English High school

3 source I’ll give it to you and 1 source from online 

Adolescents’ definitions of bullying: the contribution
of age, gender, and experience of bullying

Hollie Byrne1 & Barbara Dooley1,2 &
Amanda Fitzgerald1 & Louise Dolphin1

Abstract The aim of the present research was to examine adolescents’ definitions of bullying
in a nationally representative sample of adolescents in Ireland. Definitions of bullying were
examined according to age, gender, and bullying experiences. A sample of 4358 adolescents
aged 12–19 years (M=14.99 years, SD=1.63) provided their definitions of bullying as part of
the My World Survey-Second Level. The definitions were explored using content analysis.
Adolescents differed in terms of their definition of bullying, with younger students frequently
describing the nature of bullying as mean, while older students displayed a heightened
awareness of the feelings associated with being a victim of bullying. Older females and those
who had experienced bullying were more likely to discuss the emotions associated with
bullying compared to males and those who had not been bullied. Adolescent definitions of
bullying were not in line with widely accepted researcher definitions. Recommendations are
made for researchers and those designing anti-bullying interventions and educational
programmes.

Keywords Adolescence . Bullying . Victimisation . Intervention . Qualitative

DOI 10.1007/s10212-015-0271-8

* Barbara Dooley
barbara.dooley@ucd.ie

Hollie Byrne
byrnehollie@gmail.com

Amanda Fitzgerald
amanda.fitzgerald@ucd.ie

Louise Dolphin
louise.dolphin@ucd.ie

1 School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
2 Headstrong: The National Centre for Youth Mental Health, 16 Westland Square, Pearse Street, Dublin

2, Ireland

Eur J Psychol Educ (2016) 31:4 3–40 18

Received: 24 February 2015 /Revised: 29 September 2015 /Accepted: 2 October

2015

# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
P

2015

ublished online: 15 October 2015
/

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10212-015-0271-8&domain=pdf

Introduction

The prevalence of bullying victimisation among Irish students in second-level education is
high. Earlier studies of Irish adolescents reveal that in the 1990s, almost 15.6 % of 12–18-year-
old students reported having been bullied at some point (O’Moore et al. 1998). By the mid-
2000s, the number of 12–16-year-old students in second level who reported being bullied in
the previous 3 months was 36.5 % (Minton 2010). However, it is difficult to estimate if the
prevalence of bullying is rising, given that studies use contrasting measurements of prevalence
and frequency, and the ways in which adolescents are bullied are changing with the involve-
ment of new media (Rigby and Smith 2011). Internationally, it is also challenging to compare
prevalence rates of bullying; reports of bullying vary from 13 to 75 % across studies and
methodology is a key factor contributing to these discrepancies (Jimerson et al. 2010).

Researcher definitions of bullying

The single largest methodological issue affecting the comparability and consistency of bully-
ing research findings is the lack of a standard definition of bullying among researchers. A 2014
report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in conjunction with the US
Department of Education claimed that without a uniform research definition of bullying, our
ability to understand the true magnitude, scope, and impact of bullying is severely impeded
(Gladden et al. 2014).

Accordingly, they consulted with bullying experts and practitioners and developed a
uniform research definition of bullying for children and adolescents: “Bullying is any unwant-
ed aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current
dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated
multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the
targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm” [(Gladden et al.
2014), p. 7].

While researchers had not previously reached a unanimous agreement on a definition of
bullying, many bullying researchers generally agreed that to differentiate bullying from other
forms of aggressive behaviour, bullying must meet three criteria: intention to cause harm, a
power imbalance in favour of the bully, and repetition of bullying over time (Farrington 1993;
Olweus 1999). These elements are reflected in the Gladden et al. (2014) definition.

Adolescent definitions of bullying

Although there may be general agreement among researchers about what constitutes bullying,
this definition is not representative of adolescent conceptualisations of bullying (Cuadrado-
Gordillo 2012; Frisén et al. 2008; Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Madsen 1996; Naylor et al.
2006; Vaillancourt et al. 2008). While elements of the “research definition” are evident in
adolescent definitions in some studies, it is generally accepted by a minority of students. For
example, Vaillancourt et al. (2008) found that children and adolescents rarely include refer-
ences to intentionality (1.7 %), repetition (6 %), or power imbalance (26 %) in their sponta-
neous definitions of bullying. Similarly, Naylor et al. (2006) reported that 11–14-year-olds
seldom include these criteria when asked to define bullying (3.9 % for intentionality, 7.9 % for
repetition, 40.5 % for power imbalance). Likewise, in a sample of Swedish 13-year-olds,
Frisén et al. (2008) found that repetition (30 %) and power imbalance (19 %) did not appear in

H. Byrne et al.404

the majority of definitions. Qualitative work with 10–13-year-olds shows a similar disjoint
between researcher and young persons’ bullying conceptualisations (Guerin and Hennessy
2002). However, Cheng et al. (2011) note that Taiwanese adolescents frequently report
examples reflecting intentionality and power imbalance (but not repetition) when asked to
define bullying. The authors concluded that Asian adolescents may differ in their conceptu-
alisation of bullying compared to their Western counterparts due to culture and collectivism.

In brief, it is evident that research on bullying typically uses a definition provided by
researchers, which is not always congruent with the definition provided by young people. The
above examples demonstrate that young people in Western cultures may not view intention-
ality, repetition, or power imbalances as central to their classification of bullying, despite these
aspects being integral to researcher-generated definitions. This discrepancy is important as
adolescents are less likely to report an instance of bullying when they are provided with a
researcher’s definition compared to when they engineer the definition themselves (Madsen
1996; Vaillancourt et al. 2008). In addition, adolescent descriptions of bullying differ from
adult and teacher descriptions (which tend to be more in line with researchers’ definitions), and
this is a concern for how adults respond to adolescent bullying (Menesini et al. 2002; Mishna
et al. 2005; Naylor et al. 2006). A person’s definition of bullying can shape how they respond
to bullying in everyday life (Madsen 1996), and therefore examining adolescent definitions is
paramount to guiding intervention design.

Age, gender, and experience of bullying

Monks and Smith (2006) found clear age-related differences in children’s and adolescents’
(14-year-olds’) understanding of bullying and suggest cognitive development as a possible
driver of the change in definition, given that more advanced cognitive processes allow
adolescents to conceptualise bullying along a number of dimensions. However, almost every
study that has considered adolescent definitions of bullying has not included adolescents over
the age of 13 or 14 (Frisén et al. 2008; Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Naylor et al. 2006;
Menesini et al. 2002; Monks and Smith 2006; Smith et al. 2002) which leaves a significant gap
in the literature regarding how older adolescents conceptualise bullying. It also hinders our
developmental understanding of how conceptualisations of bullying may change from early
adolescence to late adolescence.

The evidence for gender differences in conceptualisations of bullying is equivocal. Some
research suggests that females are more likely to emphasise the effects upon the victim (Frisén
et al. 2008). However, Smith et al. (2002) found few gender differences among definitions of
bullying, despite there being a difference in the bullying behaviours exhibited by males and
females. In addition, Guerin and Hennessy (2002) reported no gender differences in the
definitions of bullying provided by their sample of Irish 10- to 13-year-olds.

Adolescents’ definitions of bullying also change as they observe or experience bullying in
school (Monks and Smith 2006; Monks et al. 2003). However, few studies have directly
addressed whether there is a difference in the self-generated definitions provided by non-
bullied versus bullied adolescents (Naylor et al. 2001), and this requires further attention.

The present study

The aim of this study was to examine the themes that emerge from adolescents’ self-generated
definitions of bullying. Given that previous research indicates that definitions of bullying may

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 405

differ due to previous which leaves a significant, age, or gender (Monks and Smith 2006;
Frisén et al. 2008), this study will consider how the definitions provided by adolescents differ
along these dimensions. As previous literature has already shown that adolescents’ definitions
do not frequently contain key elements of research definitions of bullying (Cuadrado-Gordillo
2012; Frisén et al. 2008; Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Naylor et al. 2006; Vaillancourt et al.
2008), this study will not attempt to examine themes of repetition, intentionality, or power
imbalance. Rather, this study seeks to identify explicit patterns within the data, and themes will
be identified if they capture an important element of young people’s definitions of bullying
(Braun and Clarke 2006). This study uses an inductive approach to look at previously
researched definitions of bullying from a different perspective. In addition, some
previous studies investigating adolescent definitions of bullying have provided ado-
lescents with a list of agree/disagree statements regarding what bullying is (Cuadrado-
Gordillo 2012) or asked participants to watch a cartoon scenario and rate whether it
constituted an episode of bullying or not (Monks and Smith 2006). To avoid the
possible demand characteristics associated with prompted responses, this study will
employ a free-response method in line with the methodology of Vaillancourt et al.
(2008) and Naylor et al. (2006) to ascertain unprompted definitions. This is the first
nationally representative study in a European country to investigate adolescents’ self-
generated definitions of bullying across a wide age range (12–19 years), unlike
previous studies that typically only include responses from adolescents up to the
age of 13 or 14 (Frisén et al. 2008; Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Naylor et al.
2006; Menesini et al. 2002; Monks and Smith 2006; Smith et al. 2002). This will
allow for the examination of age-related differences in conceptualisations of bullying.

Method

Procedure

This study used previously collected, cross-sectional data from the My World Survey-Second
Level (MWS-SL; Dooley and Fitzgerald 2012). A multi-stage, random sampling strategy was
used to ensure the sample was representative of second-level students in Ireland. At least one
second-level school in every county took part. Male only, female only, and mixed-gender
schools were included in the sample. The sample reflected the national distribution of non-
disadvantaged and designated disadvantaged schools. A total of 171 schools were included in
the sampling frame, 72 of which agreed to take part (42 %). Of the students within these
schools, on average, 45 % of students agreed to take part. Response rates of students in
different schools varied between 8 and 89 %. Full ethical approval was granted for the study by
the authors’ institution. Parent and student written consent was obtained for each participant.

Participants

The second-level sample comprised 6085 students, 4358 of whom provided a self-generated
definition of bullying. Of the sample, 54 % were female. The age range of the sample was 12–
19 years old (M=14.99, SD=1.63). The age of the students was balanced across gender. Of the
sample, 43 % were in the 12–14-year-old age range, with the remainder aged between 15 and
19 years old.

H. Byrne et al.406

Within the Irish school system, students typically complete five to six school years.
The Junior Cycle (JC) consists of first, second, and third year. The Senior Cycle (SC)
consists of fourth, fifth, and sixth year. Fourth year, or “transition year”, is not
mandatory in all schools. During this year, students undertake a programme of
vocational and social development (Jeffers 2011). Kenny et al. (2013) stated that as
the age range of students within the Senior Cycle can vary considerably, due to the
impact of some students electing to complete the transition year, grouping students
according to academic cycle may be more appropriate than classifying according to
biological age. Therefore, in the present study, school cycle was used as a proxy for
age.

Measures

The MWS-SL is a self-report instrument assessing risk and protective factors associated with
adolescents’ psychological functioning (see Dooley and Fitzgerald 2013). The survey was
deemed to be reliable and valid following a pilot study in a sample of Irish adolescents (Tobin
2009). The present study utilised the measure of bullying from the survey.

Adolescent definitions of and experience of bullying Participants were asked to
complete the sentence “bullying can be described as” in order to identify how
adolescents’ defined bullying. Using this definition, adolescents were asked if they
had been bullied. This is in contrast to widely used bullying scales, for example, the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, which provides participants with a definition of
bullying (Olweus 1996).

Analysis plan

A content-analysis methodology was considered to be suitable for use with this data,
given that it allows for an inductive examination of the emergence of themes from the
definitions which adolescents’ provided (Guerin and Hennessy 2002). Themes which
emerge from this process can then be deductively applied across the dataset. Stage one
of Guerin and Hennessy’s (2002) method specifies that key areas of interest in the data
are identified. Namey, Guest, Thiaru, and Johnson (2008) propose that with very large
qualitative data sets, such as the one used in this study, frequency analysis of words can
be used to identify key areas of interest within the data, e.g. through using data
management tools such as NVivo (QSR International 2012). While data management
packages can aid qualitative data analysis through providing a transparent view of the
content of the data, they cannot replace the ability of the researcher to notice patterns
and trends within the data (Hilal and Alabri 2013); thus, a combination of computer-
aided data management and analysis by hand was used in the present study (Welsh
2002). The second stage of Guerin and Hennessy’s (2002) method involves inductively
investigating the key responses to each area of interest identified in stage one. The third
stage involves grouping these responses into thematic patterns and subthemes. These
themes and subthemes are then organised in a coding frame, and the coding frame is
then used to review the data again, in order to deduct where a particular theme is
located within the data.

