some level to

what the victims could be feeling, based on their own experiences. Most of the respondents did

not consider adult interventions as appropriate, but felt it should be handled by peers. In fact, the

children appeared to think through their actions. Decisions and actions were based on the peers

present and whether or not they would be encouraged by their peers.

The researcher concluded that easily-aroused children lacked the skills to intervene

appropriately. The child was responding to a situation using what limited tools they had

acquired. At times, this response would include physical or verbal aggression. For this reason,

Rock recommended that adults become more active in the consequences of bullying behavior

and that counselors work to develop problem-solving skills.

Although this study is decidedly limited in scope with only ten subjects, the results are

interesting. The bullies seem to be aware of the response of the victim and the possible

consequences but act anyway. The researcher concluded that they acted because they didn’t

know how to act any other way. If this were true, a person is left to wonder whether parenting

brought the child to this point of not being able to ascertain any other alternative strategies of

interaction.

The researcher stated that the aggressor identified with the aggressor on some level, yet

still bullied them. This begs the question of what benefit was the act of bullying to the bully?

The act could be misplaced aggression from other events. The bully could be compensating for a

52

weak self image and trying to bolster his/her self esteem. Without such vital information, a

program based on developing problem solving skills is destined to fail. The children have

already considered the consequences and they acted anyway. A more intrinsic motivation must

then be explored, one that may have developed well before they came to school.

Synthesis of Literature

Bullying behavior has come to the forefront as a developmental concern of school age

children. Research has documented the long term effects of bullying on both the victim and the

bully. Programs have been established to try to deter incidents of peer-to-peer aggression and

schools in many states have been required to implement school programs as part of an anti

violence campaign.

Many of these programs have been met with a limited amount of success. Olweus boost

that his program reduce bullying by nearly 50%. While this number would appear to be

significant, it also suggests that nearly 1 in 3 students are still being bullied even after the

implementation of his comprehensive program. No program can guarantee to be 100% effective;

however such results would indicate that the program does not go far enough in curbing the acts

of peer to peer violence. As many would agree, his program may be more effective that others

that have been developed, the question still remains as to what other factors need to be addressed

to further reduce the incidents of bullying in schools.

Reviewing the literature strongly suggest that further research in the area of family

patterns is needed. Many of the programs developed target the bullying behaviors at the source

53

where these behaviors have become most prevalent and troublesome, the schools. While schools

may be the area where the behaviors manifest themselves, little evidence suggests that schools

are actually the actual origins or root of that behavior. In fact, reviewing the literature indicates

that much of a child’s behavior in regards to peer socialization actually has its roots in the family

style of interaction. For this reason, further research is warranted that would review patterns of

family interaction that may inadvertently result or contribute to the development of negative

patterns of peer socialization.

54

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to understand to what extent does the relationship between

child and his/her parental as perceived by the child affects that child’s peer relationships. The

quantitative research design has explored whether a child will have a predictable response to

bullying questions based on the results of information regarding a particular parental interaction

style. In other words, does a certain perceived parenting style correlate to bullying behavior?

The research will also explore if such a relationship exists, at all, or it may determine that

parenting style may, in fact, have little or no effect on peer relationships.

Research Design

This research is a quantitative study to examine the perceived parent-child relationship

and the socialization of the child. The study examines if there is any relationship between the

perceived parenting style and the incidents of negative peer interaction. The study wants to

determine if there is a relationship between a certain parenting style and incidents of bullying.

Target Population

The participating school is a regional district in Bergen County, New Jersey. The district

is considered a middle class district consisting of approximately 1400 students from grades

7to12. The district claims to be diverse, with an Asian population constituting approximately

20% of the student body. Other minorities include a significant number of students from Jewish

(unknown), African-American (1%) as well as European immigrant backgrounds (7%).

55

Since all schools are compelled by the State of New Jersey to institute effective violence

prevention programs, establishing a clear connection between the behavior and its origin is

paramount to any bullying prevention program. Parental involvement in prevention programs

could prove the pivotal link in eliminating the bullying behavior of school-age children.

Selection of Participants

As recommended by the designers of the American Drug and Alcohol survey with the

Violence Prevention Planner, Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute (RMBSI) the

participating school will administer the survey to the entire eighth. The survey could include

as many as 266 students which would increase the validity and reliability of the study. As

reviewed by the RMBHI, the goal of surveying is to find out about certain behaviors and

attitudes within the community’s population of young people regarding their perception of

the parent-child relationship as well as there pattern of peer socialization. This sample of

students is a sample of convenience of those who have agreed to participate. Since the goal

of the survey is to get an overall picture of the student population, the entire 8th

grade was

invited to participate through a parental notification letter and then again via a follow up

phone call. Although it would be nice to utilize a true experimental design using a random

sample this is not feasible for this population. Students have access to each other and would

probable talk with each other about the study therefore violating the fundamental

assumptions of the control groups. Within a school setting it is more advantageous to have

an entire class serve as the experimental group. A sample of the 8th

grade will afford this

researcher the optimum number of participants that will then represent their class.

56

The participating school is a Regional district with one high school and one middle

school. Since the majority of reported acts of bullying in the district occur in the middle

school, the 8th

grade will be the focus of this study. There are about 266 students in the 8th

grade as possible participants. Since parental consent is necessary to administer surveys to

minors, 266 parental notification letters were sent to the parents or guardians of the students.

Included in the mailer was a parental consent form. The parents were asked to respond

whether they agreed to the survey or not. They were also provided with a return envelope to

help expedite as many possible responses.

Students also had the opportunity to assent or decent to the survey as well. Students

had a separate form to sign with their consent/decent. This form was reviewed in a

homeroom prior to the survey to address any concerns. Those students who didn’t want to

participant were able to remain in their gym class. All surveys were anonymous those

engaged in at risk behaviors will not be identified for follow up. For this reason, following

the survey an additional information sheet was provided that explains the resources available

to the students with any concerns.

All surveys were anonymous to protect confidentiality. Students participating were not

identified by name; however, demographic information was requested. Students were asked

to identify their age, sex, and ethnic background. Scores were then processed by the

designers of the survey.

Surveys were administered and collected by the researcher. Only one copy of the

survey was available for review prior to administration of the survey at the school(s) for

57

parental review. To my knowledge, no parent took advantage of this opportunity. No

students had prior access to the surveying instruments. Data collected was immediately sent

to the RMBSI for data input to SPSS software. All survey forms are being stored at this

facility. The researcher was provided with a CD rom of the data for further analysis. All

data was kept secured when not being analyzed.

Variables

The variables being studied are a child’s negative pattern of social interaction and the

perceived parenting style. The independent or x variable is the parental style of interaction with

a child with bullying behavior as the dependant or y variable. Data was analyzed using Chi

Square analysis. Students were identified as bullies or none bullies. The parenting style was then

used as the observed behavior for this analysis. The observed behaviors were based on

permissiveness, support, trust, perceived level of caring and respect which will determine the

overall warmth and control of the parents.

The key to this study was the identification of actions that may be indicative of bullies

through self reports. Once identified, the nature of their relationship with their parents can be

established. Students reported specifically on the parents in the areas of setting boundaries,

developing trust and respect as well as the perceived level of caring by the child. The behavior of

the parents was evaluated for their ability to develop a close and effective parenting relationship

with their child as perceived by their child. Participants identified as bullies and non bullies

based on their responses to the questions answered questions were then organized by responses

to questions regarding parenting style. Data was then be analyzed to determine if there is a

58

connection between the child’s ability to socialize and the relationship they perceive with their

parents.

Measures

The tool for this survey is The American Drug and Alcohol Survey with the Prevention

Planning Survey (ADAS). The ADAS was developed at Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science

Institute (RMBSI) with Small Business Innovative Research grant funding from the National

Institute on Drug Abuse in 1983-1986. The three co-authors of the survey are Fred Beauvais,

Ph.D., Ruth Edwards, Ph.D., and Eugene Oetting, Ph.D. All three of the authors of the ADAS

conduct research on youth substance abuse prevention through the Tri-Ethnic Center for

Prevention Research at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Scores from the prevention portion of the ADAS have determined whether a population

is involved with bullying behavior either as a victim or a bully. In addition, the scores were then

analyzed to investigate whether a relationship exists between the perceived parental-child

relationship and acts of bullying. While the survey was designed to establish strategies for

substance abuse prevention, the prevention portion of the survey also gathers data regarding

school violence and acts of bullying as well as other environmental influences. For the purpose

of this study, scores were generated to analyze the relationship between bullies and their parents

based on attachment, security and trust which will determine the warmth of the parent. The

ADAS has been utilized in numerous, large-scale studies with middle and high school, which

verifies the reliability and validity of each section of the instrument. The survey focuses on the

risks and protective factors in the social environments that make up most teens’ daily lives: the

59

factors involving the students’ peer groups, family, and school environments. Importantly,

questions also address experiences with violence and victimization.

