Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 2 BULLYING THEORIES
INTRODUCTION
School bullying among children and adolescents have been the focus of many international studies over the past thirty years (Espelage & Swearer 2003:365). The daily reports in the written and electronic media of extraordinarily high levels of violence, physical and sexual abuse and gang related activities exacerbated by the carrying of knives, guns and other dangerous weapons to school has become a matter of grave concern to all stakeholders of the school system as it impacts negatively on education in general and in what happens in school in particular (Maphalala & Mabunda 2014:61).
Being a victim of school bullying is associated with a number of different dimensions of internal distress and psychological trauma (Thornberg, Halldin, Bolmsjo & Petersson 2013:309). Accordingly, White and Loeber (2008:380) argue that bullying in schools represent a major problem for children given that it has an effect on their perceptions of safety and the overall quality of their school experience. The fear of falling victim to bullies compels victims to miss classes, to avoid certain areas of the school and to play truant chronically as a response to victimisation. Additionally, the victimised youth report high levels of stress, anxiety, ill-health, depression and suicidal ideations than non-victimised youth (Espelage, Aragon & Birkett 2008:202).
According to Ewen (2010:4), human behaviour can be bewilderingly complicated and as such, useful theories help bring about order out of chaos by providing convenient descriptions, establishing frameworks for organising information, and focussing attention on matters that are of greater importance. In this chapter, the researcher provides an in-depth literature study of the various theories formulated by theorists to explain bullying perpetration. The following theories will form the basis of this study:
• The attachment theory
• The behavioural theory
• The social learning theory
• The homophily theory
• The dominance theory
• The attraction theory
• The differential association theory
• The general strain theory
• The social identity theory
• The social categorisation theory
• The frustration-aggression theory
• The cognitive theory of anger
The above theories are intended to provide a road-map for the explanation of bullying behaviour in schools. Furthermore, it is intended to justify the findings of the empirical investigation after surveys are concluded in each of the five secondary schools in the Uthungulu District of KwaZulu-Natal. Although these theories have often only been examined directly in relation to bullying in a few contexts (most often schools), it is nevertheless argued that they may be relevant for providing insights into bullying behaviours (Monks, Smith, Naylor, Barter, Ireland & Coyne 2009:146).
BULLYING THEORIES
For the purpose of this study, the researcher has identified twelve theories that are associated with and provide explanations regarding why bullying occurs among young adolescents in schools. One of the most dominant of these theories is the attachment theory which focusses on the affectional bond between a child and the primary caregiver that can either lead to secure or insecure attachment and which may potentially present a range of behaviours involving uncontrolled emotional reactions such as impulsive verbal and physical aggression (Kennedy & Kennedy 2004:247).
The attachment theory
The attachment theory proposed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth respectively (1991), hypothesises that the quality of attachment to parents and caregivers influences the development of an internal working model (IWM) of relationships (Monks et al. 2009:146). The theory purports to secure attachment being significantly correlated with maternal sensitivity. Children who possess insecure attachment styles anticipate and accept insensible and conflicting communications from others, whereas children who have a secure attachment style anticipate reliable and responsive interactions from others. (Swearer, Peugh, Espelage, Siebecker, Kingsbury & Bevins 2006:3). Hence, children of sensitive mothers tended to be securely attached to them, whereas children of less sensitive mothers tended to be insecurely attached to them (Bretherton 1992:759). Importantly, the insecure attachment may result in an individual responding to others with higher than expected levels of hostility and aggression (Monks et al. 2009:146). Additionally, attachment theorists argue that abuse during childhood can lead to the development of a negative or insecure attachment with an abusive caregiver (Hong, Espelage, Grogan-Kaylor & Allen-Meares 2012:167).