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 407

Results

Data preparation

The units of analysis in the present study were definitions of bullying provided by 4358
second-level students. The total number of words in these definitions was 52,808. In order to
prepare these data for analysis, the definitions were spell-checked. This was done to ensure
each unit of data could be accurately detected by NVivo (QSR International 2012). As the
definitions provided were self-generated, the researchers did not exclude any of the definitions
provided from the body of data to be analysed. The data were initially split into two groups,
consisting of all the responses generated by Junior Cycle (JC) and Senior Cycle (SC)
participants. Within these two groups, the data were further delineated into responses by males
(M) and females (F) and responses by bullied (B) non-bullied (NB) males and bullied and non-
bullied females (see Fig. 1). As the dataset was large, pertinent definitions were chosen on the
basis of containing a word to describe bullying, which was frequently used in the dataset
(Namey et al. 2008).

Fig. 1 Representation of groups which participants were streamed into and most frequent word(s) within these
groups. JC Junior Cycle, JCM Junior Cycle males, JCF Junior Cycle females, JCB Junior Cycle bullied, JCNB
Junior Cycle not bullied, SC Senior Cycle, SCM Senior Cycle males, SCF Senior Cycle females, SCB Senior
Cycle bullied, SCNB Senior Cycle not bullied

H. Byrne et al.408

Data analysis

Data analysis of the JC and SC groups consisted of two phases: the identification of the word
most frequently used to describe bullying and a content analysis of the definitions in which the
frequent words were used. To examine the frequently occurring terms used in students’
definitions to describe bullying, a word frequency query was conducted using NVivo (QSR
International 2012). Any words consisting of less than two characters, and stop words
(conjunctions, prepositions), were excluded from the frequency counts in order to ensure that
only meaningful words were included. The process was repeated for definitions provided by
males, females, those who had been bullied, and those who had not been bullied, across both
JC and SC groups. Identifying the most frequent word used in each of these groups allowed for
the identification of key areas of interest, as per stage one of Guerin and Hennessy’s (2002)
content analysis methodology. This content analysis methodology was then used to examine
the definitions which contained the most frequently used word for each group. This stage of
the analysis was conducted by hand. Responses containing the most frequently used word
were reviewed through reading and re-reading the definitions provided. The responses of
interest were grouped into mutually exclusive thematic categories, themes, and subthemes. A
coding frame was then developed and the data were reviewed using this frame.

Inter-rater reliability

In order to maintain rigour and increase confidence within qualitative research, it is suggested
that inter-rater reliability checks should be employed (Barbour 2007; Elliott et al. 1999).
Therefore, an independent inter-rater was asked to indicate their agreement with the applica-
tion of a particular code. Percentage agreement was 92 %. A kappa statistic (which takes into
account that two raters may disagree or agree by chance; Viera and Garrett 2005) was also
calculated. The Kappa statistic for the thematic categories ranged between 0.79 and 0.82.
Values in excess of 0.75 are considered acceptable, which suggests that in the present study, a
good level of inter-rater agreement was observed (Cicchetti 1994).

Key thematic categories

The definitions provided by JC and SC students, males (M) and females (F), those who had
been bullied (B), and those who had not (NB), were compared. The results of the analyses of
frequent words within these definitions highlighted that JC students most frequently used the
word mean (cruel) to describe bullying. This was observed for JCM and JCF. However,
victims of bullying (JCB) differed in terms of how they described bullying compared to those
who were not bullied (JCNB). The most frequent word among students in the JC who had
been bullied was feel, and the definitions using this word discussed the feelings which being
bullied engendered within them, while those who had not been bullied most frequently
described how bullying was mean, which was in line with the broader trend among JC
students.

As with JC students who had been bullied, SC students most frequently referred to the
feelings which bullying could bring about in the victim. This pattern was seen for SCF and
those who had been bullied within the Senior Cycle (SCB). SCM were more likely to discuss
types of bullying, as were those who had not been bullied among the Senior Cycle (SCNB).
The most frequent word used in terms of types of bullying by SCNB and SCM was physical,

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 409

and definitions containing this word usually named a number of other types of bullying
behaviour.

In analysing the patterns in the above data, the results were organised into three broad
thematic categories: “bullying is mean”, “bullying affects feelings”, and “types of bullying”
(see Table 1).

Thematic category one: bullying is mean

Among JC students, the most frequently used word to describe bullying was “mean”. Over a
quarter of the definitions provided by JC students (26 %) and JCNB (32 %) made reference to
the concept of the mean nature of bullying. Within this thematic category, three themes
emerged from the data: “reasons for mean behaviour”, “certain people are at risk of being a
victim of mean behaviour”, and “there are certain types of mean behaviour”. These themes
were further broken down into subthemes which are listed alongside illustrative quotes in
Table 2.

In terms of the first theme, “reasons for mean behaviour”, some JC students
highlighted that there was no reasonable explanation for mean behaviour. Others
emphasised that bullying may on occasion be carried out on purpose to provide a
source of humour to the bully, because the bully may be “unsatisfied with life”
(JCM) in some way or in order that the bully may “feel good about themselves”
(JCM).

A second theme which was identified in definitions containing the word mean was
that certain individuals were at risk of being treated in a mean way. JC students
highlighted that individuals who may differ from expected in terms of their behaviour,
appearance, or ability may be at risk of experiencing mean behaviour towards them.
For example, one JCF participant stated that mean behaviour was carried out towards
others because “they look or sound different, or because they don’t like the way that
person acts”. Additionally, being of a different race, or being academically able, was
also highlighted as a characteristic that participants highlighted as potentially putting
individuals at risk of victimisation.

A third theme to be identified among definitions containing the word mean was that there
were certain types of mean behaviour. Physical bullying (hitting, kicking, and punching) was
described as mean behaviour, while “sending mean texts” (JCM) and “saying mean things”
(JCNV) were frequently mentioned. Others cited “ignoring” (JCF) and isolating others as the
types of mean acts which bullies might carry out.

Table 1 Thematic categories and the groups which these themes emerged in

Theme category one:
bullying is mean

Theme category two:
bullying affects feelings

Theme category three:
types of bullying

Group JC SC SCM

JCNB SCF SCNB

JCB and SCB

JC Junior Cycle, JCB Junior Cycle bullied, JCNB Junior Cycle not bullied, SC Senior Cycle, SCM Senior Cycle
males, SCF Senior Cycle females, SCB Senior Cycle bullied, SCNB Senior Cycle not bullied

H. Byrne et al.410

Thematic category two: bullying affects feelings

SC students, SCF students, and those who had previously experienced bullying (both JC and
SC) referred to the word “feel”, and its derivative “feeling”, when asked to share what they
thought about bullying (see Table 3). Specifically, feelings were referenced in 43 % of SC
students’ definitions, 34 % of SCF students’ definitions, and 56 % of the definitions provided
by victims of bullying. Two broad themes were isolated: “victims of bullying feel negative
emotions” and “bullies feel positive and negative emotions”. These broad themes were further
delineated into subthemes which are presented in Table 3 alongside illustrative quotes.

The first theme in this category comprised of the range of negative feelings that were
described; participants cited that being bullied could make someone “feel worthless”.
Participants also described how bullying could make victims feel “sad”. In some cases, this
sadness could be felt regardless of whether the bullying was of a verbal, relational, or physical
nature as they could “all hurt you in the same way” (SCF). Many participants also referred to
the feelings of upset which bullying victimisation could create. According to some partici-
pants, this feeling of upset could arise when a bully victim’s sense of self was disrupted. For
example, one female participant stated that bullying could make you “feel upset about you as a
person” (SCF). Furthermore, SC students also stated that bully victims could feel anger not
only at themselves but also at the bully. Participants also referred to feelings of isolation and
how the nature of bullying could make an individual feel “like they don’t belong or fit in”
(SCF) or “not accepted” (SCBV).

A second theme which was identified centred on how SC students also used the word feel
in the context of the feelings the bully may have. Frequently, participants described how
bullying may make the bully feel “good about themselves by feeling higher than someone
else” (SCF). According to participants, bullies may also carry out bullying behaviour as they

Table 2 Themes and subthemes for thematic category one: bullying is mean

Theme Subtheme Illustrative quotes: Junior Cycle students

Reasons for mean
behaviour

-There are no good reasons to
behave in a mean way
towards another.

-The bully may behave in a
mean way in order to
entertain themselves.

-The bully may feel insecure.

“Being mean to somebody for no good reason!”
“Mean, hurtful, unfair, uncalled for, a

person with mental problems”

Certain people are at risk of
being a victim of mean
behaviour

-Race
-Gender
-Academic performance

“Picking on someone or being mean to
them for religious, race, education,
physical and health reasons”

“When one person picks on another person
because they are different or the bully
may be jealous of them. So they will be
mean to them and turn people away from them

.”

There are types of
mean behaviour

-Verbal
-Physical
-Psychological (e.g. through

isolation)

“When people hit you or say mean things to
you or spreading rumours, threatening
someone, picking on them”

“Vicious, mean, cruel emotional torture.”
“Being mean to other people, treating

them unfairly and disrespecting them.”

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 411

T
ab

le
3

T
he
m
es

an
d
su
bt
h
em

es
f

o
r

th
em

at
ic
ca
te
g
or
y
tw
o
:

bu
ll
yi
ng

af
fe
ct
s

fe
el

in
gs

T
h
em

e
S
ub
th
em

e

Il
lu
st
ra
ti
ve

qu
ot
e:
se
ni
or

fe
m
al
e

st
ud
en
ts

Il
lu
st
ra
ti
ve

q
uo
te
:
vi
ct
im

is
ed

st
ud
en
ts

Il
lu
st
ra
ti
v
e
q
uo
te
:
se
n
io
r
st
ud
en
ts

V
ic
ti
m
s
o
f
b
u
ll
y
in
g
fe
el

n
eg
at
iv
e
em

o
ti
o
ns

V
ic
ti
m
s
of

bu
ll
yi
ng

fe
el
w
o
rt
h
le
ss

“P
ut
ti
ng

so
m

eo
ne

do
w
n,

m
ak
in
g
th
em

fe
el
w
o
rt
h
le
ss

or
u
p
se
t,

fe
ar
fu
l
of

y
ou
,
an
y
th
in
g

th
at
m
ak
es

th
em
fe
el

up
se
t
or

sm
al
l.
”

“W
he
n
ot
he
r
pe
op
le

m
ak
e

y
ou

fe
el
sm

al
l

an
d
li
ke

y
ou
’r
e
no
t

of
w
or
th
…
”

“M
ak
in
g
so
m
eo
ne

fe
el

in
fe
ri
or

to

yo
u

o
r
fi
nd
in
g

a
w
ea
kn
es
s
in

so
m
eo
ne

an
d
co
ns
ta
n
tl
y
te
as
in
g

th
em

ab
ou
t
it
,
m
ak
in
g

th
em

fe
el
w
o
rt
h
le
ss
.”

V
ic
ti
m
s
of
bu
ll
yi
ng
fe
el

sa
dn
es
s
an
d
up
se
t

“A
ny

th
in
g
th
at
m
ea
ns

yo
u

fe
el
un
co
m
fo
rt
ab
le
or

un
ea
sy

or

sa
d.
”

“A
fe
el
in
g
o
f
is
ol
at
io
n
,

lo
ne
li
ne
ss
,
o
pp
re
ss
io
n

an
d
sa
dn
es
s.
”

“P
hy
si
ca
ll
y
o
r
m
en
ta
ll
y

di
st
re
ss
in
g
so
m
eo
ne

to
m
ak
e
fe
el
ba
d
or

sa
d.
”
“A
ny

ph
y
si
ca
l
or

m
en
ta
l

ab
us
e
th
at
o
ne

pe
rs
o
n

do
es

to
an
ot
he
r
th
at
m
ak
es

th
em

fe
el
st
re
ss
ed

an
d
u
ps
et
.”

“M
ak
in
g
so
m
eo
ne
fe
el

un
co
m
fo
rt
ab
le
an
d

in
ad
eq
u
at
e,
ph
ys
ic
al
ly

h
ar
m
in
g
th
em

o
r

m
en
ta
ll
y
u
p
se
tt
in
g

th
em
.”

“W
h
en

so
m
eo
ne

ta
k
es

a
d
is
li
k
in
g
to

yo
u
fo
r

so
m
e

u
su
al
ly

re
al
ly

st
up
id

re
as
on

an
d
de
ci
de
s

to
m
ak
e
y
ou
r

li
fe

di
ff
ic
u
lt

an
d
up
se
t
yo
u
.”