The ADAS is one of the most widely used questionnaires to assess adolescent behavior,

and has been considered suitable for individuals 12to18 years old with a high degree of trust,

quality of communication with regards to the assessment of closeness, security, and trust in a

parent-child relationship. The ADAS has proven to be very reliable when used both in the

general population and with five major ethnic groups in the United States. The survey used

multi-item scales (three to six items per scale) to measure involvement with ten different drugs.

Another four drugs (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and heroin) were assessed with two items each.

The RMBSI reports that most other drug surveys used only single items. As reported by the

RMBSI, their statisticians use Cronbach’s alpha reliability test to determine how reliable a multi-

item scale may be for a given population. According the data provided by the developers of the

survey instrument, the Cronbach alpha reliabilities for fourteen drug-use scales on the ADAS

range from .72 to .94, with the majority in the high .80 to .90 range. Generally, alpha reliabilities

above .70 were considered good when measures are used in large surveys, while alpha

reliabilities in the range from .80 to .99 are considered to be exceptionally high. The strong alpha

reliabilities of the drug use scales on the American Drug and Alcohol Survey show that the

students are responding consistently to the survey items.

Concurrent validity for the ADAS was established by demonstrating that similar results

were obtained when ADAS results are compared with the findings from other well-designed and

established surveys over time. As stated by the RMBSI, the instrument also was proven to have

60

construct validity since answers reported and that answers make sense and were consistent for

the type of respondent. Those respondents, who scored as being at risk, show scores relating to

drug use that tend to be predictable. The ADAS was used in over 45 published journal articles

indicating that many researchers view the instrument as valid and reliable.

The Prevention Planning portion of the survey was designed to illicit student information

that will help schools develop programs to prevent incidents of violence and substance abuse.

This was accomplished by gathering data that could be indicators of at risk behavior. Family

background information was gathered that will be used to determine a child’s perceptions on his

closeness, trust and responsibilities within his family. Another section examines the student’s

feelings on certain area such as questions regarding how well they like themselves, as well as

question about their actions and the perceived actions of their peers.

Question 53 directly relates to negative peer activities such as bullying behavior and

picking on other students. A response of “a lot”, “some” and “not much” were an indication that

this person engages in bullying behavior. Once identified, the parental relationship was then

examined through Chi Square analysis. Self-report surveys were thus utilized to identify the

target population of bullies. In this way, students have anonymously reported their behavior

without fear of repercussion. In addition, the questions asked were not specifically designed to

label them directly as a bully or victim. Instead, they indicated whether or not they have

performed the indicated action. This method should increase the likelihood that the answers

reported are accurate and represent an accurate interpretation of their behavior.

61

Procedures

The research is a quantitative design of convenience to study the perceived attitudes of

adolescents in regard to their relationships with their parents. In this way, a researcher is gaining

insight into the way the children feel about their parents’ methods of interaction with them. At

the same time, the research, using the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Health Violence Prevention

Planning Survey, has identified those students who partake in bullying behavior. Data collected

needed to identify those students who bully and determine how the child perceives their

relationships with their parents. Those who engage in bullying behavior were then analyzed

utilizing Chi Square analysis to determine their perceptions of parent-child relationships.

Critical to the study was the determination of those students who engage in bullying

behavior. Many acts of bullying go unreported to authority figures (Olweus, 1993). Adding to

the difficulty of detecting acts of bullying is the fact that indirect acts of bullying are very subtle

and will defy detection even if this behavior is being monitored or observed (Simmons, 2002).

For this reason, a bully may not always be detected making adult identification of bullies

inaccurate and misleading.

Data Collection Procedures

Research was conducted in accordance with all current school procedures and pursuant

to existing New Jersey laws of informed consent (NJS18A:36-34). Working with school

officials, parents were notified by letter as to the scope and nature of the study. They were given

the opportunity to view the surveys instrument prior to its administration; to my knowledge no

parent has taken advantage of this opportunity. Parents were asked to respond to the letter by

62

either agreeing are dissenting and then returning the letter to the district. A return envelope was

provided to elicit as many responses as possible.

Due to the impact of a resent court case, finding a school in New Jersey to participate in

student related survey has proven to be a difficult process. In 1998, the district of Ridgefield, NJ

was sued by three parents over the ability of schools to administer surveys. The parents

contended that the schools had acted improperly in administering the survey and that their

children had suffered as a result. In a 2004 decision, the court upheld the right of a school

district to administer surveys to students as long as they followed the guidelines of informed

consent. The surrounding school districts however, have been reluctant to conduct surveys for

fear of reprisal from parents.

The survey was taken during a student’s physical education class. During the class

period, students who had consent to take the survey were sent to the cafeteria to take the survey

while the remaining students participated in gym class. Prior to the distribution of survey

materials, the researcher read a predetermined statement to each and every class to ensure

consistency in all test groups. Students were strongly encouraged to answer all questions

accurately and honestly and to the best of their knowledge. They were also advised that they

may request to be excused and that participation is voluntary. Those who chose not to

participate were excused to the gym.

Administration of the survey was scheduled on a day that most students were likely to

attend. The survey was not administered on dates where there were field trips or other activities.

The time of year should also be considered. Since the survey is an attempt to get a snapshot of

63

student behavior and perceptions towards their family, giving a survey during exams may tend to

produce different results than a survey given after a holiday. Time of day could also be a factor

since students tend to tire at the end of the day.

Ideally, students had been given the survey on the same day. It could not be conducted

during the same period however but was given on the same day. In this way, students had only a

limited amount of time to discuss the survey in the halls. Students had taken the survey during

their physical education class and were instructed to remain in class until the surveys were

complete. Students excused from the survey due to lack of parental consent were allowed to

participate in their regularly scheduled gym class.

Students participating were not identified by name; however, demographic information

was requested. Students were asked to identify their age, sex, and ethnic background. Students

were not asked to indicate any factors that could identify them to those reviewing the scores.

Surveys were administered and collected by the researcher. Only one copy was available

prior to administration of the survey at the school(s) for parental review. No students had been

granted access to the survey prior to the survey administration. Of the 91 students eligible to

take the survey, 83 students actually participated in the survey. Several students opted to remain

in gym class (it was a very nice day after a series of rather cold days and the students stated they

wanted to go outside). One student could not read the survey since he had recently come from

Korea. He was excused to return to gym class. Two surveys had to be excluded since the

students had skipped pages and could not be accurately tabulated.

64

Data Analysis Plans

Once the data was collected, nominal groups were established based on the answers the

students provided. The groups were broken into groups of those who bully and those who state

they do not bully. These groups were established based on eleven different questions that looked

at bullying behavior. The total score of the questions was calculated. Scores of 4 through 33

constituted bullying behavior.

Using the categories that were established by Baumrind, parents were broken into four

groups. The four categories of parenting style were based on whether they are deemed high or

low in the areas of warmth and control. In each category, five variables will be used to

determine whether a parent was thought to be high or low in either category. A score of 11to 20

in the area of control will constitute a high score, while a score of 5 to10 in the area of warmth

will constitute a high score. Those who are high in warmth and high in control were classified

Authoritative. Permissive parents were those who were low in control but high in warmth. The

Authoritarian parent was high in control with low warmth. The Rejecting or Negative parent

was low in both warmth and control.

Since nominal groups were established, the appropriate method of data analysis was the

Chi Square or X². When dealing with categorical data such as the groups of bullies and

parenting style, the researcher was concerned with the frequency of observations of each

established group. For this study the observed behavior was the incidents or particular parental

style that may be unique to a group of bullies. Then the frequency of observations was analyzed

based on the statistical expected frequency of observations. Differences in the expected and

65

actual observed frequencies of observations were then analyzed using a test of independence to

determine the p-value. A small p-value would result in a rejection of the null hypothesis which

would indicate that the samples are not independent of each other.

The observed frequencies were based on the observed parenting styles as reported by the

child. Utilizing the child’s responses to the Likert scale, the parents were reviewed in terms of

warmth and control to determine their parenting style. Reviewing the survey questions 35 a, b, c,

d and e relates directly to the amount of control a parent has over a child. Responses of very

true or mostly true indicate low levels of control while somewhat true and not at all true indicate

high levels of control.

To determine the level warmth a child perceives of their parents involves several areas

including the amount of support, trust and respect the parent displays. Questions 38 a, 10, and

11 provide information as to the support parents offer their children. Question 36f asks directly

if the child feels that the parents trust them. Respect was determined by question 36g which ask

if the child feels respected by the parent. Answers that indicated a lot or some constitute high

responses while not much and not at all indicated low levels of warmth.

Question 1, “What affect does parenting style have on a child’s socialization?” was

analyzed using four separate Chi Square analyses. For each analysis, a score was determined for

bullies and non bullies in relation to an individual parenting style. Question 2, “What factors of

parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?” A Chi Square was used to

analyze to determine the group with the most incidents of bullying to determine if there was a

relationship with parenting style. This group was reviewed with each of the parenting styles.

