hunt, meyers, & neel (2005)

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

1/42

Running head: STUDENT SURVEY OF BULLYING BEHAVIOR

Student Survey of Bullying Behavior: Preliminary Development and Results from Six

Elementary Schools

Mary Helen Hunt, Joel Meyers, Olga Jarrett, John Neel

Report Number 1

Georgia State University

2005

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

2/42

Development of SSBB 3

Abstract

This study consists of preliminary development and exploratory analysis of a survey about

bullying behavior. Participants in the preliminary development phase of this research included

646 students in grades three through five from urban and suburban school districts in the

Southeast who responded to an initial survey. A revised survey (the Student Survey of Bullying

Behavior; SSBB) was constructed based on the three-factor structure indicated by the principal

components analysis and items were added with the expectation that the survey would expand to

a five-factor structure. The SSBB was then administered to a sample of 1101 students in grades

three through five from a suburban school district in the Southeast. A principal components

analysis indicated that a six-factor structure was the best fit for the data. The factors included:

Victimization, Bullying Behaviors, Perceptions of Safety, Negative Coping, Assertive Coping

and Passive Coping. Reliability coefficients for the scales ranged from .65 to .89. About 41% of

students were identified as victims, 4.1% as bullies, 13.6% as bully/victims, and 41.1% of

students were not involved. Comparisons between groups (gender, grade) on SSBB scale mean

scores indicated that boys scored significantly higher than girls on the Bullying Behaviors,

Perceptions of Safety and Negative Coping factors. Girls scored significantly higher than boys

on the Assertive and Passive Coping factors. Developmental trends indicated that in higher grade

levels fewer students were identified as victims or bully/victims and a greater number of students

reported not being involved in bullying.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

3/42


The Student Survey of Bullying Behavior: Preliminary Development and Results from Six

Elementary Schools

Bullying is a serious problem that affects an enormous number of students. Victims of

bullying suffer repeated harassment over a period of time by one or more individuals that are

older, bigger, more popular or in some way more powerful than the victim (Olweus, 1991, 1993).

Bullying can take the form of physical aggression (hitting, kicking, pushing), verbal aggression

(name-calling, abusive language) and indirect or relational aggression (spreading rumors,

manipulation of friendships, excluding or ignoring) (Sullivan, 2000).

Bullying is often viewed as the first step in the development of more serious problems

with aggression (Borg, 1999; Olweus, 1991; 1993; Spivack, & Prothrow-Stith, 2001). Children

identified as bullies are more likely to exhibit behavior problems (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, &

Karstadt, 2000), become gang members in the future (Holmes & Brandenburg-Ayres, 1998) and

have adult criminal records (Eron & Huesmann, 1984). Olweus (1991) reported that about 60%

of boys identified as bullies in grades six through nine had at least one conviction by age 24, and

35-40% had three or more convictions (compared to 10% of the control group). Aggressive

behavior has been shown to be stable over time. Farrington (1991) suggests that children who

bully are likely to grow up to abuse alcohol and/or drugs, bully spouses and children and

perpetuate the cycle of violence by instilling aggressive behavior patterns in their own children.

Peer victimization has been linked to many problems such as depression and suicide

(Carney, 2000; Cleary, 2000; Craig, 1998; Greenbaum, 1989; Neary & Joseph, 1994; Rigby and

Slee, 1999; Slee, 1995; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, & Mickelson, 2001), low self-esteem/self

concept (Callaghan & Joseph, 1995), self-blame, loneliness and anxiety (Andreou, 2000; Craig,

1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Slee, 1994), lack of social support, poor mental health, poor

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

4/42


physical health and somatic complaints (Rigby, 2003), lower perceptions of academic

competence (Callaghan & Joseph, 1995) and significant difficulties with social relationships as

adults (Gilmartin, 1987). Long-term, high frequency bullying can also interfere with educational

progress of victims (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1992; Sharp, Thompson, & Arora, 2000). The

effects of bullying can have serious and long-lasting negative outcomes for both victims of

bullying and for those that perpetrate bullying (Olweus, 1993; Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan,

Simons-Morton, & Schiedt, 2001). An important first step in intervention is accurate assessment

of the problem. In an age of emphasis on school accountability as well as a growing concern

about youth violence, valid and reliable methods of assessing bullying can have important

benefits.