Bowlby suggests that there exists a psychological system that is specifically dedicated to parent-child relationships that he referred to as the attachment behavioural system (ABS) (Cervone & Pervin 2008:148). According to Bowlby, the ABS is innate; that is, all persons have such a system as a result of their biological endowment- a young child clinging to adults for comfort and security, then, would be an example of a behaviour motivated by ABS. Furthermore, a key prediction of the attachment theory is that the effects of developmental processes involving attachment are longlasting. Importantly, Cervone and Pervin (2008:149) assert that there is a three-part rationale that confirms this prediction:
• Firstly, child-parent relations are thought to create, in the child, symbolic mental representations involving the self and the caregivers.
• Secondly, once formed, these mental representations endure; early relationships leave a kind of mental “residue” that persists.
• Thirdly, these mental representations may result in different infants exhibiting different types of interactions with significant others (particularly mothers), or different attachment styles.
Bowlby’s attachment theory focusses on childhood as a starting point and then extrapolated it forward to adulthood (Feist & Feist 2009:153). He maintains that both human and primate infants go through a clear sequence of reactions when separated from their primary caregivers, a phenomenon known as separation anxiety. Bowlby argues that the first stage is referred to as the protest stage when the caregiver is out of sight, infants will cry and search for the caregiver. As separation continues, infants experience the second stage referred to the stage of despair where they become quiet, sad, passive, listless and apathetic. During the last stage- the stage of detachment, infants become emotionally detached from their caregivers and as they get older, they interact with others with little or no emotion and even though they may appear sociable, their interpersonal relations are superficial and lack warmth. Furthermore, the self-concepts of children with resistant attachments often included feelings of low self-worth, helplessness and incompetence, which are attributes targeted by bullies (Swearer et al. 2006:3). Bowlby firmly believes that the negative attachments formed during childhood have an important and profound impact on the behaviour of the child in adulthood (Feist & Feist 2009:153).
Ainsworth’s (1991) attachment theory concurs,to a large extent, with that of Bowlby but went on to establish three attachment styles, namely, secure, anxious-resistant and avoidant (Feist & Feist 2009:154). In a secure attachment, infants are confident in the accessibility and responsiveness of their caregiver and this security and dependability provides the foundation for play and exploration. About 70 percent of infants were classified as being securely attached; secure infants were those who were sensitive to the departure of the mother but greeted her upon being re-united, were readily comforted, and were then able to return to exploration and play (Cervone & Pervin 2008:149). However, regarding an anxious-resistant attachment style, where about 10 percent of the infants were classified as anxious-ambivalent Ainsworth found that on the one hand, infants seek contact with their mother, while on the other hand, they squirm to be put down and may throw away toys offered to them by their mother (Feist & Feist 2009:154). In the anxious-avoidant attachment style, infants stay calm when their mother leaves; they accept the stranger that looks after them, but when their mothers returns, they ignore and avoid her (Feist & Feist 2009:154). According to Cervone and Pervin (2008:149), about 20 percent of infants displayed an attachment style that was labelled anxious-avoidant.
Various studies have related insecure attachment to involvement in bullying in childhood and adulthood. The attachment theory proposes relative continuity of the internal working model (IWM) over time. For this reason, a strong likelihood exists that the “continuity or discontinuity” of bully behaviour across different ages, could potentially be examined (Monks et al. 2009:153). While the attachment theory insists that negative attachment to the primary caregiver leads to a child displaying coercive behaviour later as a teenager, the behavioural theory emphasises the learning of aggression through a process of conditioning within a social context (Gasa 2005:38).
The behavioural theory
The behavioural theory formulated by B.F. Skinner (1953), maintains that most human behaviour is learned through a process of operant conditioning (Ewen 2010:289). Additionally, behavioural theory purports that all human behaviour- including violent behaviour- is learned through social interactions. This theory maintains that violent behaviour is not inborn but that children acquire violent qualities by modelling their behaviour on that of violent others in their surroundings (Ewen 2010:289). The basis of Skinner’s operant conditioning procedure is the control of behaviour through the manipulation of rewards and punishments in the environment (Cervone & Pervin 2008:393). This conditioning is called operant conditioning because the organism operates on the environment to produce a specific effect. Reinforcement increases the probability that the same behaviour will occur again (Feist & Feist 2009:450).