V
ic
ti
m
s
of

b
u
ll
y
in
g
fe
el
an
gr
y

“I
nt
ol
er
an
t
be
ha
vi
ou
r
to
w
ar
ds

so
m
eo
ne

el
se
.
M
ak
in
g

th
em

fe
el
in
ti
m
id
at
ed
,

an
gr
y,
up
se
t,
w
ea
k
an
d

sm
al
le
r

th
an

yo
u
or

ev
en

in
fe
ar

o
f
yo
u
.”

“A
re
p
et
it
iv
e
at
te
m
p
t
to

an
no
y
/s
ad
de
n/
m
ak
e

yo
u
an
gr
y
th
at
oc
cu
rs

on
a
re
gu
la
r
ba
si
s.
”

“T
re
at
in
g
so
m
eo
n
e
un
fa
ir
ly

ei
th
er

be
ca
us
e
o
f
so
m
et
hi
n
g

ph
ys
ic
al
,
em

o
ti
on
al
,
re
li
g
io
us

et
c.
w
h
ic
h
m
ak
es

th
em
fe
el
up
se
t
or

an
gr
y
w
it
h
y
ou
rs
el
f.
”

V
ic
ti
m
s
of
bu
ll
yi
ng

fe
el
is
o
la
te
d

“P
eo
p
le
be
in
g
is
ol
at
ed
,

h
u
rt
,
ca
ll
ed

na
m
es

an
d
m
an
ip
ul
at
ed

by
ot
he
rs
.”

“I
w
as

in
pr
im

ar
y
sc
ho
ol

an
d
I
w
as

ne
w

in

th
e

cl
as
s
an
d
ev
er
y
on
e

is
o
la
te
d
m
e
an
d
na
g
ge
d

m
e
fo
r
no

re
al
re
as
on
.”

“ M
ak
in
g
an
ot
he
r

pe
rs
on

fe
el

up
se
t,
fr
ig
ht
en
ed

or
is
ol
at
ed
”

B
ul
li
es

—
p
os
it
iv
e
an
d

n
eg
at
iv
e
em
o
ti
o
ns
B
ul
li
es

fe
el
p
o
si
ti
v
e

fe
el
in
gs

w
he
n

th
ey

bu
ll
y
ot
he
rs

“A
m
et
ho
d
w
hi
ch

so
m
e

pe
op
le
us
e
to

m
ak
e
th
em

se
lv
es

fe
el
go
o
d;

bu
t
m
ak
e
th
e
pe
rs
on

th
ey

ar
e
bu
ll
y
in
g
fe
el
ba
d.
”

“T
or
m
en
ti
ng

so
m
eo
n
e,

fo
r
th
e
bu
ll
y
’s
ow

n
en
jo
ym

en
t
at
se
ei
ng

th
e
vi
ct
im

su
ff
er
.”

“S
om

eo
ne

w
ho

th
in
ks

th
ey

ar
e
su
pe
ri
o
r
to

ot
h
er
s
an
d

m
ak
e
ot
he
rs
fe
el
ba
d
so

th
at
th
ey

ca
n
fe
el
go
od
.”

B
ul
li
es

m
ay

ca
rr
y
o
ut

bu
ll
y
in
g
be
ha
vi
ou
r

be
ca
us
e
th
ey

ha
ve

ne
ga
ti
v
e
fe
el
in
gs

ab
ou
t
th
em

se
lv
es

“T
he

pe
rs
on

do
in
g
th
e

bu
ll
yi
ng

is
in
se
cu
re
,

je
al
ou
s
or

so
m
et
h
in
g

is
w
ro
n
g
w
it
h
th
em

,
bu
t

th
ey

ta
ke

it
ou
t
on

th
e

v
ic
ti
m
.
It
’s
w
ro
ng
.”

“P
eo
p
le
m
ak
in
g
yo
ur

li
fe

m
is
er
y
be
ca
u
se

th
ey

th
in
k
th
ey
’r
e

be
tt
er

th
an

yo
u
o
r

th
ey
’r
e
je
al
ou
s
o
f
yo
u
.”

“S
om

eo
n
e
w
h
o
ha
s
fa
m
il
y
is
su
es

an
d
is
ve
ry

an
gr
y
&

ta
k
es
it
ou
t
on

w
ea
k
pe
op
le
to

m
ak
e
th
em

fe
el
be
tt
er

ab
ou
t
th
em

se
lv
es
.”

H. Byrne et al.412

“have issues” (SCV) or were “sad inside” (SC). One participant proposed that for the bully,
witnessing the victims’ “pain and fear makes it all better” (SCF).

Thematic category three: types of bullying

Among SCM and SCNB students, participants most frequently described types of bullying
when asked to describe bullying. Specifically, 45 % of these participants referenced physical
bullying, 34 % referenced mental/psychological bullying, 20 % referenced verbal bullying,
and 1 % referenced cyberbullying. Illustrative quotes are provided below.

Physical bullying Participants stated that physical bullying could involve “hitting people”
(SCNB) and “pushing, kicking, punching” (SCM). Physical bullying was considered to be a
form of intimidation so bullies could “get what they want” (SCM).

Mental and psychological bullying “Mental bullying” was described as “extremely dam-
aging” (SCNB) and could make an individual “feel worse about themselves” (SCNB). Mental
bullying was also described as being “mentally hard on the victim” (SCM), as they were being
subjected to behaviour which was “psychologically degrading” (SCM). One participant
described mental bullying as “messing with your head” (SCM).

Verbal bullying Participants described verbal bullying as “calling someone names” (SCM),
“slagging them a lot” (SCM), or “insulting someone and disrespecting them” (SCNB).

Cyberbullying The least discussed form of bullying was cyberbullying. Some participants
included texting in their definition, e.g. “even cyberbullying can hurt in the form of texts or
[on] social websites” (SCM). “Facebook” (SCM) was mentioned as one platform through
which cyberbullying could occur, as was text messaging.

Results summary

To summarise, participants differed in terms of their definitions of bullying due to previous
experience of bullying, age, and gender. Those within the JC focused on how bullying was
mean. In contrast to this SC students (SC females in particular), those who had previously been
victimised emphasised the negative consequences of victimisation on the psychological
wellbeing of those who experienced it, alongside an understanding of the emotional mindset
of bullies. SC students who had never been victimised and SC male students frequently
described types of bullying (physical, verbal, psychological, electronic forms).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the themes that emerge from adolescents’ unprompted
definitions of bullying and evaluate if these definitions differ based on age, gender, and previous
experience of bullying. As previous literature has already shown that adolescents’ definitions do
notfrequentlycontainkeyelementsofresearchdefinitionsofbullying(Cuadrado-Gordillo2012;
Frisén et al. 2008; Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Naylor et al. 2006; Vaillancourt et al. 2008), our

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 413

study, using an inductive methodological approach, also failed to find evidence supporting the
definedthemesofrepetition,intentionality,orpowerimbalance,asconceptualisedbyresearchers
in the field (Farrington 1993; Gladden et al. 2014; Olweus 1999).

Key findings

Three thematic categories emerged from the data: (a) bullying is mean, (b) bullying affects
feelings, and (c) types of bullying. Within the bullying is mean thematic category, definitions
reflected reasons for mean behaviour (e.g. the behaviour is humorous to the bully, a bully hurts
someone because they are hurt themselves, there is no reason for mean behaviour), those at
risk for being treated in a mean way (e.g. those who look and sound different, those who are
weak, those of a different race, physical appearance, gender, those who are smart), and types of
mean behaviour (e.g. ignoring, isolating, physically hurting others). Within the bullying affects
feelings thematic category, definitions reflected victims of bullying feeling negative emotions
(e.g. worthlessness, sadness and upset, anger, isolation), and bullies feeling both positive and
negative emotions (e.g. bullying to feel good about themselves or because they are sad inside).
Finally, within the types of bullying thematic category, participants referred to physical
bullying, mental/psychological bullying, verbal bullying, and cyberbullying.

However, the frequency at which elements of these thematic categories were referenced
differed according to age, gender, and experience of bullying, in line with previous research
(Monks and Smith 2006; Frisén et al. 2008; Vaillancourt et al. 2008).

Regarding age, the definitions which Junior Cycle (JC) students provided usually involved
listing a number of adjectives to describe bullying, the most common of these being mean
(26 %), reflecting the thematic category bullying is mean. In comparison, Senior Cycle (SC)
students tended to discuss the feelings associated with bullying, reflecting the thematic
category of bullying affects feelings—feelings were referenced in almost a quarter of SC
adolescents’ definitions (24 %). They also highlighted the positive and negative feelings which
a bully could experience when engaging in victimisation. In comparing these groups, we can
see that the definitions provided qualitatively differed, moving from a focus on describing
what bullying is conceptualised as in the JC, to focusing on the effects of bullying in the SC.
Monks and Smith (2006) state that these contrasts could be attributed to cognitive differences,
whereby older, more cognitively advanced adolescents can conceptualise bullying along a
number of dimensions compared to younger students. For example, many older adolescents
were able to incorporate a description of the emotional effects of bullying into their definitions,
while this was less evident for younger adolescents. In the present study, we could attribute the
differences between JC and SC adolescents’ definitions to cognitive advancements.

However, it may also be a function of the education about bullying victimisation which
students received, given that SC students may have had more opportunity to engage with
education programmes compared to their younger counterparts. Therefore, definitively saying
that cognitive development can account for differences in adolescents’ definition of bullying is
problematic (Scheithauer et al. 2012). However, the results of the present study suggest that it
is important for researchers to consider that older and younger students may differ in terms of
their definition and therefore their understanding of bullying.

In exploring gender differences, male and female definitions differed, with SC females
describing the effects of bullying, and SC males describing the types of bullying which could
be experienced. This partly supports previous research which states that females may focus on
the effects upon the victim (Frisén et al. 2008). In contrast, SC males were more likely to

H. Byrne et al.414

describe types of bullying, which could be attributed to the finding that males are more likely
than females to minimise the expression of emotions (Perry-Parrish and Zeman 2011), and
therefore they provided more descriptive definitions of bullying.

In comparing adolescents who had experienced bullying and those who had not, victims
from both JC and SC focused on the emotional aspect of victimisation. This suggests that those
who have personal experience of victimisation may be more aware of the serious negative
emotional consequences associated with being bullied. Although Monks and Smith (2006)
state that the definition of bullying may change with increased experience of observing
bullying behaviour, few studies have explicitly addressed whether there is a difference in the
definitions provided by non-bullied versus bullied adolescents (Naylor et al. 2001).

In sum, our findings highlight that the influence of age, gender, and experience of bullying
should be considered by researchers in the measurement of bullying. Currently, this practice is
not regularly used within bullying research.

Strengths and limitations

In terms of strengths, this study used a large, nationally representative dataset in Ireland to
examine adolescents’ definitions of bullying. Unlike previous studies that only include
responses from adolescents up to the age of 13 or 14 (Frisén et al. 2008; Guerin and
Hennessy 2002; Naylor et al. 2006; Menesini et al. 2002; Monks and Smith 2006; Smith
et al. 2002), we examine definitions of adolescents aged 12–19 to examine age-related, gender-
related, and experience-related differences in conceptualisations of bullying. In terms of
analyses, we did not impose thematic categories relating to researcher definitions of bullying,
but rather allowed themes to emerge inductively from the data. Regarding methodology, a free-
response method was employed to ascertain unprompted definitions of bullying as opposed to
asking participants to agree or disagree with a list of statements (e.g. Cuadrado-Gordillo 2012).
Research with adolescents is increasingly moving towards incorporating the voice of the
young person (McDonagh and Bateman 2012), and allowing the participants in the present
study to contribute their own meaningful definition of bullying is one way in which the voice
of the young person can be captured in research.

In examining the study’s limitations, data were cross-sectional in nature. Longitudinal data,
comparing the same participants’ definitions of bullying over time (e.g. Frisén et al. 2008),
would allow for more confirmatory conclusions to be reached regarding developmental
differences in younger versus older adolescents’ conceptualisations of bullying. Future re-
search may examine how definitions change over time based on age, gender, and experience of
bullying. The aim of the present study was to examine explicit meanings within adolescent
definitions of bullying. As a result, implicit meanings were not identified. Future research may
be required in order to examine implicit meanings within adolescent definitions.