Bullying may be the most common form of school violence and is likely to affect a large

number of students (Batsche & Knoff, 1994). A survey of over 15,000 students in grades 6

through 10 across the United States indicated that 19.4% of students reported bullying others

either sometimes or once a week or more. Nansel and colleagues (2001) found that almost

16% of secondary school students reported being bullied either sometimes, or once a week or

more. An estimated 29.9% of students reported moderate involvement in bullying, either as a

victim, a bully or both. Stockdale, Hangaduambo, Duys, Larons & Sarvela (2002) found that

34% of 4th through 6th

grade students in seven rural elementary schools reported that they had

been bullied when asked, How many times in the past week have you been bullied? The same

students reported the frequency with which both physical and verbal types of bullying occurred.

Similar to the present study, the bullying behaviors were behaviorally defined rather than using

the word bullying (i.e., instead of bullying using the term pushed around). When measured

using the behaviorally defined questions, 66% of the student reported a physical bullying

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

5/42


experience and 76% reported a verbal bullying experience at least once in a one week time-

frame. Stockdale and colleagues study (2002) highlights the potential differences in estimates of

bullying behavior as a function of way surveys are constructed.

In another study, 192 third through eighth grade students from three rural schools in

Appalachia, United States, were surveyed (Dulmus, Theriot, Sowers, & Blackburn, 2004). Of

these students, 82.3% of the students reported experiencing some type of bullying at least one

time in the past three months. A number of students in the study reported being the victim of the

following types of bullying behavior at least 2 to 3 times a month: called mean names, made fun

of, teased (31%), excluded or ignored by others (19.1%), hit, kicked, shoved, or assaulted

(18.4%), and others reported being the targets of lies or false rumors (25.4%).

Seals and Young (2003) surveyed 454 seventh and eighth grade students and found that

24% of the students were involved in bullying as either a bully or a victim. When asked for their

perceptions of the frequency of bullying behavior during the past school year, 32.3% reported

physical bullying to occur either sometimes or often. Similarly 50.2% of students perceived

name calling and 32.1% perceived exclusion to occur either sometimes or often.

Reports of the prevalence of bullying generally indicate that boys bully others more often

than girls (Borg, 1999; Espelage, Mebane, & Adams, 2004; Hanish & Guerra, 2004; Seals &

Young, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001). Previous research suggests that boys tend to be more

physically aggressive and the victims of physical aggression more often than girls (Craig, 1998;

Crick, Grotpeter & Bigbee, 2002; Mynard & Joseph, 2000; Olweus, 1993; Veenstra et al., 2005),

and girls tend to be more indirectly or relationally aggressive than boys (Craig, 1998; Crick,

Gropeter & Bigbee, 2002; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988;

Lowenstein, 1978; Mynard & Joseph, 2000; Veenstra et al., 2005). Thus, girls are more likely to

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

6/42


bully other children using psychological means rather than physical means (Rigby & Slee, 1991)

and view this kind of aggression as more hurtful than boys (Galen & Underwood, 1997; Rivers

& Smith, 1994).

Children are more likely to feel unsafe in places where bullying is likely to occur. Borg

(1999) indicated that on the playground, in the classroom, on the way home and on the way to

school are the most common places where students report that bullying takes place. Previous

research indicates students reporting higher levels of victimization also report lower perceptions

of safety (Anderman & Kimweli, 1997). Surveys of secondary school students in the United

States (Kingery, Coggeshall, & Alford, 1998) indicate that although a majority of students feel

safe in school, a significant number (from 1.4 to 11.8% of students) felt unsafe either at school or

on the way to or from school.

Coping styles of children who are victimized have been described as falling under one of

two categories: either a problem-solving, assertive approach that is associated with deescalating

the situation, or an aggressive, reactive approach that tends to worsen the situation (Wilton,

Craig, & Pepler, 2000). Kristensen and Smith (2003) described five different categories of

coping with bullying: Self-Reliance/Problem Solving, Distancing, Seeking Social Support,

Distancing, Externalizing and Internalizing. In a group of 305 Danish children in years four

through nine, they found that girls reported using strategies of Seeking Social Support and

Internalizing types significantly more often than boys. Boys reported using more Externalizing

strategies. These researchers also found differences in coping strategies by age. Younger children

used Seeking Social Support, Distancing, and Internalizing more often than older children.

Measuring the types of coping styles of children has direct implications for prevention

and intervention of bullying behaviors. In a sample of 145 kindergarten through fifth grade

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

7/42


children, Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004) found that childrens emotional responses to bullying are

likely to influence their use of coping strategies, which she described as revenge seeking,

cognitive distancing, advice seeking and conflict resolution. The types of coping strategies

students select can lead to either increasing or decreasing the probability of further victimization.

Researchers have found that found that coping with bullying through cognitive distancing or

avoidance is a predictor of increased victimization (Hunter & Boyle, 2004; Kochenderfer-Ladd,

2004). Additionally, conflict resolution was associated with lower levels of victimization, and

both advice seeking and conflict resolution were associated with a lower risk of victimization

(Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004).

