Bullying of Children with and without Speech and Language Disorders: How we can help

Marilyn Langevin, PhdInstitute for Stuttering Treatment and Research (ISTAR)Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of AlbertaMarilyn.Langevin@ualberta.ca

Clinical Outreach Speaker SeriesMcGill UniversityOctober 2014

ICF Framework

Health Condition

Activities of daily life and participation in those activities

Environmental Factors

Personal Factors

Definition

• Bullying has three key elements – an intent to harm, – repetition over time, and – a power differential in which children who are

victims have difficulty defending themselves against a more powerful individual or group (Salmivalli & Peets, 2009)

Conceptualization of Bullying

• A paradigm change from

– An event between an individual and an aggressor or group of aggressors

– A relationship problem (Craig & Pepler, 2008)

– A social, mental, and physical health problem

• Diminished psychological well-being (e.g., self-esteem)

• Poor social adjustment (e.g. absenteeism)

• Psychological distress ( e.g. anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts; hopelessness) (Cornell et al., 2013; Lester et al., 2013; Rigby, 2003; Siyahhan et al., 2012)

• Physical symptoms (chronic stressor that affects cognition, brain functioning, nervous system and immune system functioning including cortisol production Rex-Lear et al, 2012; Knack et al, 2011, Villaincourt,et al. 2-0)

•Gene-environment influences (Ball et al, 2008; Brendgen et al., 2008; Sugden et al., 2010)

•Impact on school-climate

Consequences of Bullying

Types of Bullying

• Verbal (includes hurtful teasing) • Social or relational• Physical• Cyberbullying.......

– Verbal was the most frequently reported followed by relational and physical bullying (Siyahhan, Aricak, Cayirdag-Acar 2012).

– Gender differences: • Girls – relational• Boys – physical and verbal

Cyberbullying

• The use of electronic mediums to habitually use fear or humiliation to intimidate a victim and demonstrate superiority (Wingate, 2013)

• 38% of students cyberbullied for “fun” (Raskauskas & Stolz, 2007)

Bullying Participant Roles

• Victims (Predictors of bullying include social anxiety, peer rejection, and social withdrawal) (Card & Hodeges, 2008; Cook et al., 2010; Salmivalli, 2010);

• Bully (proactive and reactive bullying)

• Dually involved (bully and are victims)

• Bystanders –including children who are defenders, reinforcers,

Frequency of Bullying in the General Population of

School-age Youth

• Between 30% and 60% of children are bullied at some time

• Between 6% and 15% of children are bullied chronically (i.e., once a week or more often) (Card & Hodges, 2008)

Frequency of Bullying Experienced by Children with Exceptionalities

• As victims: Children who– Stutter = 43% to 83%

• 81% (Langevin Bortnick Hammer & Wiebe, 1998); • 83% (Hugh-Jones et al., 1999)

• 43% - 61% (Blood et al, 2004, 2007, 2011)

– Specific Language Impairment = 40% (Redmond, 2011)

– ADHD = 20% (Redmond)

– Autism = 28% (victims) 36% (bully-victims)

• As perpetrators...

Interventions

• Universal interventions: target the population of school children

• Client- centered: interventions with specific children

Universal Interventions

•Many whole school programs – inconsistent findings but insufficient evidence to suggest that they should be abandoned (PreNet; http://www.prevnet.ca/research/research-summaries/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-whole-school-approach reference of Smith et al, 2004 review)

•(also see Langevin & Prasad, 2012 for an overview )

Teasing and Bullying: Unacceptable Behaviour (TAB)

• Decrease approval of Bullying• Improve support for victims• Educate students about

stuttering

(Langevin, 2000)

TAB Workbook Children’s program

(TAB) (Langevin, 2000; Langevin & Prasad, 2012)

• TAB has the potential to be effective in – improving attitudes toward CWS– Reducing approval of bullying and increasing

support for victims

• After participating in TAB children appeared to be – More inclined to associated with cws– Resist social pressure to isolate and reject cws– Expect to experience less frustration in verbal

interactions

??????

• What are some strategies that children could use to respond to being bullied (this includes teasing that is hurtful)?