Implications and conclusions

The findings of this study have implications for future research and future intervention design;
they raise significant questions concerning the assessment of bullying in psychological studies.
While researchers’ definitions of bullying typically emphasise power imbalance, repetition,
and intention in their definitions, these concepts were not explicitly identified in the present
study as adolescents’ definitions most frequently referred to the mean nature of bullying,
feelings associated with bullying, and types of bullying. Our findings add support to the

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 415

conclusions of Vaillancourt et al. (2008) that “it is no longer tenable to assume that students’
spontaneous definition is in keeping with that purported by the research field” (p. 494).
However, one could argue that while the explicit concepts outlined in researchers’ definitions
may not be explicitly present in adolescent definitions, it is possible that they may be implicitly
present in adolescent definitions. In-depth qualitative research would be needed to explore this.
While we recognise that consistent terminology with standardised definitions is necessary to
improve public health surveillance of bullying and inform efforts to address bullying (Gladden
et al. 2014), we suggest, in line with other researchers, that future studies examining the
prevalence of bullying in school should consider the perspective of the adolescent in addition
to the researcher (Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Naylor et al. 2006). It may also be hypothesised
that researcher and adolescent definitions may not always be at odds with each other and may
perhaps be complimentary, with adolescent definitions explicitly describing bullying behav-
iours, and researcher definitions implicitly examining the nature of these behaviours.

These inconsistencies are important to consider regarding education, intervention, and
prevention programmes for adolescent bullying so that these programmes are informed by
the experiences of adolescents and their conceptualisations of bullying behaviour. As afore-
mentioned, adult and teacher definitions of bullying tend to align with researcher definitions
more than adolescent definitions (Menesini et al. 2002; Mishna et al. 2005; Naylor et al. 2006).
This is important to highlight as such discrepancies may prevent adults from intervening in
situations considered by adolescents as bullying (Frisén et al. 2008; Mishna et al. 2005).
Additionally, lack of intervention from the school staff for situations regarded by adolescents
as bullying (e.g. “mean” behaviour) may be seen by adolescents as an acceptance of such
behaviour (Madsen 1996). In line with Naylor et al. (2006), we recommend that teachers are
made aware that adolescents, depending on gender, age, and experience of bullying, may have
different conceptualisations of bullying compared to teacher perspectives.

Our results indicate that bullying programmes should be tailored depending on whether they
target younger or older pupils and that the content of such programmes should reflect the
differences in how these groups conceptualise bullying. Also, given the observed difference
between bullied and non-bullied adolescent definitions (particularly regarding the emotional
impact on the victim), it may be useful for educational programmes to involve the use of vignettes,
personal experiences, and role-playing to increase awareness of the negative effects of bullying
(Pepler et al. 1994). This may allow students who have not experienced bullying to appreciate the
emotional impact of victimisation. However, it is worth noting that the effectiveness of certain
anti-bullying prevention and intervention programmes has been questioned (Ferguson et al.
2007). Therefore, educators should carefully consider the type of behaviour they are trying to
target and the aims of a programme before implementing it in their school, being mindful that
“one size” does not fit all, and putting young people at the centre of an intervention.

References

Barbour, R. (2007). Introducing qualitative research: a students’ guide to the craft of qualitative research.
London: Sage Publications.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2),
77–101.

Cheng, Y. Y., Chen, L. M., Ho, H. C., & Cheng, C. L. (2011). Definitions of school bullying in Taiwan: a
comparison of multiple perspectives. Sch Psychol Int, 32(3), 227–243.

H. Byrne et al.416

Cicchetti, D. (1994). Guidelines, criteria and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment
instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess, 6, 284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: do these criteria conform to teen-
agers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(10), 1889–1910.

Dooley, B.A., & Fitzgerald, A. (2012). My world survey: national study of youth mental health in Ireland.
Headstrong and UCD School of Psychology

Dooley, B. A., & Fitzgerald, A. (2013). Methodology on the My World Survey (MWS): a unique window into
the world of adolescents in Ireland. Early intervention in psychiatry, 7(1), 12–22.

Elliott, R., Fischer, C., & Rennie, D. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in
psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 215–229.

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and
justice: annual review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-
bullying programs. A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32(4), 401–414.

Frisén, A., Holmqvist, K., & Oscarsson, D. (2008). 13 year-olds’ perception of bullying: definitions, reasons for
victimisation and experience of adults’ response. Educ Stud, 34, 105–117. doi:10.1080/
0305569070181114919.

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance
among youths: uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta,
GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and US
Department of Education.

Guerin, S., & Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. Eur J Psychol Educ, 17, 249–261. doi:10.
1007/BF03173535.

Hilal, A. H., & Alabri, S. S. (2013). Using NVIVO for data analysis in qualitative research. International
Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2(2), 181–186.

Jeffers, G. (2011). The transition year programme in Ireland. Embracing and resisting a curriculum innovation.
Curric J, 22, 61–76. doi:10.1080/09585176.2011.550788.

Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2010). Handbook of bullying in schools: an international
perspective. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Kenny, R., Dooley, B., & Fitzgerald, A. (2013). Interpersonal relationships and emotional distress in adolescence.
J Adolesc, 36, 351–360. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.005.

Madsen, K. C. (1996). Differing perceptions of bullying and their practical implications. Education and Child
Psychology, 13(2), 14–22.

McDonagh, J., & Bateman, B. (2012). “Nothing about us without us”: considerations for research involving
young people. Arch Dis Child, 97(10), 919–921.

Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to terms related to bullying: a
comparison between teacher’s and pupil’s perspectives in Italy. Eur J Psychol Educ, 17(4), 393–406.

Minton, S. J. (2010). Students’ experiences of aggressive behaviour and bully/victim problems in Irish schools.
Irish Educational Studies, 29, 131–152. doi:10.1080/03323311003779035.

Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. D2005]. Teachers’ understanding of bullying. Canadian Journal
of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 28D4], 718–738. 20.

Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: age differences in understanding of the term, and
the role of experience. Br J Dev Psychol, 24, 801–821. doi:10.1348/026151005X82352.

Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims and defenders in preschool: peer, self
and teacher reports. Merrill-Palmer Q, 49, 435–469. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0024.

Namey, E., Thiaru, L., Guest, G., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets.
In G. Guest & K. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137–162).
Plymouth, England: AltaMira Press.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of
bullying. Br J Educ Psychol, 76(3), 553–576.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being
bullied. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6, 114–120. doi:10.1017/S1360641701002647.

O’Moore, M., Kirkham, C., & Smith, M. (1998). Bullying in schools in Ireland: a nationwide study. Irish
Educational Studies, 17, 254–271. doi:10.1080/0332331980170122.

Olweus, D. D1996]. The revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Mimeo, Bergen, Norway: Research Centre
for Health Promotion, University of Bergen

Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.),
The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective (pp. 28–48). London: Routledge.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. D1994]. An evaluation of an antibullying intervention in
Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95–110. 21.

Bullying definitions: contribution of age, gender, and experience 417

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569070181114919

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569070181114919

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173535

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173535

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.550788

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323311003779035

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151005X82352

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0024

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360641701002647

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0332331980170122

Perry-Parrish, C., & Zeman, J. (2011). Relations among sadness regulation, peer acceptance, and social
functioning in early adolescence: the role of gender. Soc Dev, 20, 135–153. doi:10.1375/ajgc.21.2.186.

QSR International. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (version 10). Doncaster, Victoria: QSR
International Pty Ltd.

Rigby, K., & Smith, P. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Soc Psychol Educ, 14, 441–455. doi:10.1007/
s11218-011-9158-y.

Scheithauer, H., Hess, M., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Bull, H. D. (2012). School-based prevention of bullying
and relational aggression in adolescence: the fairplayer manual. New Directions for Youth Development, 133,
55–70. doi:10.1002/yd.20007.

Smith, P. L., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R., & Liefooghe, A. (2002). Definition of bullying: a comparison of terms
used, and age and sex differences in a 14 country international comparison. Child Dev, 73, 1119–1133. doi:
10.1111/1467-8624.00461.

Tobin, B. D2009]. Understanding adolescent mental health: exploring specific risk and protective factors which
contribute to psychological functioning in both a community and clinical adolescent population. Dublin,
Ireland: University College Dublin School of Psychology. Unpublished manuscript.

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Hymel, S., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: are
researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? Journal of Behavioural Development, 32, 486–
495.

Viera, A., & Garrett, J. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine,
37(5), 360–363.

Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. In Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2).

Hollie Byrne. School of Psychology, University College Dublin,Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland,
Email: byrnehollie@gmail.com; Website: http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/

Barbara Dooley. School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4 and
(Headstrong: The National Centre for Youth Mental Health) 16 Westland Square, Pearse Street, Dublin 2, Ireland,
Email: barbara.dooley@ucd.ie; Websites: http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/ and https://www.headstrong.ie/

Amanda Fitzgerald. School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4,
Ireland, Email: amanda.fitzgerald@ucd.ie; Website: http://www.ucd.ie/psychology

Louise Dolphin. School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4,
Ireland, Email: louise.dolphin@ucd.ie; Website: http://www.ucd.ie/psychology

H. Byrne et al.418

http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.21.2.186

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9158-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9158-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.20007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00461

http://dx.doi.org/http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/

http://dx.doi.org/http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/

http://dx.doi.org/http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/

http://dx.doi.org/http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/

http://dx.doi.org/http://www.ucd.ie/psychology/

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

• Adolescents’ definitions of bullying: the contribution of age, gender, and experience of bullying

Abstract
Introduction
Researcher definitions of bullying
Adolescent definitions of bullying
Age, gender, and experience of bullying
The present study
Method
Procedure
Participants
Measures
Analysis plan
Results
Data preparation
Data analysis
Inter-rater reliability
Key thematic categories
Thematic category one: bullying is mean
Thematic category two: bullying affects feelings
Thematic category three: types of bullying
Results summary
Discussion
Key findings
Strengths and limitations
Implications and conclusions
References

EconomicInterferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 409

HARASSMENT AND BULLYING AMONG STUDENTS
IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: MANIFESTATION

OF SINGLE CASES OF HARASSMENT AND BULLYING IN ASPECTS
OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Jolita Vveinhardt1, Vilija Bite Fominiene2, Regina Andriukaitiene3

and Dalia Streimikiene4∗
1)Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

2)3)4) Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania

Please cite this article as:
Vveinhardt, J., Fominiene, V.B., Andriukaitiene, R.
and Streimikiene, D., 2019. Harassment and Bullying
among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment and
Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables.
Amfiteatru Economic, 21(51), pp. 409-426.

DOI: 10.24818/EA/2019/51/409

Article History
Received: 15 November 2018
Revised:3 February 2019
Accepted: 2 March 2019:

Abstract
The research goal – to analyse manifestations of single cases of harassment and bullying in
students’ inter-relationship and to compare them in aspects of socio-demographic variables.
623 students studying at Lithuanian higher education institutions were questioned. We
determined a dependence of harassment and bullying on respondents’ age: they were
experienced more often by 18-30 year-old students, whereas older students’ complaints
were less. Older students more often requested for active policy of higher education
institutions in preventing negative relations. Women showed more initiative in seeking for
help, unlike men, experience of negative relations of which was higher in the past.
Harassment and bullying were more experienced by the students studying at higher
education colleges, unlike those studying at universities. The research results are significant
in striving for better perception of impact of harassment and bullying at higher education
institutions on demographic variables and negative inter-personal relationship experienced
at school age. This knowledge is necessary for higher education institutions preparing and
developing a prevention of harassment and bullying.

Keywords: harassment, bullying, demographic variables, higher education colleges,
universities, students.

JEL Classification: I20, I23, O15, P46

∗ Corresponding author, Dalia Streimikiene – dalia.streimikiene@knf.vu.lt

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment

and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

410 Amfiteatru Economic

Introduction

Higher education institutions constantly face challenges of diversity management. Studying
at higher education institution is selected by students of very different age, different inter-
personal relationship, working, learning and other experience, representatives of different
ethnic or social groups. That means that the obtained experience and knowledge might
determine very different reactions to harassment and bullying and decisions taken, which
has to be taken into account by higher education institutions’ administrations in striving to
ensure safe environment of studies. Students’ safety is an important part of higher education
institution’s policy, which affects not only students’ psychological well-being. Bullying is a
strong source of stress (Hoel, Zapf and Cooper, 2002) and very negatively affects victim’s
physical and mental health, it is related to induced depression, anxiety, low self-esteem,
loneliness and hopelessness, which might lead to suicide attempts (Hong, Kral and
Sterzing, 2014). Harassment and bullying also negatively affect study process, and
influence a decision to choose one or another university, taking into account public
responses – it is determined that selections of future students depend on how an education
institution guaranties safety (Shelley et al., 2017).

Over the last decades there were performed quite a few harassment and bullying studies at
work place, i.e. between students and lecturers (e.g., DeSouza, 2010) or between higher
education institutions’ staff (e.g., Kang and Sidhu, 2015), however, some negative aspects
of students’ inter-relationship remain as if in a particular grey zone, and perpetrators not
always remain identified and punished (Vidu et al., 2014; Valls et al., 2016).