66

Question 3, “Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern

of peer socialization with regards to bulling?,” was analyzed using Chi Square to determine if the

variable of warmth or control in and of themselves were factors in a child’s incidents of bullying.

Expected Findings

If the research question is valid and students provide honest feedback to the surveys, the

findings will indicate that parental style of interaction will directly influence a child’s pattern of

peer-to-peer socialization and that the null hypothesis is rejected. Children of parents with

extremes in parenting style by either being to permissive or overly negative will negatively

impact a child’s ability to socialize and will lead to bullying behavior.

67

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Research Design and Methodology Summary

The purpose of this study was to further understand to what extent the relationship

between a child and his or her parents as perceived by the child affects that child’s peer

relationships. This quantitative research design has explored whether a child had a predictable

response to bullying questions based on the results of information regarding a particular parental

interaction style. In other words, does a certain perceived parenting style relate to bullying

behavior? The research also explored the degree of association between these two variables, by

utilizing the Chi Square procedure for each parenting style.

In essence, the study proposes that how children will treat others is a result of interaction

with their parents. Children who perceive difficulties with their parents with regard to security,

trust and/or responsibility may have difficulties in peer relations and resort to bullying behavior.

If this is the case then both parenting style and the strength of the parent-child relationship will

be factors in a child’s peer-to-peer relationships. The stronger the parental relationship in all

areas of trust, security and responsibility, the stronger the child’s peer to peer relationships will

be and the less likely a child will be to resort to bullying behaviors.

Participants of the study were eighth grade students attending a suburban middle school

in Northern Bergen County, New Jersey. All participants had received written informed consent

from their parents or guardians to participate in the study. In addition, students were asked to

complete a student consent form before they took the survey. A letter had gone out to all parents

or guardians in the district regarding the survey with the consent form. While plans had been

68

made to include return postage with the return envelope, an oversight on the part of the printer

resulted in a failure to include this with the mailer. The researcher felt that this would result in a

smaller return from the mailer. So this issue was addressed with the district. The district did

agree to allow this researcher to send a follow up letter home with the students as a reminder to

the parents. Due to cost constraints of this reminder, postage was not included.

As a result of the 253 letters send home, 91 students were granted permission to

participate in the survey, however 79 students actually participated. There were 43 females and

36 males partaking in the study. On the day of the study, the students were asked whether they

wanted to participate in the study or remain in gym. It was a very nice day after a series of rather

cold days and 9 students opted to go outside. One student could not read the survey since he had

recently come from Korea. He was excused to return to gym class. Because the students had

skipped pages, two surveys had to be excluded.

The tool for this survey was The American Drug and Alcohol Survey with the Prevention

Planning Survey (ADAS). The ADAS was developed at Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science

Institute (RMBSI) with Small Business Innovative Research grant funding from the National

Institute on Drug Abuse in 1983-1986. Scores from the prevention portion of the ADAS have

determined whether a population is involved with bullying behavior either as a victim or a bully.

In addition, the scores were then analyzed to investigate whether a relationship exists between

the perceived parental-child relationship and acts of bullying. While the survey was designed to

establish strategies for substance abuse prevention, the prevention portion of the survey also

gathers data regarding school violence and acts of bullying as well as other environmental

69

influences. For the purpose of this study, scores were generated to analyze the relationship

between bullies and their parents based on attachment, security and trust.

The research conducted was a quantitative study of variables to examine the perceived

parent-child relationship and the socialization of the child. The variables were quantitative in

nature; Chi Square was performed to access any relationship between them. Chi Square analysis

for each style of parenting was used to determine if there was a relation between that parenting

style and a child’s incidents of bullying. Using one degree of freedom and a critical value of a =

.05, Permissive, Authoritarian, Authoritative and Neglecting parenting styles were analyzed with

regard to bullying behavior to determine whether there was a statistical significance between the

theoretical predicted frequencies and the actual obtained frequencies.

For this study, parenting style was assessed to determine the perceived level of warmth

and control a parent exhibits (see Table 1). A combined score of questions 10, 11, 36f, 36g and

38g determined the perceived level of warmth. Scores on each question ranged from one to four.

A score of five through ten was considered high in warmth since they represented the scores of

the lower two categories. A score of eleven through twenty were considered low on warmth

since they represented the score of the higher two categories. The level of control a parent’s tries

to establish was determined by combining scores from questions 36a, 36b, 36c, 36d, and 36e.

Scores on each question ranged from one to four. A score of eleven through twenty was

considered to be high in control. Those parents who were determined to be high in warmth (a

score of five through ten) and high in control (a score of eleven through twenty) will be

considered Authoritative. Parents high in warmth (a score of five through ten) but low in control

(a score of five through ten) were considered Permissive. Authoritarian parents were those

70

considered to be low in warmth (a score of eleven through twenty) and high in control (a score of

eleven through twenty) while Neglecting parents will be those low in both warmth (a score of

eleven through twenty) and control (a score of five through ten).

Table 1, Score to Determine Parenting Styles

Warmth

Low

Score of 11-20

High

Score of 5-10

Control

Low

Score of

5-10

Neglecting

Permissive

High

Score of

11-20

Authoritarian

Authoritative

71

Table 2, Frequency of Parenting Style

N

Authoritative 46

Authoritarian 21

Neglect 1

Permissive 11

Total N 79

In order to determine if parenting style was a consideration in incidents of bullying, the

students surveyed were divided into two groups. The two groups were those who engaged in

bullying behavior and those who did not. Bullying behavior included both indirect and direct

forms of bullying. Eleven questions were used to determine these two groups. A combined

score of questions 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, 30a, 30b, 48c, 48f, and 48g were totaled. Each question

ranged in score from one to four. A one indicated a lot of bullying, a two was some bullying, a

three would indicate not much bullying while a four would indicate no bullying behavior. A

total score of 5to33 would constitute the cut off for bullies. A score of 33 would indicate that a

person had participated in some bullying behavior. A score of 34 to 44 indicated no bullying

behavior. Using SPSS analysis 79 students were grouped as either being a bully or a not bully.

Table 3 illustrates that 26 students were classified as bullies while 53 students were determined

to be none bullies. Once the groups had been established the groups were analyzed to examine

the observed frequency of parenting style.

72

Table 3, Frequencies of bullies and not bullies

The following research questions were reviewed during this study:

Frequency Percent

1.00 26 32.9

2.00 53 67.1

Bully

Not

bully

Total 79 100.0

73

• What affect does parenting style have on a child’s socialization?

• What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?

• Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern

of peer socialization with regards to bulling?

Question 1

What effect does parenting style have on a child’s negative socialization?

Permissive Parenting Style

It was hypothesized that Permissive parenting style would effect a child’s socialization

and lead to bullying behavior. A Permissive parent was determined to be a parent that was high

in warmth and low in control (see Table 1). Of the 79 students participating in the survey,

eleven parents were classified as having Permissive parenting style (see Table 2). Chi Square

analysis was not performed in this area since the expected frequency of low control was less then

5. An expected frequency of less than five would indicate that Chi Square analysis would be

unreliable. According to Howell (2004) with a small expected frequency there is no way that the

observed frequency could be normally distributed. For this reason, the Chi Square would not be

reliable statistical test.

74

Table 4. Chi Square Analysis of Bullies with Permissive Parents

Frequency

Permissive

1=bully; 1.00 Count 4

Expected Count 3.6

2= not bully 2.00 Count 7

Expected Count 7.4

Total Count 11

Expected Count 11.0

Authoritarian Parenting Style

It was hypothesized that Authoritarian parenting style would have a negative impact on a

child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. An Authoritarian parent was

determined to be low in warmth and high in control (see Table 1). Of the 79 students surveyed,

21 parents were considered to be Authoritarian in parenting style (see Table 2).

Using SPSS Chi Square analysis of the students who were classified as bullies and not

bullies (see Table 3), there was a statistical significance between the expected frequencies and

the obtained frequencies. Using SPSS analysis, a Chi Square score of x²(1, N=21) = 2.802

p=.094 would indicate that there is a relationship between incidents of bullying behavior and

Authoritarian parenting style (see Table 5). Although there is a relationship between bullying

behavior and Authoritarian parenting style, the null hypothesis could not be rejected.

75

Table 5. Chi Square Analysis of Bullies with Authoritarian Parents

Frequency

Authoritarian


Expected Count 6.9


Expected Count 14.1

Total Count 21

Expected Count 21.0

Chi-Square Tests

2.802b 1 .094

1.968 1 .161

2.712 1 .100

.110 .082

79

Pearson Chi-Square

Continuity Correctiona

Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

N of Valid Cases

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.

91.

b.

Symmetric Measures

-.188 .094

.188 .094

79

Phi

Cramer's V

Nominal by

Nominal

N of Valid Cases

Value Approx. Sig.

Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.

Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null

hypothesis.

b.

Authoritative Parenting Style

76

It was hypothesized that an Authoritative Parenting style would have a positive effect on

a child’s pattern of interaction. To be considered Authoritative, a parent would have to score

high in warmth and high in control. Out of the 79 students who took the survey, 46 parents were

classified as being Authoritative in parenting style (see Table 2).