There has been substantial growth in research about bullying (Dulmus & Sowers, 2004;

Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Jimerson & Furlong, 2006) and a crticial issue in this research is the

measurement of bullying. Anonymous student self-reports are one of the most common methods

of assessing bullying and victimization (Borg, 1999; Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006). While

Olweus created a survey that has been used most frequently in bullying research (Olweus, 1996;

Solberg & Olweus, 2003), other instruments have been used as well (Espelage & Holt, 2001;

Reynolds, 2003; Rigby & Slee, 1993; Swearer, 2001), Recently some researchers have criticized

the over-reliance on self-report measures to assess bullying based on concerns that there has not

been sufficient attention to the reliability and validity of these instruments (Cornell, Sheras, &

Cole, 2006). Alternative approaches that have been suggested include observations as well peer

nominations (Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006).

While these are reasonable criticisms of self-report measures, it remains important to

consider the perspective of children when seeking meaningful information about bullying among

youth (Kingery et al., 1998), Considering that as many as 40 to 50% of students who are bullied

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

8/42


do not tell an adult (Menesi, Elsea, Smith, Genta, Fonzi, & Constabile 1997; Whitney & Smith,

1993), it is important to consider the use of annonymous self-reports as one component in the

assessment of bullying and victimization. As a result, multiple approaches to assessing bullying

are recommended that would include methods such as self-report survey, observation and peer

nomination (Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006). In this context, it is important to conduct research

that seeks to develop psychometrically strong self-report instruments to assess bullying. There is

also a need for strong psychometric instruments that are focused simultaneously on bullying and

victimization, coping strategies and school climate in order to facilitate school-based efforts to

collect information about these interrelated constructs.

Purposes of the Research

There are two main goals of this research. The first is to develop a self report survey that

measures bullying, victimization, coping styles, and school climate (i.e., perceptions of safety in

school) related to bullying. This is accomplished by using a set of preliminary data to guide

instrument development, followed by exploratory analyses to further develop the instrument. The

second goal is to determine prevalence and make comparisons between grade level and gender

on bullying behavior, victimization, perceptions of safety, and coping with bullying in a sample

of elementary school students.

Regarding scale development, analyses of the preliminary data set are expected to

produce a proposed factor structure for concepts relating to bullying. By revising the survey to

improve measurement of these concepts, exploratory factor analysis is expected to provide

support for a five-factor model. Establishing this factor structure constitutes the first step in the

process of developing the Student Survey of Bullying Behaviors.

Young students are expected to report higher levels of victimization than older students.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

9/42


Boys are expected to be identified as bullies more frequently than girls. Perceptions of safety are

expected to be related to reported levels of victimization, with higher victimization relating to

lower perceptions of safety.

Methods

Preliminary Data Collection

Participants

A total of 646 third through fifth grade students from two schools participated in data

collection for the preliminary analysis. One school was located in a large inner city school

system and the other was in a small city school system in the Southeast. A majority of the

students from the inner city school were African American and approximately 96% received free

or reduced price lunch. One hundred and seventy-nine third grade students participated from this

school as part of a bullying prevention program. The students from the small city school district

were approximately equally divided between African American, Hispanic and Caucasian

ethnicities. Approximately 70% of elementary school students in the small city school district

received a free or reduced price lunch. A total of 467 students participated from this school: 214

fourth graders, 241 fifth graders, and 12 students who omitted this information.

Instruments

The Bully Survey with revisions by Jarrett is a 42 item revised version of the Bully

Survey (Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sager, & Short-Camilli, 1996). Jarrett enlisted the help of

elementary school students to adapt the wording on the Bully Survey (Jarrett, Davies, Hunt, &

Rogers, 2000). Significant changes to the survey included eliminating the word bully,

changing the anchors on Likert-type items, eliminating a number of items (such as the peer

nomination section), expanding the safety section, and adding questions regarding coping and

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

10/42


advice-giving regarding bullying situations.

Procedures

Data from two separate violence prevention programs were combined into a single

database for the preliminary analysis. The surveys were collected in the classroom on a pre and

post basis to measure the effects of a bullying intervention. Only the surveys used for pre-testing

were included in the database for the preliminary survey analysis.

Exploratory Study

Participants

Participants in the exploratory study included 1,101 third through fifth grade students

from six schools within a suburban school district of approximately 13,000 students in the

southeastern United States. Participation rates across schools ranged from 48 to 68%. The

percentage of students in each school receiving free or reduced price lunch ranged from 12 to

66% with an average of 39%. The participants included 46% males and 54% females. Thirty-five

percent of the students were in the third grade, 32% in the fourth grade, and 33% in the fifth

grade. Sixty-four percent of the respondents were Caucasian, 24% African American, 6.4%

Mixed/Other, 3.6% Hispanic, and 2% Asian/Pacific Islander.