Conclusions

of some researches on harassment and bullying performed in different cultures highlight
that, in striving to ensure students’ well-being, prevention policy of education institutions is
important in tackling the problems related to bullying, assessing both direct interpersonal
relationship and tendencies of rapid spread of bullying in cyberspace (DeSouza and
Ribeiro, 2005; Valls et al., 2016; Betts et al., 2016; Myers and Cowie, 2017; etc.). Its
importance grows when it’s set that persons belonging to more than one disadvantaged
groups more often suffer from assaults (Andersson et al., 2017), and some continuity exists,
because bullying in childhood is related to aggressive behaviour when the person is an adult
already (Sansone, Leung and Wiederman, 2012).

All that indicates both impact of student’s experience and wide and sophisticated reasons’
spectrum related to individual demographic and social characteristics of a victim, which are
important to be considered by the managers of higher education institutions who organize a
policy directed against harassment and bullying. It is also very important to assess students’
previous bullying experience and differences of the persons choosing different institutions
that is colleges and universities.

The research goal is to analyse manifestations of single cases of harassment and bullying in
students’ inter-relationship and to compare them in aspects of socio-demographic variables.

1. Review of the scientific literature
Modern society expects that the graduate of higher education will become its full-fledged
member – creative, communicating and cooperating as well as able to tackle efficiently life
problems. Young people also expect that higher education studies will affect their future

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 411

and successful career. In striving for these goals, a safe learning environment in higher
education also becomes an important component (Chekwa, Thomas Jr. and Jones, 2013),
where importance of good socio-psychological climate is highlighted in addition to the
physical one (Hagenauer and Volet, 2014). Unfortunately, the researches, although stating
endeavour of higher education institutions to create an environment favourable to
education, also reveal manifestations of various forms of aggression inside it (Aleid, 2016),
where bullying is distinguished as the most dominating aggression form (Piotrowski and
King, 2016).

Bullying is a multifaceted phenomenon, spread in a society widely enough. At the same
time, it is also a very personal experience of each person (Meriläinen, Puhakka and
Sinkkonen, 2015). Such amplitude of the phenomenon also determines its conceptions’
diversity that is related to both the research context and the use of the concepts in different
cultures and languages. First, bullying can be understood as a repeated form of aggressive
behaviour – systematic abuse of power. However, to describe the concept of bullying, the
most often used concept is a wider one, explaining that it is “unwanted aggressive
behaviour” that “inflicts harm or distress,” and is “repeated multiple times or is highly
likely to be repeated” in the context of an “observed or perceived power differential”
(Patchin and Hinkduja, 2015).

To better understand and research this phenomenon, it is divided into different types and
analysed in different contexts. And though bullying can occur in different social settings
all around world – school, home, workplace, army, prison or other places (Monks et al.,
2009), here it is manifests into both direct and indirect modes. During direct bullying, the
victims are being openly threatened, nicknamed, harassed, attacked, beaten, kicked.
Meanwhile, indirect bullying is when manipulation of social relationships occurs on
purpose to hurt. Also bullying, considering its commonest forms, is divided into physical,
verbal, relational or social and cyber. The most common bullying forms, usually ascribed to
direct bullying, are physical and verbal bullying. During physical bullying, the bullies use
force to cause physical harm to victims. Meanwhile, verbal bullying, as one of the most
common forms of bullying, includes acts such as hurtful name-calling, persistent teasing,
gossip, and racist or sexual remarks. During such bullying, there are rumours, backbiting
spread on purpose to harm (Shaw et al., 2013). Meanwhile, cyber bullying is supposed as
one of the most pernicious and contemporary. It is a form of bullying when intentional and
repeating damage to person is done through computers, cell phones and other electronic
devices (Patchin and Hinduja, 2015).

However, analysing manifestation of these modes and forms of bullying, different
peculiarities of their manifestations were determined as well. Direct bullying is common in
young children. When a child grows, direct physical bullying gradually changes into verbal,
which gradually, when the child takes social understanding, turn into indirect and remains
dominant. In dominance of ways and forms of bullying, gender differences are significant
as well. Masculine gender is the gender that more often participates in direct and especially
direct physical bullying, meanwhile, girls are more implementing indirect or direct verbal
bullying (Smith, 2016; Jormanainen et al., 2014; Nishina, Juvonen and Witkow, 2005; etc.).

Since it is recognized that bullying is an extremely negative behaviour, their consequences
are painful and determine subsequent emotional and physical state and behaviour of the
persons participating. The researches analysing the relation between bullying
manifestations and participating persons determined that both victims or bullies, and

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

412 Amfiteatru Economic

bystanders become at risk for negative future outcomes. Manifestations of bad mental or
physical health could be determined by both the level of involvement into bullying and the
role taken. Victims of bullying most often suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal
thoughts, apathy, lack of personal satisfaction, feelings of sadness, unhappiness, loneliness
or self-esteem, they more often face sleeping difficulties and nervousness. Meanwhile,
being a bully can be related to highest use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs in future,
criminality (Blood and Blood, 2016; Seixas, Coelho and Nicholas-Fischer, 2013; Monks et
al., 2009; etc.).

Analysing bullying and its prevalence in various social contexts, most researches state that
involvement in bullying is mainly suffered by children and teenagers. Such understanding
determines the abundance of the researches preformed in the environment of primary and
secondary schools (Patton et al., 2017). However, recently, with emphasis that bullying
does not disappear with humans’ age, there is more and more interest in bullying existence
in higher education, by recognizing it as a sensitive and still unsolved problem (Kyriacou,
Mylonakou-Keke and Stephens, 2016). In this context, though recognizing the lack of
researches (Lund and Ross, 2016), bullying is examined by analysing both the relationship
between lecturers and students, and employees’ relationship, and analysing the relationship
between students (Marraccini, Weyandt and Rossi, 2015; Perry and Blincoe, 2015;
Sinkkonen, Puhakka and Meriläinen, 2014; Serinkan et al., 2013; etc.). These researches
can be performed by using different measures, such as questionnaires, interviews, diaries,
observations that rely on different informants (Van Noorden et al., 2015). However, while
analysing bullying and its prevalence in higher education, self-report assessment is applied
most often, which helps to determine various bullying and victimization experiences.
Manifestation of bullying and harassment in relationship is determined from descriptions of
students’ verbal and non-verbal communication, academic abuse (Palaz, 2013, Celik and
Bayraktar, 2004), behaviour of persons suffering from bullying and harassment (Cooper et
al., 2011) or damage suffered (Pickel and Gentry, 2017). The researches often analyse
persons’ experience in childhood or at other education institutions (Holt et al., 2014; Adams
and Lawrence, 2011; Pontzer, 2010). The results of these researches are interpreted with
reference to both various cultural or socio-economic factors, education policies or
implemented intervention programmes, and various socio-demographic characteristics of
the researched persons (Porhola et al., 2016; Meriläinen, Puhakka and Sinkkonen, 2015).
Age, gender, ethnic origin, study course also might become significant factors in
explanation of quantitative manifestations of bullying and harassment in the context of
higher education (Goodboy, Martin and Goldman, 2016; Pontzer, 2010).

The results of the researches that indicate existence of the phenomenon in higher education,
often point out not only various negative psychosocial outcomes to participants of bullying
process. Alongside the phenomena such as use of alcohol or drugs, suicidal ideation, panic
attacks, stress and others (Birks et al., 2018; Cao, Wei and Cai, 2017; Jantzer and Cashel,
2017; Rospenda et al., 2014; etc.) a decision of the students who suffered bullying to leave
higher education institution is also pointed out (Cornell et al., 2013). In striving to avoid
various negative consequences and ensure students’ well-being, it is important not only to
declare such negative behaviour, but also to look for efficient ways of solving the problem.
To this end, institutions of higher education increasingly provide various prevention or
intervention programs, which are directed towards reduction of aggressiveness in higher
education. Unfortunately, a considerable number of such programmes or single measures

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 413

are based on presumptions based on the researches performed in the context of secondary
or primary education (Glass and Fireman, 2016). One of the reasons is a lack of the
researches performed in the context of higher education.

2. Research methodology
The research instrument – questionnaire Bullying and Single Cases of Harassment in
Higher Education Institutions (B-SCH-St) which consists of 10 dimensions covering 42
items: communication (4 items, covering the character of student’s inter-communication in
higher education institution: harassing, ignoring, threatening, etc.), personal reputation (4
items, covering critics of personal features, values, etc.), student’s reputation (4 items,
covering the person’s reputation of a student by hiding important information, criticizing
performed work, etc.), experienced harm (5 items, covering worsening health, worsening
work results, stolen ideas and works, etc.), experiences at school (4 items that aim at
determining current students’ experiences brought from school in the aspect of pupil’s
destructive inter-relationship), reaction and behaviour (7 items, describing students’
personal reaction and behaviour regarding students’ destructive inter-relationship), possible
and existing intervention measures in higher education institution (8 items revealing
students’ opinion what measures would help to avoid abusive inter-relation among students
and 1 question, aimed at students’ proposals what could be done so that such abusive
relationship would be avoided at the institution of higher education) and 2 questions,
directly related to the topic being analysed (action of persons who were appealed for help
and single case of harassment and bullying dimensions) and 6 questions related to
information about the student. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha) for all
dimensions satisfy the major validity conditions raised for questionnaires because the
lowest value is 0.69, the highest – 0.88 (Vveinhardt et al, 2017; Vveinhardt et al., in press).

During the research 623 students from two types of Lithuanian higher education institutions
(9 universities and 9 higher education colleges) were questioned. Among respondents was
67.6 percent women (N=421) and 32.4 percent men (N=202), 33.1 percent was from higher
education colleges and 66.9 percents from universities. The greater part of the respondents
indicated that they are 21-25 year old (N=332). Others social demographic characteristics of
the persons under research together with the research results are presented in Tables no. 1-3.

The data collection procedure was realized in the months September-November of the year
2017 in Lithuanian higher education institutions. The autors were responsible for the data
collection and participation was entirely voluntary, confidential and anonymous.

Statistical analysis of the research data was carried out using SPSS (Statistical Package of
the Social Science) version 20.0. The following parameters were calculated: chi-square
criterion, applying cross-tabs and Kruskal Wallis H criterion.

3. Research

results

During the research, while sorting out whether bullying exists in inter-relationship of higher
education institutions’ students, it was determined that 81.54% of respondents (N=508)
stated that they are not experiencing bullying. However, 18.46% of the persons under
research (N=115) are experiencing bullying. They are often suffered by 1.6% (N=10) of

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

414 Amfiteatru Economic

respondents, and 17.82% (N=105) suffer bullying, but occasionally. The research results
through seven dimensions were compared considering such criteria: students’ age, gender,
higher education institution’s type and study cycle.

Table no. 1: Distribution of answers of students experiencing single cases of harassment
and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to age groups

and dimensions

Dimensions

18-20
year
old

21-25
year
old

26-30
year
old

31-35
year
old

36-45
year
old Chi-square verification

results

Kruskal-
Wallis

H
verification

results

N =
158

N =
332 N = 47 N = 44 N = 42

%
R.v.

%
R.v.

%
R.v.

%
R.v.

%
R.v.

X2 p X2 p

Communi-
cation

42.6% 36.7% 41.1% 20.5% 21.4% 11.234 0.024* – –

328.22 314.44 324.07 260.76 271.86 – – 9.809 0.044*

Personal
reputation

33.5% 32.8% 27.3% 25.5% 21.4% 3.695 0.449 – –

324.45 315.17 296.97 290.05 279.92 – – 4.715 0.318

Student’s
reputation

35.4% 34.6% 34.0% 23.8% 25.0% 3.667 0.453 – –

320.10 316.05 311.59 279.70 283.82 – – 4.197 0.380

Experienced
harm

27.7% 32.5% 26.6% 18.2% 21.4% 6.179 0.186 – –

308.58 323.46 303.56 272.70 284.87 – – 7.147 0.128

Intervention
measures

67.2% 68.4% 81.0% 74.5% 77.3% 9.722 0.044* – –

292.18 302.24 368.24 344.26 366.98 – – 12.841 0.012*

Experience
at school

32.9% 26.8% 34.0% 29.5% 21.4% 3.704 0.448 – –

323.93 312.52 333.64 279.69 272.63 – – 4.839 0.304
Reaction
and
behaviour

74.5% 75.0% 72.9% 81.0% 76.6% 1.739 0.784 – –

304.98 310.47 294.22 335.94 345.31 – – 3.003 0.557

Notes: * – statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** – statistical significance level α = 0.01.

R.v. – average of ranks.