• Helpful – stops the bullying

• Not helpful –does not stop bullying – can make things worse

• Telling someone about the bullying• Stood up (assertiveness) • Joked (use humor)• Revenge• Distraction• Nothing• Ignored • Got Help• Other• Verbal and physical counter-aggression (associated

with escalation of bullying in other studies)

(bolded responses received the highest effectiveness ratings but all strategies were somewhat effective )

Craig, Pepler and Blais (2007)

Standing up for oneself – assertiveness strategies

Getting help/telling someone

Ignoring the bullying, walking away, and avoiding the child who bullies

Nonchalance - staying calm, acting as if the bullying is not being taken seriously, and acting as if one does not care.

Self-Reliance and Problem-solvingProblem focussed copingEmotion focussed coping

(Baldry and Farrington , 2005; Camodeca & Gooseens, 2005; Kristensen & Smith, 2003; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Smith, Talalmelli, Cowie, Naylor, & Chauhan, 2004)

Other evidence....Considerations

• Tattling is when you tell to get someone into trouble and you tell in front of others

• Responsible reporting is when you talk to adult to get someone out of trouble and you tell the adult in private

(suggestions drawn from Pepler 1999 and a 4th grade teacher)

Tattling versus Responsible Reporting

Gender Differences

• Girls are more likely to seek help or tell someone (Craig et al. 2007) and to use assertiveness (Comedeca et al., 2005)

• Boys are more likely to react with physical aggression, revenge, or humour (Craig et al. )

Age Differences

• Younger children preferred nonchalance (Comedeca et al., 2005)

• As children age they more often opt for counter-aggression (Comedeca et al., Craig et al.) but older children were still more likely to report ignoring and doing nothing (Craig et al., 2007).

Closeness, Duration

• Closeness: girls more likely than boys to be bullied by a friend

• Duration: the longer the bullying the greater the risk for coming to believe that they deserve the bullying

Principles of Intervention• Each teasing/bullying event will require a different

solution and different levels of intervention

• Strategies to be used by a child must suit the child

• Role playing (practicing) will help children to use the strategies with ease and confidence

• Children must be consulted/kept in the loop

Children Who Bully: The challenge

• In contrast to victims and children with other participant roles, children who bully thought that retaliation was the best way to stop bullying

• Descriptive case study: – Huddleston, Varjas, Meyers, & Cadenhead

(2011): – Participatory Culture-Specific Intervention

Model

Thank you for joining today!

Thank you to my colleagues ...former students...who have worked with me over the years

References

• Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. School Psychology of Education, 8, 263-284.

• Ball, H. A., Arseneault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2008). Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 104-112.

• Baly, M., & Cornell, D. (2011). Effects of an educational video on student reports of bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 221-228.

• Blood, G. W., & Blood, I. M. (2004). Bullying in adolescents who stutter: Communicative competence and self-esteem. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 31, 69-79.

• Blood, G. W., & Blood, I. M. (2007). Preliminary study of self-reported experience of physical aggression and bullying of boys who stutter: Relation to increased anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 1060-1066.

• Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., Tramontana, G. M., Sylvia, A. J., Boyle, M. P., & Motzko, G. R. (2011). Self-reported experience of bullying of students who stutter: relations with life satisfaction, life orientation, and self-esteem. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113, 353-364.

• Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 701-712.

• Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 461-466.

• Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., Girard, A., Dionne, G., & Pérusse, D. (2008). Gene-environment interaction between peer victimization and child aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 455-471.

• Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Children’s opinions on effective strategies to cope with bullying: the importance of bullying role and perspective. Educational Research, 47, 93-105.

• Card, N. A. & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 451-461.

• Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47-59.

• Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence:a meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83.

• Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 138-149.

• Craig. W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130.

• Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (2008). Understanding and addressing bullying: an international perspective. In D. Pepler& W. Craig (Eds.) Understanding and addressing bullying: an international perspective (pp. xix-xxvi). Bloomington, IN; AuthorHouse.

• Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41-60.

• Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice. Canadian Psychology, 48, 86-93.

• Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Blais, J. (2007). Responding to bullying: what works? School Psychology International, 28, 465-477.

• Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J. ,& Cross, D., (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217, 182-188.

• Guerin, S., & Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’definitions of bullying. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XVII, 249-261.

• Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295-310.

• Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101.

• Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 141-158.

• Juvoven, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: the strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231-1237.