Instruments

The Student Survey of Bullying Behavior (SSBB) consists of 73 items assessing three

factors that emerged in the preliminary analyses. Twenty-nine of 42 items were retained from the

Bully Survey with revisions by Jarrett, and 44 items were added. Additional items were added

using two procedures. First, the factor structure was analyzed and items were added that

appeared to fit best with existing items on each factor. Second, a review of literature about

measurement of bullying and victimization generated additional items. A significant number of

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

11/42


items were added to expand measurement within the third factor from eleven items to 22 items.

It was expected that the addition of these items would result in the factor splitting into separate

Bullying Behavior and Victimization factors, which would more accurately represent each

construct. Almost half the items were added to expand the measurement of bullying and

victimization behavior from the original six items indicated in the exploratory analysis on the

Bully/Victim factor into two separate factors that more thoroughly and accurately represented

each construct (i.e. victimization and bullying). A cover sheet was added that included a practice

question for the two types of questions on the survey and a behavioral description of bullying.

Procedures

Homeroom teachers administered the survey to students in a group setting by reading the

items aloud. Teachers were provided instructions for survey administration and were asked to

emphasize the anonymous nature of the survey. In addition, students were encouraged to be

honest and assured that they could not be identified or punished according to their responses.

Surveys were collected over a 4-week period in the fall semester. Of the 1101 returned surveys,

20 surveys were eliminated due to partial completion or questionable response patterns, leaving a

total sample of 1081 surveys.

Results

In keeping with goals of this research, which include instrument development and

reporting information about bullying behaviors and related constructs, the results are articulated

under the headings Instrument Development and Student Survey of Bullying Behavior

Results. Within the section on instrument development, results from both the preliminary data

collection and the exploratory study are presented separately.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

12/42


Instrument Development

Preliminary Data Collection

Data from the Bully Survey with revisions by Jarrett were analyzed using a Principal

Components Analysis (PCA). All items (42) were included in the PCA using a Promax rotation

because the factors were expected to be correlated. Catells scree test showed a 3-factor solution

as the probable best fit. Additional analyses using Velicers Minimum Average Partial (MAP)

(OConnor, 2000) test indicated a 3 component factor structure as the probable best fit. A PCA

was conducted forcing the items into a 3-factor solution (Table 1). All items that did not have at

least a .40 loading on one of the four factors were eliminated. Correlations between factors are

presented in Table 2.

Factor one, Assertive Coping, indicated positive, adaptive responses or advice for being

bullied or in response to seeing another child being bullied. This factor had 14 items that loaded

at or above .40. Examples of items that defined this factor included: tell an adult, walk away

from it, tried to talk it out with the kid and stop him or her from being mean, made friends with

the child who was being hurt and I try to ignore him or her. This scale had a reliability

coefficient of .85.

Factor two, Perceptions of Safety, included eight items with a focus on how safe students

felt in specific locations both in and out of school. One item, this is how I feel being in my

school, which loaded at .62, had a different question stem from the others. However, this item

seemed to measure the same construct as the items inquiring about safety. This 8-item scale had

a reliability coefficient of .76.

The third, relatively weak factor included a combination of different items that reflected

Negative Coping, Bullying, and Victimization. Negative Coping items focused on maladaptive

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

13/42


responses to bullying in the form of actions taken when bullied, advice given, and actions taken by

bystanders. Examples include: I fight back, I dont tell anybody, and I joined up with the kid who was

being mean. There were also two items measuring victimization (how often are other children

unpleasant to you by) and two items measuring bullying behavior (how often are you unpleasant to

another child by). The 11 items on this factor had a reliability coefficient of .55.

Exploratory Study

Principal Components Analysis. Data from the Student Survey of Bullying Behavior

were analyzed using a Principal Components Analysis (PCA). All items (73) were included in

the PCA using a Promax rotation with Kaiser normalization (Stevens, 1996). An oblique rotation

was selected because it was assumed that the factors would be correlated. Several methods were

used to determine the number of factors to retain. Retaining all factors with eigenvalues of 1 or

greater was not used because this typically results in overestimation of factors (OConner, 2000),

particularly with large sample sizes (Stevens, 1996). Indeed, 17 factors had eigenvalues greater

than 1. Results of Catells scree test were somewhat ambiguous. Three factors were clearly

evident. The fourth and fifth factors seemed to follow closely behind, and then the sixth and

seventh factors. Velicers minimum average partial (MAP) test (OConnor, 2000) was also

conducted. Velicers MAP test indicated a 6 component solution.