The number of students experiencing single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-
personal relationship, in some aspects significantly differs depending on age (5 age groups
distinguished). Verified by chi-square criterion, applying cross-tabs and Kruskal Wallis H
criterion, Table no. 2 presents the percentage of respondents’ assent and ranks’ averages
calculated from total sum of points. All statements were coded as negative, therefore, the
higher the value, the higher respondents’ assent to distinguished statements. Accentuated
value of reliability p indicates statistically significant differences, in this case, in two
dimensions, i.e. in the dimensions „Communication” and „Intervention measures”. When
percentage or average are very similar to each other, in the sample of this research (and in a
particular dimension), then the determined difference is small and, therefore, p in such

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 415

cases does not indicate statistically significant differences. Statistically significant p
signifies that differences would be recorded in case not only of this, but of another sample
as well.

Analysing the communication dimension, it became clear that communication in younger
age groups (18-30 years) is more complicated than in older age groups (31-35 and 36-45
years). That means, the number of negative responses recorded in the students’ group of age
up to 30 years was almost double.

Respondents’ responses recorded in the dimension of intervention measures indicate that
the need for such measures is more highlighted in the age groups from 26 to 45 years.
Students representing the groups of 18-20 and 21-25 years are less categorical than the
persons belonging to older age groups. In this dimension, negative-positive responses are
less significant than in the dimension “Communication”.

Table no. 2: Distribution of answers of students, experiencing single cases of harassment
and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to gender and dimensions

Dimensions

Women Man

Chi-square
verification

results

Mann-Whitney U
verification

results N = 421 N = 202
%

R.v.
%

R.v.

X2 p U Z p

Communication
37.1% 34.2% 0.496 0.481 – – –

312.77 310.40 – – 42198.0 -0.179 0.858

Personal
reputation

31.2% 31.4% 0.002 0.967 – – –

310.25 315.65 – – 41784.5 -0.427 0.670

Student’s
reputation

32.3% 35.6% 0.685 0.408 – – –

307.18 322.04 – – 40493.5 -1.153 0.249

Experienced
harm

28.3% 30.2% 0.248 0.618 – – –

308.86 318.55 – – 41198.0 -0.788 0.431

Intervention
measures

72.4% 63.9% 4.761 0.029* – – –

325.68 283.49 – – 36761.0 -2.742 0.006**

Experience at
school

25.7% 35.1% 6.010 0.014* – – –

301.34 334.23 – – 38031.5 -2.143 0.032*

Reaction and
behaviour

77.9% 67.8% 7.339 0.007** – – –

328.18 278.28 – – 35709.5 -3.274 0.001**
Notes: * – statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** – statistical significance level α = 0.01.

R.v. – average of ranks.

The number of students experiencing single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-personal
relationship, in some aspects significantly differs depending on gender, i.e. statistically

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

416 Amfiteatru Economic

significant differences were recorded in three dimensions. Verified by chi-square criterion,
applying cross-tabs and using Mann-Whitney U test (table no. 3). The results of the dimension
„Intervention measures” indicate, that female (students) position regarding the need for
intervention measures at higher education institutions is expressed stronger than that of male
(students). The results of the dimension „Experience at school” indicate that men (students)
had more negative experience at school than women (students). That means, male students
state that they experienced more bullying at school, saw more cases of bullying, when they
kept out of the conflict in order to avoid suffering, or just paid no attention. However, in the
dimension „Reaction and behaviour” it is highlighted that women are more applying for help
regarding single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-relationship than men. It can be
stated that such results could be conditioned by social constructs related to behaviour (in this
case a reaction to negative behaviour) norms based on sexuality.

Table no. 3: Distribution of answers of students experiencing single cases
of harassment and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to type of higher

education institution and dimensions

Dimensions

Higher
education
college

Univer-
sity

Chi-square
verification
results
Mann-Whitney U
verification

results
N = 206 N = 417

%
R.v.
%
R.v.
X2 p U Z p

Communica-
tion

35.0% 36.7% 0.181 0.671 – – –

311.01 312.49 – – 42748.0 -0.112 0.911

Personal
reputation

27.7% 33.1% 1.886 0.17 – – –

302.97 316.46 – – 41091.5 -1.072 0.284

Student’s
reputation

32.0% 34.1% 0.251 0.616 – – –

306.82 314.56 – – 41884.5 -0.603 0.546

Experienced
harm

25.2% 30.7% 1.995 0.158 – – –

301.16 317.35 – – 40718.5 -1.323 0.186

Intervention
measures

69.4% 69.8% 0.009 0.925 – – –

311.75 312.12 – – 42900.0 -0.024 0.981

Experience
at school

32.0% 27.1% 1.644 0.200 – – –

313.89 311.06 – – 42561.0 -0.185 0.853
Reaction
and
behaviour

69.9% 77.0% 3.647 0.046* – – –

291.84 321.96 – – 38798.5 -1.986 0.047*
Notes: * – statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** – statistical significance level α = 0.01.

R.v. – average of ranks.

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 417

The number of students experiencing single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-
personal relationship, in one aspect (out of seven analysed) significantly differs depending
on the type of higher education institution. Verified by chi-square criterion, applying cross-
tabs and using Mann-Whitney U test (table no. 4).

Table no. 4: Distribution of answers of students experiencing single cases
of harassment and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to study cycle

and dimensions
Dimensions

1 cycle
Bachelor

2 cycle
Master

Chi-square
verification
results
Mann-Whitney U
verification

results N = 543 N = 80
%
R.v.

%
R.v.
X2 p U Z p
Communica-
tion

36.6% 32.5% 0.520 0.471 – – –

315.54 287.97 – – 19797.5 -1.492 0.136

Personal
reputation

32.6% 22.5% 3.376 0.049* – – –

316.75 279.75 – – 19140.0 -2.092 0.036*

Student’s
reputation

33.8% 33.3% 0.005 0.941 – – –

312.55 308.24 – – 21419.0 -0.240 0.811

Experienced
harm

29.5% 25.0% 0.677 0.411 – – –

314.51 294.96 – – 20356.5 -1.136 0.256

Intervention
measures

67.8% 82.5% 7.157 0.007** – – –

302.71 375.07 – – 16674.5 -3.361 0.001**

Experience
at school

29.1% 26.3% 0.276 0.599 – – –

313.69 300.56 – – 20805.0 -0.611 0.541
Reaction
and
behaviour

74.4% 76.3% 0.126 0.723 – – –

310.09 324.98 – – 20681.5 -0.698 0.485
Notes: * – statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** – statistical significance level α = 0.01.

R.v. – average of ranks.

In the dimension “Reaction and behaviour”, statistically significant differences between
university and non-university students are recorded. Thought insignificantly, university
students react stronger to the situation than college students (i.e. inform the responsible
persons or just the persons working at higher education institution and not related to the
course/group directly; tell course/group fellows to whom they are in good relationship, also
to friends outside the higher education institution and family members).

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

418 Amfiteatru Economic

4. Discussion
This study investigated Lithuanian universities and colleges students’ involvement into
traditional forms of bullying. The results of the performed research determined that 18.5 %
of the persons under research (N=115) experience bullying, i.e., negative actions of study
fellows, which continue not less than 6 months and at least once a week. These
data coincide with the results of other, though quite rare, researches indicating the existence
of the phenomenon in higher education. However, prevalence rates of harassment and
bullying fluctuate in various researches. Such fluctuations might be determined by a
number of factors, including what definition is used or what repeatability is considered as
bullying already (Smith, 2016). Different data might be determined by both the used
research methodology, and socio-cultural or economic environment of the researched set
(Sánchez et al., 2016). The research of Porhola et al. (2016), which analysed a prevalence
of bullying in higher education of different countries, could be mentioned as example. This
research revealed quite different number of students who suffered bullying from their
fellow students, which fluctuates from 2% in Estonian higher education to 25% in higher
education of Argentina. Peer bullying was also determined in higher education institutions
of other countries – they are suffered by 5%-7% of Finnish students (Sinkkonen, Puhakka
and Meriläinen, 2014), about 15% of Chinese students (Cao, Wei and Cai, 2017).
Researches performed in USA also point out this phenomenon, however, the number of
students suffering bullying fluctuates from 11% (Porhola et al., 2016) to 27 % (Perry and
Blincoe, 2015), depending on the research. The research performed in Turkey, Pamukkale
University, also indicates that students suffer bullying and harassment and that is pointed
out by 25.4% of the researched students (Serinkan et al., 2013). Even greater number of
persons under research from southeast of Spain college – 62.2 % – indicate that they faced
the phenomenon (Sánchez et al., 2017).
In this research, prevalence of single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-relationship
was analysed with reference to the dimensions distinguished by Vveinhardt (2017):
communication, personal reputation, student’s reputation, experienced harm, intervention
measures, experience at school and reaction and behaviour in groups. The results obtained
were compared in aspects of students’ age, gender and study cycle.
While discussing manifestations of harassment and bullying in higher education, attention
often is paid to students’ previous experience of participation in bullying process. Usually it is
related to understanding that bullying does not disappear with age, i.e. with reference to Social
Learning Theory, the person might repeat negative behaviour that was rewarded previously
(Curwen, McNichol and Sharpe, 2011). It is also influenced by knowledge that those, who are
with histories of bullying, have big difficulties to adapt to the environment of higher education
institution (Holt et al., 2014), and there exists high enough prevalence of traditional bullying
and harassment at schools that sometimes reaches 89.6% (Modecki et al., 2014).
This research revealed that male, students of higher education institutions, are the ones
having higher negative experience related to bullying and harassment at secondary school.
That means, male students stated that they suffered more bullying at school, saw more
cases of bullying, when they kept out of the conflict in order to avoid suffering, or just paid
no attention. However, comparison of such results with the results of other authors is
complicated because the researches point out discrepant results. Though many researchers
state that boys of different age should be considered as being at risk for involvement in
bullying both as bullies, and as victims (Smith, 2016; Jormanainen et al., 2014; Iossi Silva
et al., 2013; etc.), other researches tend to distinguish girls as the ones more often suffering
from bullying (Malecki et al., 2015; Schneider et al., 2012).

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 419

In this research, male students, though they had more negative experience at school, were
not the ones who suffered bullying and harassment at higher education institution
statistically more often than women. The research also revealed that women also are not
the persons under research who indicate facing bullying more often than men. Other
researches performed in higher education institutions demonstrate discrepant results. The
research of Pontzer (2010) determined that it is men who could be distinguished as a gender
that more often participates in traditional bullying and harassment both as bully, and victim
of bullies. However, other researches do not determine relationship between students’
gender and being a victim of traditional bullying (Wensley and Campbell, 2012), or
determine significantly higher numbers of female students at higher education institutions
who suffered bullying (Meriläinen, Puhakka and Sinkkonen, 2015). Although, in the latter
case, a reliable difference in aspect of gender is not determined as well. In this context,
such results also could be explained by composition of the researched sample, where
usually women are dominating (Sinkkonen et al., 2014; Goodboy, Martin and Goldman,
2016). Also, there are the ones believing that, while analysing bullying, differences of
genders disappear after reaching the age of young adult (Glass and Fireman, 2016).

Thus, in the environment of higher education institution, distinguishing of gender as
involvement into bullying and harassment risk factor remains debatable for a while, and
that supposes the necessity for further researches. Also, not only previous experience
should be taken into account, but proportions of genders in higher education should be
assessed as well.

While analysing responses of students experiencing bullying and harassment in inter-
relationship considering age groups and dimensions, it was determined that younger
respondents in comparison to older ones point out that they more often face difficulties in
communication – they are more often being sneered, threatened, ignored in inter-
relationship. The research of Pontzer (2010) also points out higher involvement of younger
students as victims into the bullying process, which also determined a relation of such
victims’ number with being a bullying victim in childhood. Significantly higher
participation of younger students in bullying and harassment could be related to their
transition from secondary school to higher education institution, since other researches also
point out that some bullying peaks are determined at the stages of school transition, namely
(Wang et al., 2016). Transition to higher education institution often raises high
requirements for formation of new social connections. Some are trying to establish
themselves in the new social hierarchy or to maintain social status they had at school
(Rospenda et al., 2013), and others, especially those who suffered school bullying and had
difficulty in peer relationships, are likely to demonstrate weaker peer relationships and
more difficult development of any relationship (Holt et al., 2014).

It also could be stated that a considerable number of younger students who faced
difficulties in relationship could be the ones who felt the lack of familial social support
during the initial adjustment to the higher school. And, according to the researches, such
support might protect previously bullied first-year students from various consequences of
negative inter-relationship (Reid et al., 2016). Differences in age aspect could also be
explained by analysing a learning environment of higher education institution, which could
be named as non-compulsory learning environment. It is stated that namely such
environment, contrary than hierarchical nature of many schools, often creates no conditions
to stimulate bullying (Coleyshaw, 2010). And the older the students, which is most often
related to their transition both to higher course and higher study cycle, the better they are
able to use this environment in striving for learning goals and adapting it to personal needs.
Including the attempt to avoid bullying and harassment.