According to Grace (2011:1), parents have long known that children respond to a system of rewards and punishments, which is based on a system of both positive and negative reinforcement, and this is accurately descriptive of the most basic aspect of Skinner’s beliefs. When previous behaviours have been rewarded, children are likely to repeat those behaviours happily and willingly and this increases the probability of the same response occurring again. Alternatively, if the outcomes of the responses are unfavourable or non-reinforcing, then the likelihood of the operant response occurring again is decreased (Hjelle & Ziegler 1987:198). Thus, administering a painful and unpleasant reinforcer after an unwanted response decreases the probability of the same response occurring again (Grace 2011:1). Skinner believes that a better way to reduce the probability of an operant is by reinforcing acceptable behaviours that are incompatible with the undesirable ones- a parent may pay no attention to a child’s temper tantrums, and respond only to more quiet and orderly behaviour. Since the child gets what it wants only after being calm, such behaviour is more likely to be repeated in the future (Ewen 2010:301).
Skinner recognised two kinds of conditioning, operant and classical conditioning (Feist & Feist 2009:448). While it is commonly known that behaviour is affected by its consequences, Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning contends that the process does not require repeated efforts, but instead, an immediate reaction to a familiar stimulus (Grace 2011:1). Furthermore, operant behaviour (produced by instrumental or operant conditioning) is determined by the events that follow the response, that is, a behaviour is followed by a consequence and the nature of the consequence modifies the organism’s tendency to repeat the behaviour in future (Hjelle & Ziegler 1987:198). On the other hand, with classical conditioning, a response is drawn out of an organism by a specific, identifiable stimulus, that is, a stimulus that is neutral initially, eventually elicits a strong response (Cervone & Pervin 2008:380) whereas in operant conditioning, behaviour is more likely to recur when it is immediately reinforced (Feist & Feist 2009:448).
According to Gasa (2005:38), behavioural theorists such as Skinner and Pavlov argue that aggressive behaviour “can be learned, maintained, and unlearned through the processes of classical and operant conditioning.” Bullying behaviour may be learned through classical conditioning (a process in which a stimulus that is initially neutral eventually elicits a strong response) and strengthens and maintains through operant conditioning (Cervone & Pervin 2008:380). According to Pavlov’s classical conditioning theory, “if a stimulus for an aggressive response repeatedly occurs at the same time and in the same place as some initially neutral environmental stimulus, that aggressive response will eventually begin to occur in the presence of the initially neutral stimulus” (Gasa 2005:38). Importantly, classical conditioning may also be responsible for more complex human learning phobias, fears, and anxieties (Feist & Feist 2009:449).
Skinner maintained that positive reinforcement through a process of reward increases the probability of the response being elicited again (Ewen 2010:293). Similarly, when adolescent involvement in aggressive behaviour is rewarded by the peer group, there is a greater likelihood of the aggressive behaviour being repeated. Furthermore, deviant adolescents interacting with deviant friends have been found to reinforce each other’s talk of rule-breaking behaviour and peer rejection has been labelled as a punishment for not abiding by the rules of the peer group. Importantly, for the sake of peer acceptance, adolescents may be involved in bullying episodes to prove their loyalty to the group (Gasa 2005:38).
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND, PROBLEM FORMULATION AND AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION
1.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.4 AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS
1.7 CHAPTER DIVISION
1.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: BULLYING THEORIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 BULLYING THEORIES
2.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL BULLYING: CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS AND OUTCOMES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE PHENOMENON OF BULLYING
3.3 TYPES OF BULLYING
3.4 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIES, VICTIMS AND BYSTANDERS
3.5 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS, OUTCOMES AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF BULLYING
3.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND AIMS
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4 RESEARCH METHODS
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 THEMES AND CATEGORIES
5.3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.4 A MODEL TO CURB BULLYING
5.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
6.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE LITERATURE STUDY
6.4 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
6.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.8 CONCLUSION
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