Using Chi Square analysis of the students who were classified as bullies and not bullies

(see Table 6), there was no statistical significance between the expected frequencies and the

obtained frequencies. A Chi Square score of x²(1, N=46) = 2.323 p=.127 would indicate that

there is a no statistical difference between incidents of bullying behavior and Authoritative

parenting style. Since there was no statistical difference between bullying and Authoritative

parenting style null could not be rejected (see Table 5). This result was not surprising since it

was expected that Authoritative parenting style would have a positive effect on a child’s

behavior. The statistical relationship−or lack of relationship−may be a result of the positive

effects of the parenting style.

Table 6. Chi Square Analysis of Bullies with Authoritative Parents

Frequency

Authoritative


Expected Count 15.1


Expected Count 30.9

Total Count 46

Expected Count 46.0

77

Chi-Square Tests

2.323b 1 .127

1.642 1 .200

2.309 1 .129

.150 .100

79

Pearson Chi-Square


Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

N of Valid Cases

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)



86.

b.

Symmetric Measures

.171 .127

.171 .127

79

Phi

Cramer's V

Nominal by

Nominal

N of Valid Cases

Value Approx. Sig.

Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.

Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null

hypothesis.

b.

Neglecting Parenting Style

It was hypothesized that Neglecting parenting style would have a negative impact on a

child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. A neglecting parent was

determined to be low in warmth and low in control (see Table 1). To be determined as low in

control the combined score of those five questions was less than eleven. Of the 79 students that

were surveyed, only one incident of a neglectful parenting style was determined (see Table 2).

It must be noted that only one parent was determined to be Neglecting in parenting style.

Therefore, the sample is limited and does not warrant proper Chi Square analysis. Since no

78

relationship between bullying and a Neglecting parenting style was determined, null could not be

rejected nor accepted. Due to the number of parents in this category, the data is inconclusive

with regard to this parenting style.

Question 2

What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer interaction?

The data was analyzed to determine if there was a relationship between parenting style

and those students who were reporting the most frequent acts of bullying. It was hoped that by

isolating those students with the most frequent acts of bullying, the researcher could isolate

factors of parenting that may contribute to this behavior. SPSS analysis had determined that

more females had participated in the study, 43 females and 36 males, and that the females

reported the highest frequency of bullying behavior (see Table 7). The most frequent acts of

bullying were reported by 4 females who indicated that they engage in bullying behavior “a lot”

to “some”. No males reported this frequency of behavior. As seen in Table 7, those who

indicated that they bullied “ a lot” were females.

The factors of parenting style were a parent’s warmth and control that their child had

perceived. As seen in Table 1, parents were determined to be either high or low in regards to

warmth. In addition they were determined to be high or low in control they exhibited in the

parent-child relationship. The factors of warmth and control were examined to determine if they

were factors in the most frequent acts of bullying behavior.

79

Table 7: Frequency of students who bully “a lot”

Highest frequency of bullying incidents

Frequency Percent

Highest 1.00 4 5.0

Remaining 75 95.0

Total 79 100.0

Since only 4 participants admitted to frequent acts of bullying, Chi Square analysis could

not be performed. Each of the 4 students reporting the highest frequency of bullying behavior

also were determined through review of the data to have Authoritarian parents. Results are

inconclusive in this area because Chi Square could not be done.

Question 3

Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a child’s pattern of peer

socialization with regards to bullying?

A student’s perceived feelings of trust, security and closeness to their parents were used

to determine an overall level of warmth and control a parent exhibits. Students were asked if

they felt trusted by their parents. In addition, they were asked if they felt that their parent’s

supported them and if they could count on their parents for help. Answers were totaled to

determine an overall score. This score was used to determine if the parents were perceived to be

high or low in warmth (see Table 1).

80

The data gathered was expected to indicate that students who felt that their parents were

low in warmth and that their parents were high in control would engaged in incidents of bullying

more often then children of other parenting styles. This would indicate that trust, security and

closeness would be a factor in a child’s negative socialization. What is unclear is the nature of

the relationship. The data is not clear on what factors lead to the student’s feelings of mistrust.

In other words, the questionnaire is unclear as to the mitigating factors that may have lead to this

conclusion. In fact, the data collected is strictly from the point of view of the child and does not

indicate if the parents actually had reasons to mistrust their child or even if the child was

trustworthy.

Trust, security and closeness were considered to be factors that contribute to a child’s

feelings of warmth with their parents. A combined score of questions 10, 11, 36f, 36g and 38g

was used to determine the perceived level of warmth. Scores on each question ranged from one

to four. A one would indicate a lot, a two would indicate some, a three would indicate not much

and a four would indicate not at all. A score of five through ten was considered high in warmth,

while eleven through twenty would indicate a low level of warmth. Both Permissive and

Authoritative parenting style indicate high levels of warmth while Neglecting and Authoritarian

parents have low levels of warmth (see Table 1). Of the 79 students surveyed, 57 students

indicated a high level of warmth with their parents. The remaining 22 students indicated a low

level of warmth.

Using SPSS analysis on warmth as a variable showed that this factor alone was not a

significant factor in bullying. In a Chi Square as seen in Table 8, there was no relationship

81

between warmth and bullying behavior. The results of each Chi Square analysis showed that

warmth alone was not a factor in a child’s bullying behavior (see Table 8). Analysis determined

that x²(1, N=79) Chi Square =2 .173, p = .149 therefore we could not reject the null hypothesis.

For this analysis it was determined that for those who engaged in bullying behavior, 16

described their parents as being low in warmth, and 10 described them as being high in warmth.

The not bullies more frequently described their parent as being low in warmth (see Table 8)

Table 8, Chi Square analysis of bullies and not bullies and warm.

Crosstab

WARMTH

LOW HIGH Total

Count 16 10 26 1

Expected Count 18.8 7.2 26.0

Count 41 12 53

1=bully; 2= not bully 2


Count 57 22 79 Total


Chi-Square Tests

2.173b 1 .140

1.457 1 .227

2.112 1 .146

.183 .115

2.145 1 .143

79

Pearson Chi-Square


Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear

Association

N of Valid Cases

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)



24.

b.

82

Control as a variable was also reviewed. As seen in Table 1, both Authoritarian and

Authoritative parenting styles indicated a high level of parental control while Permissive and

Neglecting parents indicated a low level of control. Of the students who participated in the

survey, 12 parents had low levels of control. Chi Square analysis was not performed in this area

since the expected frequency of low control was less then 5. An expected frequency of less than

five would indicate that Chi Square analysis would be unreliable. According to Howell (2004)

with a small expected frequency there is no way that the observed frequency could be normally

distributed. For this reason, the Chi Square would not be reliable statistical test.

Students with Authoritarian Parenting styles who are low in warmth but high in control

have a relationship with incidents of bullying. The other parenting style with low warmth as a

factor would be the Neglecting parenting style. Since only one student indicated that their

parents were Neglecting parenting style, there was not enough of a sample size to truly determine

the nature of the relationship. For this reason, the strength of the relationship of the variable low

warmth could not truly be determined. While the Authoritarian Parenting style seems to indicate

that low warmth is marginally related to incidents of bullying behavior, the sample size for

Neglecting Parenting Style is too limited to conclude that there is a relationship.

83

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Discussion of Results

A phenomenon around the country indicates that incidents of bullying are on the

rise. Evidence shows an increase in aggressive behavior among peers at an age when children

are looking for new friendships, especially as they enter adolescence (APA Monitor, 1999). In

fact, a study conducted by the APA Monitor (1999) cited as many as 75% of the students having

been bullied, victimized, or both during the 1998-99 school year. As indicated by other studies

as well, 10 out of 15 victims of bullies reported that such incidents occur on a regular basis

(Newquist, 1979). Once shrugged off as “kids will be kids,” acts of bullying have in recent years

drawn increasing amounts of attention. Incidents such as the 1999 shootings at Columbine High

School have lead to a heightened interest in the dynamics of the bullying process.

Children who experience persistent bullying may become depressed or fearful

(Eslea,1998). A child who was once confident might, after being bullied, question what was

wrong with himself/herself that caused such victimization. The child may then suffer from lower

self-esteem. Furthermore, it is essential not to mistake bullying for normal childhood conflicts or

acts of anger. Some conflicts are to be anticipated. For example, children might express

negative emotion when they don’t get their way. Bullies, on the other hand, may call or tease a

child just for their own satisfaction.

As established by Olweus (1993), negative peer interaction seems to be on the rise.

Schools have noticed a marked increase in the number and severity of negative acts of peer

interaction.