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

420 Amfiteatru Economic

However, younger students, though suffering difficulties in communication, compared to
the older (26-year-old and older) ones less emphasize the need for intervention measures
that eliminate bullying and harassment or reduce their impact. It is also confirmed by data
analysis according to study cycles – the need for intervention measures is more emphasized
by master students who are likely older than bachelor students.

Quite weak need for intervention measures at higher education institution can be related to
failures in their adapting in a school environment. Most programmes of bullying prevention
preformed at the extent of Lithuania first of all are oriented only towards schools that
perform primary and basic education programmes. Second, programmes are often selected
that are not originally created, but simply adapted (Prakapas and Liubeckaitė, 2013).
However, efficiency of application of bullying prevention programmes, created and
successfully working in other countries, might be debatable in another context and other
social environment (Olweus and Limber, 2010). Most likely, one of the consequences is
the fact that education services provided in Lithuania are not always targeted towards
pupil’s well-being and do not fully ensure emotional, social and physical security
(Trakšelys and Martišauskienė, 2016). It is also confirmed by data of different researches
performed in Lithuania – about 40% of teenagers are stating that they are not receiving a
required teacher’s emotional support (Petrulytė and Guogienė, 2017), teenagers also do not
believe that in case of assault they will get help, and something will be changed
(Gumuliauskienė, Juodaitytė and Malinauskienė, 2010). Still, a considerable number of
teacher’s state that they feel a lack of abilities allowing to tackle cases of peer bullying at
school (Klanienė, Šmitienė and Vaitelytė, 2016).

Unfortunately, such young person’s experience acquired at school forms a certain system of
beliefs and provisions. However, it is likely that non-compulsory learning environment and
system of comprehensive support to students, which is developed in higher education
institutions recently, and which help fulfilling student’s emotional, academical and social
needs and create presumptions to ensure student’s personal well-being and study success
(Sajienė and Tamulienė, 2012) gradually change students’ beliefs regarding the need for
intervention measures as well.

Analysing data of the dimension “Intervention measures” in aspect of gender, it was
revealed that the position of women regarding the need of intervention measures at higher
education institutions is expressed stronger than that of male students. Women also more
often and more emotionally react to bullying, more often apply for help than men. In this
regard, the results of the performed research correspond to those of Meriläinen, Puhakka
and Sinkkonen (2015), who, by analysing students‘ suggestions for eliminating bullying
pointed out that women are more supportive in striving to understand and help to those who
experienced assaulting behaviour. Women, as the ones who more often take the role of
defenders, are distinguished by others as well (Smith, 2016), and school researches (Hunter
and Boyle, 2004) distinguish masculine gender namely as the one less applying to teachers
concerning bullying and seeking for help both for themselves and others.

All mentioned results of this research indicate that in Lithuanian higher education, in particular
dimensions, bullying manifests, and its prevalence may vary depending on students’ gender,
age and course. These results also may help to forecast which students with reference to their
gender and age might become potential victims of bullying. By forecasting possible
manifestations of bullying, the previous experience of school bullying should also be assessed,
because „bullying experiences at school play an important role in students motivation to
continue their education at college“ (Goodboy, Martin and Goldman, 2016, p.62). And that

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 421

means that having assessed bullying manifestations between students comprehensively and
having selected efficient intervention measures, it would be possible to reduce students’
decision to leave higher education institution and to create a study environment as favourable
as possible, that would ensure the well-being of all studying persons.

Conclusions

The research results indicate dynamics of students’ groups internal and inter-group
relationship with respect to age as one of the key factors in case of single cases of
harassment and bullying. In this case, there is important a provision of older respondents by
perceiving the need to manage negative aspects of inter-relationship by using intervention
measures. Also, higher trust in external measures of relationship management is typical to
women, whereas men, who had higher experience of negative relationships at school, are
more tended to tackle them on their own. This makes a basis to state that the sexuality
factor determines the fact that part of the conflicts don’t reach public institutional level and
remain hidden. There also exists a dependence between reports on single cases of
harassment and bullying and the level of education provided by higher education
institution, as well as cycles of studies. Students of universities and older students of second
cycles of universities (masters) tend to report more on the destructive behaviour of
colleagues, more efficiently tackle arising problems of inter-relationship on the basis of
external help of third persons. Lack of such preparation or competence can be related to the
fact that more often bullying cases (exclusively in the area of personal reputation) and
appealing to external help sources are in the younger and lower cycle studies students’
groups.

Research limitations and further research

Although the situation is well revealed by the research results, however, they reflect only
the reactions of students of Lithuanian higher education institutions (higher education
colleges and universities) within the limit of such criteria as age, gender, type of the higher
education institution where one’s study, study cycle. While developing the research, it
would make a sense to incorporate wider criteria that reflect the diversity of students, and
also to assess efficiency of higher education institutions’ policy against harassment and
bullying. It could be performed within inter-cultural analysis between few European and
other countries.

Acknowledgement

We thank our colleagues who helped organize the study in various higher education
institutions.

References
Adams, F. D. and Lawrence, G. J., 2011. Bullying victims: The effects last into

college. American Secondary Education, 40(1), pp.4-13.
Aleid, A. S., 2016. The Effectiveness of Student Extracurricular Activities in Evaluating

Violent Behavior among Students in the Preparatory Year at Hail University. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(18), pp.32-43.

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

422 Amfiteatru Economic

Betts, L. R., Gkimitzoudis, A., Spenser, K. A. and Baguley, T., 2016. Examining the roles
young people fulfill in five types of cyber bullying. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, [e-journal] 34(7), pp.1080-1098. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/
10.1177/0265407516668585.

Birks, M., Budden, L. M., Biedermann, N., Park, T. and Chapman, Y., 2018. A ‘rite of
passage?’: Bullying experiences of nursing students in Australia. Collegian, [e-journal]
25(1), pp. 45-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2017.03.005.

Blood, G. W. and Blood, I. M., 2016. Long-term Consequences of Childhood Bullying in
Adults who Stutter: Social Anxiety, Fear of Negative Evaluation, Self-esteem, and
Satisfaction with Life. Journal of Fluency Disorders, [e-journal] 50, pp.72-84.
10.1016/j.jfludis.2016.10.002.

Cao, J., Wei, S. and Cai, M., 2017. Investigation of influential factors of academic and
psychological distress in university students. Biomedical Research, 28(5), pp.2174-2179.

Celik, S. S. and Bayraktar, N., 2004. A study of nursing student abuse in Turkey. Journal of
Nursing Education, 43(7), pp.330-336.

Chekwa, C., Thomas Jr. E. and Jones, V. J., 2013. What Are College Students’ Perceptions
about Campus Safety? Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(3), pp.325-332.

Coleyshaw, L., 2010. The power of paradigms: A discussion of the absence of bullying
research in the context of the university student experience. Research in Post-
Compulsory Education, [e-journal] 15(4), pp.377-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13596748.2010.526799.

Cooper, J. R., Walker, J., Askew, R., Robinson, J. C. and McNair, M., 2011. Students’
perceptions of bullying behaviours by nursing faculty. Issues in Educational
Research, 21(1), pp.1-21.

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F. and Fan, X., 2013. Perceived prevalence of teasing and
bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1),
pp.138-149.

Curwen, T., McNichol, J. S. and Sharpe, G. W., 2011. The progression of bullying from
elementary school to university. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 1(13), pp.47-54, [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 January 2017].

DeSouza, E. R., 2010. Frequency Rates and Correlates of Contrapower Harassment in
Higher Education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, [e-journal] 26(1), pp.158-188.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260510362878.

DeSouza, E. R. and Ribeiro, J., 2005. Bullying and Sexual Harassment among Brazilian
High School Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, [e-journal] 20(9), pp.1018-
1038. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260505277731.

Glass, D. J. and Fireman, G. D., 2016. College Aggression and Prosociality as Social
Strategies. NEEPS Special Issue, pp.50-72.

Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M. and Goldman, Z. W., 2016. Students’ experiences of
bullying in high school and their adjustment and motivation during the first semester of
college. Western Journal of Communication, [e-journal] 80(1), pp.60-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1078494.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0265407516668585

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0265407516668585

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2017.03.005

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_13_Special_Issue_September_2011/7

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_13_Special_Issue_September_2011/7

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260505277731

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 423

Gumuliauskienė, A., Juodaitytė, A., and Malinauskienė, D., 2010. Research-based searches
for violence and bullying prevention possibilities. Teacher Education, 14(1), pp.194-207.

Hagenauer, G. and Volet, S. E., 2014. Teacher–student relationship at university: an
important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, [e-journal] 40(3),
pp.370-388. 10.1080/03054985.2014.921613.

Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. L., 2002. Workplace bullying and stress. In: L. Pamela,
D. Perrewe and C. Ganster, eds. 2002. Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress
and Health (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being). Volume 2. S.l: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp.293-333.

Holt, M. K., Greif Green, J., Reid, G., DiMeo, A., Espelage, D. L., Felix, E. D., Furlong,
M. J., Poteay V. P. and Sharkey, J. D., 2014. Associations between past bullying
experiences and psychosocial and academic functioning among college students.
Journal of American College Health, [e-journal] 62(8), pp.552-560.
10.1080/07448481.2014.947990.

Hong, J. S., Kral, M. J. and Sterzing, P. R., 2014. Pathways from Bullying Perpetration,
Victimization, and Bully Victimization to Suicidality among School-Aged Youth: A
Review of the Potential Mediators and a Call for Further Investigation. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, [e-journal] 16(4), pp.379-390. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:
2443/10.1177/1524838014537904.

Hunter, S. C. and Boyle, J. M. E., 2004. Appraisal and coping strategy use of victims of
school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, [e-journal] 74(1), pp.83-
107. 10.1348/000709904322848833.

Iossi Silva, M. A., Pereira, B., Mendonça, D., Nunes, B. and Oliveira, W. A. D., 2013. The
involvement of girls and boys with bullying: an analysis of gender
differences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, [e-
journal] 10(12), pp.6820-6831. 10.3390/ijerph10126820.

Jantzer, A. M. and Cashel, M. L., 2017. Bullying Victimization, College Adjustment, and
the Role of Coping. Journal of College Student Development, [e-journal] 58(2), pp. 283-
289. 10.1353/csd.2017.0020.

Jormanainen, E., Fröjd, S., Marttunen, M. and Kaltiala-Heino, R., 2014. Is pubertal timing
associated with involvement in bullying in middle adolescence? Health Psychology and
Behavioral Medicine: An Open Access Journal, [e-journal] 2(1), pp.144-159. 10.1080/
21642850.2014.881259.

Kang, L. S. and Sidhu, H., 2015. Identification of Stressors at Work: A Study of University
Teachers in India. Global Business Review, [e-journal] 16(2), pp.303-320. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0972150914564421.

Klanienė, I., Šmitienė, G. and Vaitelytė, R., 2016. Opportunities for improvement
teachers’competence to carry out the prevention of bullying among pupils at
school. Education in a Changing Society, 1, pp.5-12.

Kyriacou, C., Mylonakou-Keke, I. and Stephens, P., 2016. Social pedagogy and bullying in
schools: the views of university students in England, Greece and Norway. British
Educational Research Journal, 42(4), pp.631-645.

Lund, E. M. and Ross, S. W., 2016. Bullying Perpetration, Victimization, and Demographic
Differences in College Students A Review of the Literature. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, [e-journal] 18(3), pp.348-360. 10.1177/1524838015620818.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1524838014537904

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1524838014537904

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0020

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0972150914564421

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0972150914564421

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

424 Amfiteatru Economic

Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., Coyle, S., Geosling, R., Rueger, S. Y. and Becker, L. D.
2015. Frequency, Power Differential, and Intentionality and the Relationship to Anxiety,
Depression, and Self-Esteem for Victims of Bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum,
44(1), p. 115.

Marraccini, M. E., Weyandt, L. L. and Rossi, J. S., 2015. College students’ perceptions of
professor/instructor bullying: questionnaire development and psychometric
properties. Journal of American College Health, [e-journal] 63(8), pp.563-572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2015.1060596.

Meriläinen, M., Puhakka, H. and Sinkkonen, H. M., 2015. Students’ suggestions for
eliminating bullying at a university. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 43(2),
pp. 202-215.

Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G. and Runions, K. C., 2014.
Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional
bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, [e-journal] 55(5), pp.602-611. 10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2014.06.007.

Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L. and Coyne, I., 2009.
Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, [e-journal] 14(2), pp.146-156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004.

