SRCD Biennial Meeting April 2003: The stability of

victimisation behaviour

University of

Hertfordshire, U.K.

VICTEC: Virtual ict

with empathic Characters

Sarah Woods, Dieter Wolke and Muthanna Samara

University of Bristol, U.K.

Background

• Well documented evidence that social, cognitive, behavioural and family factors are concurrently related to bullying behaviour (e.g. Wolke et al., 2001).

• Few studies have considered the stability of victim roles and have instead focused on the stability of bully roles.

• Paucity of evidence concerning the risk factors associated with remaining, escaping or becoming involved in victimisation.

Background

• Studies have tended to focus on secondary school samples rather than primary school.

• Little is known about the stability of relational victimisation in comparison to direct victimisation.

• Reliance on peer nominations (by class) does not allow for comparison of bullying frequency across schools.

Research Questions

1) What is the stability of direct and relational victimisation behaviour among primary school children in the U.K. over 2-4 years?

2) What combination of factors predicts:

a) Remaining involved in victimisation?

b) Escaping victimisation?

c) Becoming involved in victimisation?

for both direct and relational victimisation.

Study Design

• Longitudinal Investigation involving 17 primary schools in Hertfordshire & London, U.K.

• Baseline Assessment: Carried out 1996-1998 with children aged 6-9 (years 2 & 4)

• Follow-up Assessment: Carried out when children were aged 10-11 (year 6) 2 or 4 years after the baseline assessment.

Sample DataN: 666 potential children from 17

schools

N: 634 Assessed at baseline

N: 432 Longitudinally

Assessed

N: 202 original drop-out (3% non consent, 12% absent, 85% moved

school

Time 1

Time 2

Instruments: Baseline & follow-up

• Standard Individual Bullying Interview or Q’aire (Olweus, 1991):

TYPE– Direct Bullying (e.g. hit/beaten).

– Relational Bullying (e.g. exclusion by friends).

FREQUENCY– Never bullied: rarely/hardly ever bullied

– frequently bullied: about once week/few times a week.

Instruments: BaselineBehaviour Problems

• Strengths & Difficulties Q’aire (Goodman, 1997)

1.Emotional Symptoms

Total Difficulties 2.Hyperactivity

SDQ score 3.Conduct Problems

4.Peer Problems

5.Prosocial Behaviour

Instruments: BaselineHEALTH

• Health Questionnaire (Wolke et al. 2001):

2 sections:

7 items about physical health problems (PHP) e.g. headache, tummy ache, sickness

7 items about emotional health problems (EHP) e.g. bed wetting, nightmares

7- point scale (0-6 or more times over past 6 mths)

5 – point scale (never to most days over past 6 mths)

Instruments: Baseline

• Other variables measured:- Special Educational Needs (SEN)- No. friends/best friends- No. rejected children- Information about siblings- Child’s home situation (biological parents,

single parent, etc).

Bullying Classifications

• Children were classified for direct (physical & verbal) bullying and relational bullying as:

- ‘pure’ bully

- ‘pure’ victim

- Bully/victim

- Neutral

RESULTS

• Drop-out analysis and relational bullying.

• Stability of direct and relational victimisation.

• Risk factors predicting remaining,escaping or becoming involved in victimisation.

Relational Bullying status and drop-out rate

43.3

34.7

10.4

4.91.5 1.6

44.8

58.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cen

tag

e

victim bully/victim bully neutral

drop-out non drop-out

P < .01

Other factors associated with drop-out rates

• Children who had fewer friends within their class.

• Drop-outs rejected fewer children than those who remained in the study.

Risk Analysis

Yes (a + b) Yes (a + c)

No (c + d)No (b + d)

a

b c

d

Risk factor Outcome

Primary outcome

Risk factor Present Absent Total

Present a b a + b

Absent c d c + d

Total a + c b + d n

Relative risk and stability of victimisation

• Children classified as direct victims at baseline had a two fold increased risk of remaining a direct victim at follow-up compared to non-victims at baseline becoming victims at follow-up.

• No long-term risk for children classified as relational victims at baseline to remain a relational victim at follow-up.