84

Escalation of the incidence of bullying has not gone unnoticed by legislative bodies. For

this reason, schools have begun to implement programs to curtail incidents of bullying. New

Jersey Statute (NJSA) 18A:37-13-19 (2002) is specific anti-bullying legislation, mandating that

all schools have anti-bullying programs. This statute was signed into law on September 6, 2002,

by Governor James McGreevey. The law is intended to ensure the physical and emotional safety

of all students. The initiative, called “New Jersey Cares About Bullying,” will be overseen by

the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations,

which, in turn, is overseen by the Office of the Attorney General.

Most bullying programs have been met with only limited success. This may be because

the programs did not fully address the true cause of the bullying behaviors. Schools have focused

little attention in child-parent relationships. Exploring the perceived parenting styles as well as

the perceived strengths of relationships may provide a strategy for dealing with the growing

phenomenon of adolescent bullying.

The development of bullying behavior can best be explained as a by-product of family



interaction that finds its roots at home. Any approach must recognize that parents may be trying

their best to raise their children and may be overwhelmed by the actions of their children. In

addition, the parents of victims need to understand the bullying process so that they can

empathize with and support their children. Schools and parents need to work together actively to

target and eliminate negative peer interaction.

85

Parenting style thus seems to stand out as a factor that can have a significant effect on a

child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1991). Overly authoritarian parents who try to wield absolute

control over their children while displaying little warmth can stifle a child’s ability to express

emotions (Thurber, 1997). Children of authoritarian parents find themselves lacking spontaneity

and curiosity. Social skills are therefore hindered, leading to what can become extreme measures

to gain acceptance by their peers. They may begin to feel that being feared is better than being

ignored.

Permissive parents will unwittingly encourage their children to be impulsive, since they

had not enforced proper boundaries. Baumrind (1991), who studied parenting styles, suggested

that the children of such parents are unable to accept responsibility for their actions and tend to

have immature socio-emotional responses to situations (Thurber, 1997). This impulsive

behavior may prove detrimental during peer interactions, especially since such children do not

consider the consequences of their behavior or the effect they will have on others.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the parents and their

children, as perceived by the children, to determine if any factors in those relationships may be

predictive of bullying behavior. The research explored the perceived style of parenting as well

as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the parent-child relationship that may lead to

negative acts of peer aggression. Factors such as Permissive, Authoritarian or Authoritative

parenting were explored in order to determine factors that lead a child to develop a pattern of

bullying behavior. Upon review of the data collected, this researcher was able to determine that

there is a relationship between the perceived parent-child relationship and a child’s peer

interaction.

86

Participants of the study were eighth grade students attending a suburban middle school

in Northern Bergen County, New Jersey. All participants had received written informed consent

from their parents or guardians to participate in the study. In addition, students were asked to

complete a student consent form before they took the survey. A letter went out to all parents or

guardians in the district regarding the survey and included the consent form. Although plans had

been made to include return postage with the return envelope, an oversight on the part of the

printer resulted in a failure to include this with the mailer. The researcher felt that this would

result in a smaller return, so this issue was addressed with the district. The district agreed to

allow this researcher to send a follow-up letter home with the students as a reminder to the

parents. Due to the cost constraints of this reminder, postage was not included.

As a result of 253 letters send home, 91 students were granted permission to participate in

the survey, however only 79 students participated, 43 females and 36 males. The printer had

failed to include return postage on the return envelope was felt to be a contributing factor to the

low number of respondents to this mailer. Since cost prohibited another mailer, an additional

reminder letter was send home with the students. On the day of the study, the students were

asked whether they wanted to participate in the study or remain in gym. It was a very nice day

after a series of rather cold days and 9 students opted to go outside. One student could not read

the survey since he had recently come from Korea. He was excused to return to gym class.

Because two students had skipped pages, their two surveys had to be excluded.

For this project, parenting styles were reviewed along the lines of research by Buamrind

(1991). Parents were identified in terms of their children’s responses to questions regarding their

87

parent’s warmth and level of control (see Table 9). Those who were determined to be high in

warmth and high in control were considered Authoritative. Parents high in warmth but low in

control were considered Permissive. Authoritarian parents were those considered to be low in

warmth and high in control while Neglecting parents were those low in both warmth and control.

Table 9, Parenting Styles

Warmth

Low Score of 11-20 High Score of 5-10

Control

Low

Score of

5-10

Neglecting

Permissive

High

Score of

11-20

Authoritarian

Authoritative

In order to determine if parenting style was a consideration in incidents of bullying, the

students surveyed were divided into two groups: those who engaged in bullying behavior and

those who did not. Bullying behavior included both indirect and direct forms of bullying. The

definition of bullying behavior was determined from information gathered from Olweus (1993)

and Rigby (1999, June) and included acts such as teasing, intimidation, exclusion, spreading

88

rumors and cyberbullying. Groups were established to examine the observed frequency of the

different parenting style.

Research Question 1: What effect does parenting style have on a child’s negative socialization?

It was hypothesized that an Authoritarian parenting style would have a negative impact

on a child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. Of the 79 students surveyed,

21 considered their parents to be Authoritarian (see Table 9).

Findings indicated that there was a relationship between an Authoritarian parenting style

and acts of bullying. This would indicate that children who perceive their parents to be high in

control and low in warmth were at an increased risk of exhibiting bullying behavior. As

indicated by Thurber, (2003). , children who feel controlled by their parents while given little

warmth may then try to control their own social relationships by bullying. In this way, bullying

would be a learned behavior. Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005), in a study of school attendance,

also found a correlation between the negative quality of a parental relationship and poor

socialization. In their study, controlling parents were thought to restrict individual autonomy. A

child was then left to find alternative ways of expression and control, which could lead to

bullying behavior.

In the studies of Hastings and Capplan (1999), a child’s socialization was strongly

correlated to parental values and beliefs. This was particularly the case with children who

viewed their parents as angry and controlling. Such children were more likely to externalize

problems and have poor socialization skills.

89

It was also hypothesized that an Authoritative parenting style would have a positive

effect on a child’s pattern of interaction. Of the 79 students who took the survey, 46 parents

were considered as being Authoritative in parenting style by their children (see Table 9).

Since there was no statistical relationship between an Authoritative parenting style and

bullying behavior, an Authoritative parenting style does not seem to be a factor in the

development of bullying behavior in children. This result was not surprising since it was

expected that Authoritative parenting style would have a positive effect on a child’s behavior.

These findings would be consistent with the findings of Baumrind (1991), who theorized that

Authoritative parents were viewed as the most fair by their children. Authoritative parents seem

to be viewed as trusting and respectful of the needs of their children while establishing clear

boundaries for behavior.

It was hypothesized that a Permissive parenting style would affect a child’s socialization

and lead to bullying behavior. Of the 79 students participating in the survey, 11 considered their

Permissive parents (see Table 9). Since the sample in this area was low, no statistical analysis

was performed. The study would have benefited from a larger sample of students in order to

gain clearer insight into the role of a Permissive parenting style.

It was hypothesized that a Neglecting parenting style would have a negative impact on a

child’s socialization and would lead to incidents of bullying. Of the 79 students that were

surveyed, only 1 student considered their parent neglecting (see Table 9). Since the sample in

this area was low, no statistical analysis was able to be performed. The study would have

benefited from a larger sample of students in order to gain clearer insight into the role of the

Neglecting parenting style.

90

Research Question 2: What factors of parenting style may lead to a child’s negative peer

interaction?

The data was analyzed to determine whether there was a relationship between parenting

style and those students who were reported that they committed the most frequent acts of

bullying. It was hoped that by isolating those students who reported that they committed the

most frequent acts of bullying, the researcher could isolate factors of parenting that may

contribute to this behavior. More females participated in the study than males (43 females and

36 male). In addition, the most frequent acts of bullying were reported by 4 females who

indicated that they engage in bullying behavior “a lot” to “some”. No males reported this

frequency of behavior. The results raise the question as to whether the females were just more

forthcoming and honest than the males when reporting the frequency of bullying behavior.

The results of the survey are consistent with the research of Olweus (1993), in that both

males and females engage in bullying behavior. Olweus (1993) notes that females tend to

engage in more indirect acts of bullying than males, who tend to be more physical. Since many

of the questions on the survey were geared to indirect forms of bullying behavior, this may

explain why the females reported more acts of bullying. Females may not become as physical as

males but seem to report more frequent acts of name calling, exclusion, and teasing. Society has

been slow to recognize the impact indirect acts of bullying may have on a victim and, therefore,

they are not generally viewed by many as being harmful. Such behavior remains an unpleasant

aspect of the hidden subculture of our youth and is sometimes viewed as a rite of passage by

91

adults (Olweus, 1993). Hastings and Coplan (1999) found that mothers responded to acts of

aggression as if they were not typical behaviors for their children. For this reason, many acts of

bullying go unreported by youths.