Myers, C.-A. and Cowie, H., 2017. Bullying at University: The Social and Legal Contexts
of Cyberbullying Among University Students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
[e-journal] 48(8), pp.1172-1182. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/
0022022116684208.

Nishina, A., Juvonen, J. and Witkow, M. R., 2005. Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic
consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, [e-journal] 34(1), pp.37-48. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_4.

Olweus, D. and Limber, S., 2010. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program:
Implementation and evaluation over two decades. In: S. Jimerson, S. Swearer and D.
Espelage, eds. 2010. Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective.
New York: Routledge, pp. 377-401.

Palaz, S., 2013. Vertical Bullying in Nursing Education: Coping Behaviors of Turkish
Students. International Journal of Nursing Education, 5(1), pp.193-197.

Patchin, J. W. and Hinduja, S., 2015. Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, [e-journal] 23, pp.69-74. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.avb.2015.05.013.

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S. and Kral, M. J., 2017. A systematic review of research
strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, [e-journal] 18(1), pp.3-16. 10.1177/1524838015588502.

Perry, A. D. and Blincoe, S., 2015. Bullies and Victims in Higher Education: A Mixed-
Methods Approach. Journal of Bullying and Social Aggression, [online] Available at:
[Accessed 17 January 2017].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2015.1060596

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0022022116684208

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0022022116684208

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013

Economic Interferences AE

Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 425

Petrulytė, A. and Guogienė, V., 2017. Paauglių psichologinės sveikatos vertinimas vykdant
tiriamąją ir prevencinę veiklą, Pedagogika / Pedagogy, 126(2), pp.99-114.

Pickel, K. L. and Gentry, R. H., 2017. Slut Shaming in a School Bullying Case: Evaluators
Ignore Level of Harm When the Victim Self-Presents as Sexually Available. Sex
Roles, [e-journal] 76(1-2), pp.89-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0662-6.

Piotrowski, C. and King, C., 2016. The enigma of adult bullying in higher education: a
research-based conceptual framework. Education, 136(3), pp.299-306.

Pontzer, D., 2010. A theoretical test of bullying behavior: parenting, personality, and the
bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, [e-journal] 25(3), pp.259-273.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9289-5.

Prakapas, R. and Liubeckaitė J., 2013. Patyčių prevencijos išgrynintoje gimnazijoje
bruožai. Socialinis darbas, 12(1), pp.109-120.

Reid, G. M., Holt, M. K., Bowman, C. E., Espelage, D. L. and Green, J. G., 2016.
Perceived social support and mental health among first-year college students with
histories of bullying victimization. Journal of Child and Family Studies, [e-journal]
25(11), pp.3331-3341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0477-7.

Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Wolff, J. M. and Burke, L. A., 2013. Bullying
victimization among college students: Negative consequences for alcohol use. Journal
of Addictive Diseases, [e-journal] 32(4), pp.325-342.10.1080/10550887.2013.849971.

Sajienė, L. and Tamulienė, R., 2012. Paramos studentams kokybės vertinimo parametrai
aukštojo mokslo institucijose. Aukštojo mokslo kokybė, 9, pp.120-139.

Sánchez, F. C., Romero, M. F., Navarro-Zaragoza, J., Ruiz-Cabello, A. L., Frantzisko, O.
R. and Maldonado, A. L., 2016. Prevalence and patterns of traditional bullying
victimization and cyber-teasing among college population in Spain. BMC Public Health,
[e-journal] 1(16), pp.1-10. 10.1186/s12889-016-2857-8.

Sansone, R. A., Leung, J. S., and Wiederman, M. W., 2012. Having been bullied in
childhood: Relationship to aggressive behaviour in adulthood. International Journal of
Social Psychiatry, [e-journal] 59(8), pp. 824-826. https://doi-org.
ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0020764012456814.

Schneider, S. K., O’donnell, L., Stueve, A. and Coulter, R. W. S., 2012. Cyberbullying,
school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students.
American Journal of Public Health, [e-journal] 102(1), pp.171-177. 10.2105/
AJPH.2011.300308.

Seixas, S. R., Coelho, J. P. and Nicholas-Fischer, G., 2013. Bullies, victims and bully-
victims: Impact on health profile. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 38, pp.53-75.

Serinkan, C., Akşit, İ., Avcik, C., Arat, G. and Alacaoğlu, D., 2013. The Study of Students’
Perceptions of Mobbing at Pamukkale University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, [e-journal] 89, pp.856-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.944.

Shaw, T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R. and Waters, S., 2013. The Forms of
Bullying Scale (FBS): validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying
victimization and perpetration in adolescence. Psychological Assessment, [e-journal]
25(4), pp.1045-1057. 10.1037/a0032955.

Shelley, W. W., Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., McDougle, R. D., Rissler, G. and Cleary, H.,
2017. Race, Bullying, and Public Perceptions of School and University Safety. Journal

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0020764012456814

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0020764012456814

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.944

AE Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables

426 Amfiteatru Economic

of Interpersonal Violence. [e-journal] First Published October 20, 2017. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260517736272.

Sinkkonen, H. M., Puhakka, H. and Meriläinen, M., 2014. Bullying at a university:
students’ experiences of bullying. Studies in Higher Education, [e-journal] 39(1),
pp.153-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.649726.

Smith, P. K., 2016. Bullying: Definition, Types, Causes, Consequences and Intervention.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, [e-journal] 10(9), pp.519-532. 10.1111/
spc3.12266.

Trakšelys, K. and Martišauskienė, D., 2016. Švietimo paslaugų kokybė: efektyvumas,
rezultatyvumas, prieinamumas. Tiltai, 73(1), pp.191-206.

Valls, R., Puigvert, L., Melgar, P. and Garcia-Yeste, C., 2016. Breaking the Silence at
Spanish Universities: Findings from the First Study of Violence Against Women on
Campuses in Spain. Violence Against Women, [e-journal] 22(13), pp.1519-1539.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077801215627511.

Van Noorden, T. H., Haselager, G. J., Cillessen, A. H. and Bukowski, W. M., 2015.
Empathy and involvement in bullying in children and adolescents: A systematic
review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, [e-journal] 44(3), pp.637-657.
10.1007/s10964-014-0135-6.

Vidu, A., Schubert, T., Muñoz, B. and Duque, E., 2014. What Students Say About Gender
Violence Within Universities: Rising Voices From the Communicative Methodology of
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, [e-journal] 20(7), pp.883-888. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077800414537211.

Vveinhardt, J., Fominienė, V. B., Švagždienė, B. and Andriukaitienė, R., 2017.
Diagnostics of single cases of harassment and bullying in relationships between students
of higher education institutions: intervention measures for the timely identification of
the phenomena. Transformations in business & economics, 3(42), pp. 240-257.

Vveinhardt, J., Fominiene, V. B., Andriukaitiene, R. and Streimikiene, D., (in press).
Diagnostics of single cases of harassment and bullying in relationships of students in
higher education institutions: verification of questionnaire dimensions. Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja.

Wang, W., Brittain, H., McDougall, P. and Vaillancourt, T., 2016. Bullying and school
transition: Context or development? Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, pp.237-248.

Wensley, K. and Campbell, M. A., 2012. Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young
university students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), pp.649-654.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260517736272

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260517736272

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.649726

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077801215627511

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077800414537211

https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077800414537211

© 2019. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0(the “License”). Notwithstanding
the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance

with the terms of the License.

54% Parents Worried About Cyber Bullying of
Kids: Norton Research
Sharma, Adeesh . PCQuest ; Gurgaon (Jan 23, 2017).

ProQuest document link

FULL TEXT
Norton by Symantec released findings from the 2016 Norton Cyber Security Insights Report: Family Edition, which

sheds light on parents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and the preventative measures they are putting in place to

protect their children.

The report reveals that while 40 percent of Indian parents allowed their children to access the Internet before age

11, many had a wide range of concerns. For example, more than half (54 percent) of Indian parents believe their

children are more likely to be bullied online than on a playground.

“Children today face threats beyond physical violence or face-to-face encounters,” said Ritesh Chopra, Country

Manager, Norton by Symantec. “Cyberbullying is a growing issue and parents are struggling to identify and

respond to this threat. A concern for many parents is that cyberbullying doesn’t stop when their child leaves school

– as long as your child is connected to a device, a bully can connect to them.”

In addition to cyberbullying, parents’ chief concerns were that their children might:

* Download malicious programs or a virus (71 percent)

* Disclose too much personal information to strangers (69 percent)

* Be lured into meeting a stranger in the physical world (65 percent)

* Do something online that makes the whole family vulnerable (62 percent) or embarrassed (60 percent)

* Be lured into illegal activities like hacking (61 percent)

Parents Beginning to Step Up Family Cyber Security

The Norton Cyber Security Insights Report: Family Edition shows that Indian parents are starting to recognize how

damaging cyberbullying can be for children and are putting in place preventative measures. For example,

* 57 percent parents chose to check their child’s browser history

* 46 percent only allow access to certain websites

* 48 percent allow Internet access only with parental supervision; 37percent review and approve all apps before

they are downloaded

* 36 percent enable Internet access only in household common areas

* 35 percent limit information their child can post on social profiles

One interesting finding from the survey is that parents from countries, who had the strictest preventative

measures in place also had the lowest incidence of cyberbullying. The survey also reveals that 7 percent of parents

fail to take any action to protect their children online.

Starting a Conversation

The Norton Cyber Security Insights Report indicates that only 17 percent of Indian parents reported their child was

cyberbullied. While on the surface, this may seem like cyberbullying is not a problem, the reality is that many

parents don’t know how to recognize the signs of cyberbullying, so the problem is likely under-reported.

Additionally, many children choose to remain silent about cyberbullying due to a fear of losing access to devices

and the Internet, or that parents will embarrass them or exacerbate the problem by contacting the bully’s parents

or the school.

If you suspect or are worried about cyberbullying, the first step is communication. Cyberbullying is a sensitive

https://reddog.rmu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/186081082

8?accountid=28365

https://reddog.rmu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1860810828?accountid=28365

subject, and starting a conversation can be difficult.

“Many parents are still in the dark about how to recognize the signs of cyberbullying and what to do if their children

are impacted. The first steps for all parents is to educate themselves about the signs of cyberbullying and learn

how to establish an open line of communication with their children,” added Chopra.

Signs of Cyberbullying

Some of the signs that indicate a child is being cyberbullied include:

They appear nervous when receiving a text/online message or email

Habits with devices change. They may begin avoiding their devices or using them excessively

They make excuses to avoid going to school

They become defensive or secretive about online activity

They withdraw from friends and family

They have physical symptoms such as trouble sleeping, stomach aches, headaches, and weight loss or gain

They begin falling behind in school or acting out

Their grades start declining

They appear especially angry, frustrated or sad, particularly after going online/checking devices

They delete social media or email accounts

About the Norton Cyber Security Insights Report

The Norton Cyber Security Insights Report is an online survey of 20,907 device users ages 18+ across 21 markets,

commissioned by Norton by Symantec and produced by research firm Edelman Intelligence. The margin of error

for the total sample is +/-0.68%. The India parenting sample reflects input from 1,028 device users ages 18+, 593

of whom are parents. The margin of error is +/- 3.1% for the total India sample, +/-4% among Indian parents. Data

was collected Sept. 14 – Oct. 4, 2016 by Edelman Intelligence.

Copyright 2017 Cyber Media (India) Ltd., distributed by Contify.com

Credit: Adeesh Sharma

DETAILS

Location: India

Identifier / keyword: cyber security advice security

Publication title: PCQuest; Gurgaon

Publication year: 2017

Publication date: Jan 23, 2017

Publisher: Athena Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Place of publication: Gurgaon

Country of publication: India, Gurgaon

Publication subject: Computers–Personal Computers

ISSN: 0971216X

Source type: Magazines

LINKS
Check for full text via 360 Link

Database copyright  2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Language of publication: English

Document type: News

ProQuest document ID: 1860810828

Document URL: https://reddog.rmu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/186081082

8?accountid=28365

Copyright: Copyright 2017 Cyber Media (India) Ltd., distributed by Contify.com

Last updated: 2017-01-25

Database: ProQuest Central

https://reddog.rmu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1860810828?accountid=28365

https://reddog.rmu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1860810828?accountid=28365

http://VE5GS5DB8S.search.serialssolutions.com?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ:hightechjournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=PCQuest&rft.atitle=54%25%20Parents%20Worried%20About%20Cyber%20Bullying%20of%20Kids:%20Norton%20Research&rft.au=Sharma,%20Adeesh&rft.aulast=Sharma&rft.aufirst=Adeesh&rft.date=2017-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=PCQuest&rft.issn=0971216X&rft_id=info:doi/

https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

http://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact

• 54% Parents Worried About Cyber Bullying of Kids: Norton Research