Relative risk & stability of direct victimisation

VictimN: 97

Not victimN: 335

VictimN: 104

Not victimN: 328

N: 37 (38.1%)

N: 60 (61.9%)

N: 67 (20.0%)

N: 268 (80.0%)

Baseline Time 1 Follow-up Time 2

RR = 1.91; 95% CI 1.37 – 2.66, chi-square = 13.52, p < 0.001

Factors predicting remaining vs escaping direct victimisation

95% CI for AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

(AOR)Lower Upper

Few friends (1-4)

33.33 1.23 111.11

Gender (female)

28.87 2.41 346.41

Physical Hlth probs (=> 1

prob) 11.27 1.20 105.93

Model chi-square = 30.83; df = 11; p < 0.001, N: 52

Factors predicting remaining vs escaping relational victimisation

95% CI for AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

(AOR)Lower Upper

Male sibling (at least 1)

11.11 1.18 100.00

Rejected children (>2)

8.20 0.99 68.23

Having friends (5-7)

7.46 1.02 50.00

Model chi-square = 16.61; df = 6; p < 0.011, N: 44

Factors predicting becoming involved in victimisation or remaining a non-victim

95% CI for AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)

Lower Upper

Direct victimisation (N: 200) (chi-square = 8.31; df = 2; p < 0.02)

Sibling mix (only brothers)

3.66 1.35 9.89

Relational victimisation (N: 234) (chi-square = 7.34; df = 2, p < 0.02)

Emotional hlth probs (=> 1

prob)2.01 1.09 3.71

Summary of findings: Drop-outs

• Relational Drop-outs:

- Have fewer friends.

- Are more frequently relational victims or bully/victims

- Reject many children.

Summary: Stability of direct vs relational victimisation

• Direct victimisation is a stable behaviour among primary school children over 2 yrs. In contrast relational victimisation is not:

- Relational bullying becomes more prominent over time.

- Falling out with friends is frequent at primary school.

- The most affected victims had left the school (selective drop-out).

Summary: Risk Factors

• Health problems served as a risk factor for prolonged victimisation:- More days absent from school.- Appear weaker to peers and easy target.

• Friendships are a protective factor: - Allow children to develop adaptive & successful

coping mechanisms.

• Being female:- Females may not have other female or male peers to

help protect against direct victimisation.

Conclusions• Direct victimisation is a stable phenomenon

already among primary school children.

• Relational victimisation is a less stable behaviour among primary school children.

• A lack of friendships, physical and emotional health problems and being female all serve as risk factors for remaining involved or becoming involved in victimisation.

Future Directions

• Important implications for early recognition of victimisation among primary school children.

• Befriending or peer network schemes.

• Early intervention strategies that allow learning and adaptive coping.

A New Intervention: Victec

Victec (Virtual ict with Empathic Characters) is a European funded project which aims to develop a new and innovative approach to aid the reduction of bullying problems in schools through the use of synthetic characters and drama in a virtual learning environment.

Scenarios for VICTEC

• Our role is to help design scenarios for the VLE about bullying, victimisation and friendship for children aged 8-12 years old.

Victimisation Scenarios

• Work has commenced towards developing scenarios comprised of several episodes to depict bullying behaviour.

• There will be a maximum of 3 – 4 characters per episode (e.g. bully, victim and bystander).

• The environment to be modelled will focus on the school context.

Real vs Cartoon schools

REAL

CARTOON

Victimisation Scenarios

• The scenario will begin with an introduction to the main character (e.g. victim).

• A tour of the school and classroom will then be given highlighting some of the schooling history and the other characters.

• The first victimisation event will then occur. The victim will ask the user what he/she should do?

Victimisation Scenarios

• Several subsequent episodes will follow depicting similar incidents of direct victimisation but maybe in different locations.

• Users will be given the opportunity to try out different coping responses after each episode.

• Justification questions are to be used throughout the VL interaction (e.g. Why did you choose to tell the teacher?)

Victimisation Scenarios

• Theory of Mind (ToM) questions are to be asked at some point during the VL interaction to determine whether there are individual differences between b, v, b/v.

• Possible endings for the scenarios might be to give the child a summary story that has been generated during the VL interaction.

The VLE Demonstrator