While this research did try to determine the frequency of bullying behavior, the survey

was limited. The participants were not asked how recently they had committed such acts, only

whether they had done so at some point. This may be a shortcoming of the survey since, the

researcher does not know when the respondents engaged in such acts. In addition, data was not

gathered on how many students had participated in each reported acts of bullying. In other

words, the data does not indicate if the individual had acted alone or with a group. Therefore,

little is known about the acts themselves. For example, the data does not indicate whether the

females who reported the most frequent acts of bullying did so in a group or whether they acted

independently. Such insight could have been useful in studying the dynamics of bullying. If the

girls acted as part of a group, then the group dynamics may have played a role in the behavior of

the females. In this way, peer groups themselves would have been a factor in developing

bullying behavior rather then being a byproduct of parenting style.

Research Question 3: Does a child’s feeling of trust, security and closeness contribute to a

child’s pattern of peer socialization with regards to bullying?

92

A student’s perceived feelings of trust, security, and closeness to their parents was used

to determine an overall level of warmth and control a parent exhibits. Students were asked if

they felt trusted by their parents. In addition, they were asked whether they felt that their parents

supported them and if they could count on their parents for help. Answers to these questions

were used to determine whether the parents were perceived to be high or low in warmth.

The data gathered was expected to indicate that students who felt that their parents were

low in warmth and high in control would engage in incidents of bullying more often then

children whose parents exhibited other parenting styles. Such findings would be consistent with

the work of Rigby (1999), who felt that children who could not attach to their parents because

they were not warm would tend to engage in bullying behavior. In addition, Joronen and Astedt-

Kurki (2005) reported that teens who felt that their parents were interested and warm to their

friends were also thought to be supportive and trusting to the teen. This would indicate that the

absence of warmth would be factors in a child’s negative socialization.

What is unclear from the current study is the nature of the parent/child relationship. The

data does not illustrate what factors lead to students’ feelings of mistrust. In other words, the

questionnaire does not illustrate the mitigating factors that may have lead to the feelings reported

by the child. In fact, the data collected is strictly from the point of view of the child and does not

indicate whether the parents actually had reasons to mistrust their child or even if the child was

trustworthy.

The data collected also does not provide information about the particular parenting style

of each parent. Those students surveyed are asked questions regarding their parents in general.

93

The data may not accurately distinguish between the parenting style of both parents. Such

behavior may only be indicates of one parent. The questionnaire also does not distinguish

between single parent families or families that are divorced and share custody. In this way, there

are many factors of the family dynamics that are not taken into account when determining the

families overall parenting style.

While the research collected on warmth alone was not statistically significant, the

findings do warrant further discussion. Both Permissive and Authoritative parenting styles

indicate high levels of warmth while Neglecting and Authoritarian parents have low levels of

warmth. Due to the small number of participants, analysis could not be performed on the

Permissive and Neglecting parenting styles. The Authoritarian parenting style was statistically

significant, which would indicate that low warmth plays a role a in child’s peer-to-peer

relationships and may lead to bullying behavior.

Control as a variable was also reviewed. Participants were asked questions regarding

how demanding their parents were about following rules. Based on scores from these questions,

parents were then rated as high or low in control. Again due to the small sample size, statistical

analysis could not be performed. However, Authoritarian parenting style was statistically

significant, which would indicate that high levels of control play a role in the development of a

child’s peer-to-peer relationships and may lead to bullying behavior. Douglas and Emory (1996)

determined that stress in a family could lead to negative outcomes for a child.

The current research in this study is unclear about the effects of control. Since there were

a limited number of questions gathered to determine overall control, the data provide little

94

insight of the overall quality of the parent-child relationship. Although a parent is rated as high

or low in control, the data does not indicate how the children feel about their parents’ controlling

behavior. A child may feel controlling behavior is appropriate; others may feel they are being

treated unfairly. In this way, parents may actually being viewed differently for the similar

behavior. For this reason, the score itself should be viewed with caution

Conclusions

As established by Olweus (1993), the level of negative peer interaction in adolescents

seems to be on the raise. Schools have noticed a mark increase in the number and severity of

negative acts of peer interaction. For this reason, schools have begun to implement programs to

curtail incidents of bullying. Most programs have been met with only limited success.

Although schools have implemented programs, the incidence of bullying seems to have

decreased only marginally. The programs, themselves, may be ineffective since they do little to

stop the development of bullying behavior. In other words, the programs developed by schools

try to modify behavior rather than try to prevent the socialization pattern from forming. To

properly deal with negative peer socialization, studies should to identify the origins of bullying

behavior.

Little attention has been given to factors that may precipitate bullying acts, themselves.

More specifically, the parent/child relationship may lead to poor socialization and result in

bullying behavior. Beginning early in an individual’s life, parents’ and or guardians’ interactions

with a child begin to formulate a pattern of socialization. This pattern of socialization will then

be translated into a child’s relationship with his/her peers. Examining the parent-child

relationship may uncover factors in that relationship that increase the likelihood of negative peer

95

socialization. Prevention programs targeting those factors could be developed to ultimately

reduce the number of bullying incidents.

Baumrind (1991) rated parents on their style of child interaction. In her research she

examined a parent’s interaction by reviewing the areas of control of a child’s behavior,

attachment to their children, and a child’s ability to become self-reliant and capable of self-

control. Rating parents in these areas, Baumrind established the four types of parenting style:

Permissive, Authoritative, Neglecting and Authoritarian. Each parenting style identified was an

attempt to describe the quality of the family environment (Joronen, 2005).

The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships between the parents

and their children, as perceived by the children, to determine factors in those relationships may

be predictive of bullying behavior. Consistent with the prior work of Baumrind (1991), parental

styles such as Permissive, Authoritarian or Authoritative were explored in order to determine

factors that lead a child to develop a pattern of bullying behavior.

The sample used in this study was a sample of convenience and was not truly random

and, therefore, it cannot be generalized to the overall population. Furthermore, this sample was

predominantly white, middle class, suburban middle school in Northern, New Jersey which

limits the scope of the findings. In addition, all participants were required to give written

parental consent in order to participate. As a result of the 253 letters send home, 91 students were

granted permission to participate in the survey, however 79 students actually participated (43

females and 36 males). Failure on the part of the printer to include return postage was a

contributing factor to the low number of respondents to this mailer. Since cost prohibited

another mailer, an additional reminder letter was send home with the students. The sample size

96

was a factor in this study outcome and analysis was limited due to low frequency distributions in

several situations.

The survey tool, while providing valid and reliable data on incidents of bullying

behavior, was rather limited with respect to allowing analysis of parental relationships. The tool

for this survey was The American Drug and Alcohol Prevention Planning Survey (ADAS). The

ADAS was developed at the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute (RMBSI) in 1983-

1986 with Small Business Innovative Research grant funding from the National Institute on Drug

Abuse. Scores from the prevention portion of the ADAS were used determined whether a student

was involved in bullying behavior.

Scores were also used to determine the nature of the parent-child relationship. A score

would determine if a parent was high or low in warmth and control and this, in turn, would

determine the parenting style. Those parents who were determined to be high in warmth and high

in control will be considered Authoritative. Parents high in warmth but low in control were

considered Permissive. Authoritarian parents were those considered low in warmth and high in

control, while Neglecting parents were those low in both warmth and control.

Parenting style was then analyzed to determine whether there was a relationship between

parenting style and incidents of a child’s involvement in bullying behavior. While analysis did

determine a relationship between acts of bullying and an Authoritarian parenting style, the score

for an Authoritarian parent was based solely on a limited number of questions. There were only

five questions designed to determine a warm parent and five questions designed to determine a

controlling parent. For this reason, insight into the score is limited.

97

The results are, by design, based on the insight of the child. A child may actually believe

a parent to be controlling yet we are unaware of the reasons behind such behavior. In reality, the

parent may have good reasons for such behavior, e.g., as warranted by a child’s actions. Also, we

do not know the quality of the parent-child relationship. Actions taken by angry parents are

different from actions of protective, nurturing parents. The survey does not allow us to make

those distinctions.

Recommendations for Future Research

Despite the limitations of this current study, a future study is necessary to determine what

parental factors contribute to a child’s incidence of bullying behavior. Despite the limitations of

this current study, a relationship was established between an Authoritarian parenting style and

the incidence of bullying behavior. To truly curtail future acts of bullying, we must understand

the factors that contribute to the formation of such behavior. For this reason, research in this

area should continue.

Future studies should address the need for instruments other than the ADAS to measure

the relationship between a parent and a child who bullies. While the ADAS proved to be a valid

and reliable instrument, it provided only limited information about the true nature of the parent

child relationship. In addition, the ADAS was limited in the timing of bullying actions. While

the researcher was aware of bullying behavior, no data could be collected on the time frame of

these actions, i.e., the data do not indicate whether these acts were recent or not. Other

instruments may help examine this issue of timing.

Ideally, any future studies should include a larger population of students. But, since any

survey that includes children will require some form of parental consent, such research will be

98

arduous at best. The results are necessary, however, because we cannot implement programs

without fully understanding the adolescent world and the nature and extent of the problem.

Adults may believe they know what is best for a child, yet have not explored the necessary

information to make such decisions. To truly understand the world of a child, one must ask the

child.