• Knack, J. M., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Baum, A. (2011). Worse than sticks and stones? Bullying is associated with altered HPA axis functioning and poorer health. Brain and Cognition, 77, 183-190.

• Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. J., & Wardrop, J. L. (2001) Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72, 134-151.

• Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by Danish children classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response to different (hypothetical) types of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 479-488.

• Langevin, M. (2000). Teasing and bullying: Unacceptable behaviour (TAB). Edmonton, Alberta: Institute for Stuttering Treatment & Research.

• Langevin, M., Bortnick, K., Hammer, T., & Wiebe, E. (1998). Teasing/Bullying experienced by children who stutter: Toward development of a questionnaire. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 25, 12-24.

• Langevin, M., Kleitman, S., Packman, A., & Onslow, M. (2009). The Peer Attitudes Toward Children who Stutter (PATCS) scale: An evaluation of validity, reliability and the negativity of attitudes. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44, 352-368.

• Langevin, M., Packman, A., & Onslow, M. (2009). Peer responses to stuttering in the preschool setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 264-276.

• Langevin, M., Packman, A., & Onslow, M. (2010). Parent perceptions of the impact of stuttering on their preschoolers and themselves. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 407-423.

• Langevin, M., & Prasad, N.G.N. (2012). A stuttering education and bullying awareness and prevention resource: a feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 43, 344-358.

• Lester, L., Cross, D., Dooley, J., & Shaw, T. (2013). Developmental trajectories of adolescent victimization: predictors and outcomes.

• Mahady Wilton, M. M., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims of bullying: characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 226-245.

• Marini, Z. A., & Dane, A. V. (2008). Matching interventions to bullying subtypes: ensuring programs fit the multifaceted needs of children involved in bullying. In D. Pepler & W. Craig (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 97-126). Bloomington, IN; AuthorHouse.

• Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551-569.

• Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P., (2001). Bullying behaviours among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

• Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.• Ostrov, J. M., & Godleski, S. A. (2007). Relational aggression, victimization, and language development:

Implications for practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 27, 146-166. • Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behaviour and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in

kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 45-57. • Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents.

Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575.• Rex-Lear, M., Knack, J. M., & Jensen-Campbell, L. A. (2012). Beyond the playground: Bullying in the workplace

and its relation to mental and physical health outcomes. In R. J. Gatchel, & I. Z. Schultz (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health and Wellness (pp. 219-240). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

• Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583-590. • Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112-120. • Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1996). How do the victims respond to bullying? Aggressive

Behavior, 22, 99-109. • Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.(1996). Bullying as a group process:

Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.• Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victim relationships in middle childhood and early

adolescence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 322-340). New York: The Guildford Press.

• Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425-435.

• Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying; emotional and behavioural dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S.Graham (Eds.). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 147-174). New York: The Guilford Press

• Siyahhan, S., Aricak, O. T., & Cayirdag-Acar, N. (2012). The relation between bullying, victimization, and adolescents’ level of hopelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1053-1059.

• Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying; developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 332-351). New York: The Guilford Press.

• Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565-581.

• Sugden, K., Arseneault, L., Harrington, H., Moffitt, T. E., Williams, B., & Caspi, A. (2010). The serotonin transporter gene moderates the development of emotional problems among children following bullying victimization. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 830-840.

• Tops, M., Riese, H., Oldehinkel, A. J., Rijsdijke, F. V., & Ormel, J. (2008). Rejection sensitivity relates to hypocortisolism and depressed mood state in young women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33, 551-559.

• Turnbull, J. (2006). Promoting greater understanding in peers of children who stammer. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 11, 237-247.

• Vaillancourt, T., Clinton, J., McDougall, P., Schmidt, L. A., & Hymel, S. (2010). The neurobiology of peer victimization and rejection. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 293-304). New York: Routledge.

• Vaillancourt, T., Duku, E., Becker, S., Schmidt, L. A., Nicol, J., Muir, C., & MacMillan, H. (2011). Peer victimization, depressive symptoms, and high salivary cortisol predict poorer memory in children. Brain and Cognition, 77, 191-199.

• Vandebosch, H., & van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 499-503.

• Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375.

• Wingate, V. S., Minney, J. A., & Guadagno, R. E. (2013). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will always hurt you: A review of cyberbullying. Social Influence, 8, 87-106.