In conclusion, bullying has become a serious problem that can have lasting effects on an

individual. Studies by Olweus (1991) indicate that 1 in 6 students are bullied on a regular basis.

While programs have been developed to curtail incidents of bullying, these programs have been

only marginally successful. For this reason, further research is warranted to fully explain the

origins of bullying behavior.

Data collected in this research as well as the research of others like Baumrind (1991) and

Rigby (1999) suggest that a child’s behavior is a by-product of parenting dynamics. To be

successful at curtailing bullying behavior, future bullying studies should aim at understanding

family dynamics, including what parenting styles that support healthy socialization. Only by

understanding how parenting factors contribute to bullying behavior can we hope to reduce the

incidence of bullying behavior.

99

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (APA) (2002). Ethical principals of psychologists and code

of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, Washington, DC:

Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J. (2005, November/December). The role of parenting styles in children's

problem behavior. Child Development, 76(6), 1144-1159.

APA Monitor, (1999, October) Bullying widespread in the middle school, say 3 studies.

[Electronic Version] APA Monitor. 30:9. Retrieved October 30, 2003 from:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct99/cf3.html

Armsden G.C. and Greenberg M.T. (2000) IN: Corcoran, K. & Fischer, J. (Eds.) Inventory of

parent and peer attachment [IPPA] (1987).). Measures for Clinical Practice: A

Sourcebook. 3rd Ed. (2vols.) NY, Free Pr. 1, 564-573

Azar, B, (1999, February) Consortium of editors pushes shift in child research method. The

APA Monitor. 30(2)

Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant

children. In J. E. Rolf, D. Cicchetti , S. Weintraub, A. S. Masten, & K. Neuchterlein

(Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257-280).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baumrind, D (1991) The Influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance

use. Journal of Early Adolescence 11(1), 56-95.

Beane, A. (1998). Chapter 7: The Trauma. The Children of Trauma. (pp. 205) Madison, Conn:

University Press,.

Beauvais, F., Edwards, R., and Oetting, E. (1989) American drug and alcohol survey.

Rocky Mountain Behavioral Health Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bishop, J., H., Bishop, M., Gelbwasser, L., Green, S., Peterson, E., Rubinsztaj, A., et al.

(September., 2004) Why we harass nerds and freaks: a formal theory of student culture

and norms. Journal of School Health. 74(7)

Bond, L., Thomas L., & Patton G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? British

Medical Journal. 323(480).

Bosworth, K., & Espelage, D. (2004), Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in

early adolescence. Whitted and Clearly .Retrieved June 20, 2005 from

http://www.whittedclearlaw.com

100

Boulter, L. (2004, January). Family-school connection and school violence prevention. The

Negro Educational Review, 55(1), 27-40.

Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (Eds.). (2000). Research Methods in

Psychology (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brewer, D. D., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Neckerman, H. J. (1995). Preventing

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: A review of evaluations of

selected strategies in childhood, adolescence, and the community. In J. C. Howell,

B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson (Eds.), A sourcebook: Serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 61-141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Carole P., Christy R., (2003, May). Like mother, like daughter: similarities in narrative style.

Developmental Psychology, 39(3)

Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., & Arseneault, L., et al. (2004).

Maternal expressed emotion predicts children's antisocial behavior problems: using

monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral

development. Developmental Psychology, 40, 149-161.

Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A.,& McBride-Chang, C., (2003). Harsh parenting in

relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17,

598-606.

Chapell, M. (2004, Spring) Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence. 153 (39).

Clark, J. (2000, November) Balancing quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the health

services. Newmarket, Ontario. Retrieved on April 4, 2005, from:

http://www.cehip.org/Library/student%20projects/Clark_total.PDF

Crosman, D.,(2003). Anger it’s a family issue. Edmonton Child Magazine. Retrieved

February 10, 2005, from http://www.edmontonschild.com/health/pages/anger.htm

Cox, D.L., Van Velsor, P., & Hulgus, JF. (2004, October.) Who me angry? patterns of anger

diversion in women. Health Care Women International. 9, 872-93.

DeBaryshe, B. D., & Fryxell, D. (1998). A developmental perspective on anger: family and peer

contexts. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 205-216.

101

Dimeff, L.A., Rizvi, S.L., Brown, M., & Linehan, M.M. (2000). Dialectical behavior therapy for

substance abuse: A pilot application to methamphetamine-dependent women with

borderline personality disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 457-468.

Dix. T., Gershoff, E.T., Meunier, LN., & Miller, P.C. (2004, November) The affective structure

of supportive parenting: depressive symptoms, immediate emotions, and child-oriented

motivation. Developmental Psychology. 40(6)

Elkind, D. (1992), Cognitive development. in Friedman, M., Fisher, S., and Schonberg, K. Eds.

Comprehensive Adolescent Health Care, St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing,

Inc.

Eslea, M. & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in

primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203-218.

Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K. & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual

effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220.

Fagen, D. & Cowen, E. (1996). Relationships between parent-child relational variables and child

test variables in highly stressed urban families. Child Study Journal, 26(2), 87, 22p.

Families On-Line Magazine (2005). Managing anger: theirs and yours. Retrieved February 10,

2005, from http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/teenhealth4.html

Frey, K., Hirschstien, M., Snell., J., Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E., & Broderich, C. (2005, May)

Steps to Respect Program,".; Developmental Psychology, 41( 3) 479-490.

Foley, D. (n.d.) Quantitative research vs qualitative research. The Royal Windsor Society of

Nurse Researchers. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.research-

nurses.com/quant_qual.html

Graber, J.A., Lewinsohn, P.M., Seeley, J.R. & Brooks-Gunn, J. 1997 Is psychopathology

associated with the timing of pubertal development? Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(12)1768-1776.

Grille, R., (2005). Natural born bullies. Retrieved February 5, 2005 from

http://www.naturalchild.com/robin_grille/

Halloway-Young, D. (2003) Does school connectedness predict bullying behavior?

Analysis of perceptions among public middle school students. Capella University,

unpublished manuscript.

102

Harris, S., Petrie, G & Willoughby, W. (March 2002). Bullying among 9th

graders: an

exploratory study. National Association of Secondary School Principal. 86, 630

Hasting, P. & Coplan, R. (1999, Winter). Conceptual and empirical links between children's

social spheres: relating maternal beliefs and preschoolers' behaviors with peers. New

Directions for Child and Adolescent Development(86), 43-59.

Henshaw, J., (n.d.) Expecting the worst. Familyresource.com retrieved on February 10, 2005

from http://www.familyresource.com/relationships/5/142/

Howe, G.W., Levy, ML., & Caplan, RD. (2004, December) Job loss and depressive

symptoms in couples: common stressors, stress transmission or relationship

disruption? Journal of Family Psychology. 18(4)

Horton-Parker, R. (1998, December). Teaching children to care: engagendering prosocial

behavior through humanistic parenting. Journal of Humanistic Education &

Development, 37(2), 66-78.

Howell, D (2004) Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th

ed.) Belmont, CA:

Thompson Learning.

House, G. (2005, April) "Quantifying relationships between variables." Capella University

Residency. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN..

Hutchinson, S., Baldwin, C., & Caldwell, L. (2003). Differentiating parent practises related to

adolescent behavior in the free time context. Lournal of Leisure Research, 35(4), 396-

422.

Jaffe, M. (1998). Adolescence. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Joronen, K, & Astedt-Kurkel, P. (2005). Adolescents' experiences of familial involvement in

their peer relations and school attendance. Primary Health Care Research and

Development(6), 190-198.

Kachigan, S., (1991). Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New York, NY: Radius Press.

Kalat, J. W. (2001). Biological Psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson

Learning.

103

Kallstead, J. & Olweus, D. (2003, October) Predicting teachers’ and schools’

implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program: a multilevel study.

Prevention and Treatment. (6)

Kinnear, P. & Gray, C. (1999). SPSS for Windows Made Simple (3rd ed.). East Sussex:

Psychology Press Ltd..

Kipke, M.[ed.] (2003, May)Adolescent Development and the Biology of Puberty. Committee on

Youth Development, National Research Council: National Academy Press.

L’Bate, L. (1998) Family Psychopathology: the Relational Roots of Dysfunctional

Behavior. Guilford Press.

LaFlamme L. (2003). Peer victimization during early adolescence: an injury trigger, an injury

mechanism & frequent exposure in school. Journal of Adolescent Medical Health, 15(3),

267-279.

Langhout, R.D. (2003, December) Reconceptualizing, quantitative and qualitative

methods: a case study dealing with place as an exemplar. American Journal of

Community Psychology. 32(3-4):229-244.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Costigan, T. E. & Manz, P. H. (2003). Assessing the climate of the

playground and lunchroom: Implications for bullying prevention programming. School

Psychology Review, 32, 418-430.

Li, Chi-Dooh, (2001, March). School bullying is rooted in a teenage caste system, Seattle

Post. Retrieved on October 30, 2004 from

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/index.asp?=b

Leedy, P. & Omrod, J. (2001). Practical Research, Planning and Design. Ohio: Prentice Hall.

Miller, A. L. (1999). Dialectical behavior therapy: A new treatment approach. Ameican

Journal of Psychotherapy., 53:413-417.

Mounts, N. S, (2002, March) Parental management of adolescent peer relationships in

context: the role of parenting style. Journal of Family Psychology. 16(1),58-69

Montgomery, B., (2002, April 12). “Assembly passes bill to curb school bullying.”

[Electronic Version] Record Newspaper. Retrieved October 30, 2003

from:http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/04/12/bmharass.htm

104

Mynard, H., & Alexander J. (2000). Peer victimization & post traumatic stress. Personality

and Individual Differences, 29, 815-821.

National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2003). Bullies, victims at risk for

violence & other problem behaviors. Join Together, 03, 4-16.

National Institute of Health, (1998, March). NIH Policy and guidelines on the inclusion

of children as participants in research involving human subjects. Press release

Retrieved June 2, 2005 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice- files/not98-

024.html

National Research Council, (1993). Losing generations: adolescents in high-risk settings.

Panel on High Risk Youth, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press.

National Research Council, (1996). Youth development and neighborhood influences:

challenges and opportunities. Committee on Youth Development, National

Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

New Jersey Cares About Bullying NJSA18A:37-13-19 New Jersey (2002) Enacted

New Jersey School Survey informed consent NJS18A:36-34 New Jersey (2002) Enacted

Newquist, C. (1997). Bully-proof your school, [Electronic Version] Education World

Administrator. Retrieved October 30, 2003 from: http://www.education-

world.com/a_admin/admin018.shtml

Oliver, C & Candappa, M. (2003, March) Bullying-how to beat it. Thomas Crown

Institute, England. DfES publications also available at website: www.childline.org.uk

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in the Schools. Blackwell Publishing.

Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying. Educational Leadership, (12)17.

Ortega, R., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Singer, M., Smith, P., Pereira, B. & Menesini, E.(2001,

November) Final report of the working group on general survey questionnaires and

nomination methods concerning bullying. TMR Network Project. Retrieved May 22, 2005

from http://www.gold.ac.uk/tmr/reports/aim2_seville1.html.

Paulison, A. (2003). Internet bullying. Christian Science Monitor, (12) 12-30.

Perry, D., Hodges, E., Egan, S. (1999). Victims of Peer abuse: an overview. Journal of emotional

and behavioral problems, 5, 23-28.

105

Peters, R, & Rios, F., (2004, November) Do you praise your child too much? Redbook. 203(5)

Psychological Self-Help (n.d.) Stress, anxiety, fears and psychosomatic disorders. Retrieved

February 13, 2004, from http://www.mentalhelp.net/psych5/ap5b.htm

Rock, E. (2003, June). School-based program to teach children empathy and bully prevention.

The International Child and Youth Care Network (53), 1-22.

Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15

years Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135-143.[Special Issue: Bullying in the schools].

Rifkin, J.,(n.d.)Anger and good parenting. Familyresource.com. Retrieved February 10,

2005 from http://www.familyresource.com/parenting/19/730/

Rigby, K., (1999, June) What harm does bullying do? Paper presented at Children and

Crime Victims Conference, Bisbane, Australia.

Rutter, M., Graham, P. & Chadwick, O.F.D. (1976) Adolescent turmoil: fact or fiction.

Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry 17:35

Sieber, J.E. (1994). Issues presented by mandatory reporting requirements to researchers of

child abuse and neglect. Ethics and Behavior, 4(1), 1-22.

Simmons, R. (2002). Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls. Harcourt

Press.

Smith, P. & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of

school-based interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189-209.

Strauss, V. (2003, November 4). Some schools take on the classroom bully [Electronic

version]. Washington Post, A10.

Star, L. (2000). Bullying intervention: strategies that work. Education World. Retrieved June

17, 2003, from Education World Web site: http://www.education- world.com

Teicher, M., (2000, Fall) Wounds that time won’t heal: neurobiology of child abuse.

Cerebrum 2(4).

Thurber, C. (2003, September/October). Do as I say: the circle of parenting and socialization.

Camping Magazine. 76(5)

106

Vogele, C., & Steptoe, A. (1993, July). Anger inhibition and family history as modulators

of cardiovascular responses to mental stress in adolescent boys. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research. 37(5)

United States Department of Health and Human Services (2001, December) Code of federal

regulations part 46 protection of human subjects. Retrieved June 20, 2005, from

http://www.cehip.org/Library/student%20projects/Clark_total.PDF

Wiseman, R. (2003). Queen Bees and Wannabe:. Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques,

Gossip, Boyfriends & Other Realities of Adolescence. New York: Crown Publishers.

Worth, J. (n.d.). The effect of anger on families. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Web site:

http://www.aamft.org/families/Consumer_Updates/Effect%20of%20Anger%20on

%20Families.asp

107

APPENDIX A

PARENTAL CONSENT FORM

Parental Consent Form

Please return this form in the envelope provided no later than April 7, 2006.

Keeping in touch with the lives of our students is paramount for establishing programs to assist them in their academic

performance. For this reason, the River Dell Regional school district would like your support in our collaboration with Randie

Fielder of Capella University in a research study together information regarding the lives and activities of our students. The data

from this study will be used for her dissertation and the results will be shared with the River Dell Regional School District.

In approximately two weeks, your child’s class has the opportunity to complete the American Drug and Alcohol

Survey with Prevention Planning Survey. Students can skip any question that they do not wish to answer and may stop

participating in the survey at any point. While good participation helps obtain accurate information, please note that your child’s

participation in the survey is voluntary. No action will be taken against the school, you, or your child, if your child does not take

part. Students not participating in the survey will be provided with an alternative activity.

The information from the survey will include a comprehensive study designed to gather data regarding a student’s

attitudes and behaviors in school, with friends and at home. This survey will gain insight in the a student’s perceptions and

impressions of their world in regards to peer pressure, friends, parents, family, substance abuse and acts of bullying and violence

they have seen or been involved in. This data will help provide information as to the best strategies for establishing successful

practices for parents and teachers and students that support a learning environment. Participation in the survey will also provides

information about important risk and protective factors related to substance use and negative peer relationships such as bullying

and victimization.

The survey has been designed to protect your child’s privacy. Students will not put their names on the survey, so no

one will know how a particular student answers the questions. No one from the school will be allowed to look at the completed

survey. Completed surveys are placed in sealed envelopes and the data will then be analyzed for my dissertation research at

Capella University and a copy of the analyzed data will forwarded to the River Dell Regional School district. The survey will

take approximately one period for your child to complete. There are no foreseeable risks to completing the survey. While your

child may not personally benefit from completing the questionnaire, the information we learn from this survey will be used in

research to develop and evaluate programs for River Dell youth. Thank You for your help.

There are no apparent psychological or physical risks in completing this survey. However, a list of counselors and

services will be available to answer any questions or concerns that may develop as a result of the survey will be provided to the

students after the survey. In the event that any incident of violence is reported to a staff member or Mrs. Fielder, all incidents

will be reported to the administration and parents in accordance with school policy.

ALL PARENTS MUST SIGN AND RETURN THIS FORM TO SCHOOL BY APRIL 7, 2006

Participation: I understand that my child’s participation in this survey is voluntary, and that I may withdraw my consent at

anytime before the class period when the survey is given. PLEASE CHECK ONE:

________Yes, I give permission for my child_______________________________________(please print your child's name),

who is in ___________(grade) to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with Prevention Planning Survey

_________No, I do not give permission for my child __________________________________(please print your child's name),

who is in ___________(grade) to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with Prevention Planning Survey .

________________________________________Please Print your name (parent or guardian)

__________________________________Signature of Parent or Guardian and Date

If you have any questions feel free to contact Randie Fielder at 201-599-7200 ext. 7281.

108

APPENIX B

STUDENT COSENT FORM

Student Consent Form

Your class will have the opportunity to complete the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with Prevention

Planning Survey. Students can skip any questions that they do not wish to answer and you may stop participating in

the survey at any point. While good participation helps obtain accurate information, please note that your

participation in the survey is voluntary. No action will be taken against you if you do not take part. Students not

participating in the survey will be provided with an alternative activity.

Thank You for your help.

Participation : I understand my participation in this survey is voluntary, and that I may withdraw my consent at

anytime.

PLEASE CHECK ONE:

________Yes, I _______________________________________(please print your name),

agree to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey with his/her class at school.

_________No, I __________________________________(please print your name),

do not want to fill out the American Drug and Alcohol Survey.

________________________________________Please sign your name.

109

APPENDIX C

AMERICAN DRUG AND ALCOHOL PREVENTION PLANNING SURVEY

A dissertation submitted by to THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPELLAroneilfi/classes/Microsoft Word - Perceived...

Documents

Transcript of A dissertation submitted by to THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPELLAroneilfi/classes/Microsoft Word - Perceived...