A PCA was conducted forcing the items into a 6-factor solution (Table 3). Given a

sample size of 1000, the critical value of items loadings recommended for statistical significance

is .162. However, particularly with larger sample sizes, Stevens (1996) recommends using a

critical value of .400 or above for interpretative purposes. The first 3 factors emerged relatively

strongly as Victimization, Bullying Behaviors, and Perceptions of Safety. The Coping factors

separated into Negative Coping, Assertive Coping and Passive Coping. All items with less than

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

14/42


.400 loading were eliminated. The remaining 61 items accounted for 41% of the variance. Means

and standard deviations of factors are included in Table 4. Correlations between factor mean

scores are presented in Table 5.

Factor one, Victimization, contained items that describe the frequency of students being

the victims of various forms of bullying. This factor had 13 items that loaded above .45.

Examples of items that defined this scale include: saying mean things to you, leaving you out,

hitting, kicking or pushing you, and trying to turn friends against you. This scale had a reliability

coefficient of .89 and accounted for 14.82% of the variance.

Factor two, Bullying Behavior, included items that describe the frequency of students

bullying others. This factor included 11 items that loaded at or above .41. Examples of items that

defined this scale include: saying mean things to them, teasing them, hitting, kicking or pushing

them, and ignoring them. This scale had a reliability coefficient of .88 and accounted for 9.28%

of the variance.

Factor three, Perceptions of Safety, included student perceptions of safety in specific

locations both in and outside of school. This factor consisted of 11 items that loaded at .45 or

above. Examples of items include: this is how safe I feel in the lunchroom, on the playground, in

the hall at school, and going to school. This scale had a reliability coefficient of .83 and

accounted for 5.66% of the variance.

The fourth factor, Negative Coping, focused on maladaptive responses to bullying or

negative advice given by adults. Ten items on this scale loaded at .43 or above. Examples of

negative coping include: calling the kid names, spreading rumors about the kid, and not telling

anybody. This scale had a reliability coefficient of .72 and accounted for 4.53% of the variance.

The fifth factor, Assertive Coping, focused on adaptive responses to bullying. This scale

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

15/42


included 8 items loading at .40 or above. Examples include the following: I try to talk to the kid

and tell him or her to stop, I tell somebody at home, and I tell the teacher or another adult at

school. This scale had a reliability coefficient of .67 and accounted for 3.94% of the variance.

The sixth factor, Passive Coping, focused on responses in which the student took a

passive approach to dealing with bullying. Rather than responding aggressively or assertively

trying to cope with the bullying, some students reported generally avoiding or ignoring bullying

situations. This scale included 6 items. Examples include: I try to ignore him or her, walk away

from it, and avoid the mean kid. The reliability coefficient was .65 and accounted for 2.96% of

the variance.

Student Survey of Bullying Behavior

Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization

The incidence of bullying and victimization was determined according to the following

guidelines. Behaviors occurring weekly or daily met criteria of bullying or victimization.

This cut-off was selected because this form of bullying (once a week or more often) is of

particular concern in recent intervention research (Nansel et al., 2001) and has been identified as

a severe form of bullying by Olweus (1991). Classification as a bully or a victim required

either weekly or daily frequency of at least of 2 out of 11 behaviors within the bully or victim

factors of the survey. The following groups of children were generated: Victim, Bully,

Bully/Victim and Not Involved. Children in the Victim group were identified as students with at

least two victimization items occurring at least weekly, and one or fewer bullying behaviors that

occurred at least weekly. Bullies were identified as students with at least two bully behaviors that

occurred at least weekly and one or fewer victimization items. Bully/Victims indicated two or

more victimization items and two or more bully behavior items. Students who did not meet the

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

16/42


previous criteria were identified as not involved. Using these criteria, 41.3% of students were

identified as Victims Only, 4.1% as Bullies Only, 13.6% as Bully/Victims, and 41.1% as Not

Involved.

Differences between Groups

Factor Scores of the SSBB. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was

conducted to determine whether there were differences in the mean scale scores as a function of

gender or grade. The MANOVA was significant for gender and grade (Wilks Lambda, F 6, 1058 =

14.21, p < .001; F12, 2116= 8.81, p < .001). There were no significant gender and grade

interactions. Test of between subjects effects indicated significance gender differences for the

Bullying Behavior, Perceptions of Safety, Negative Coping, Assertive Coping, and Passive

Coping, F = 9.46, p < .01, F = 9.58, p < .01, F = 38.76, p < .001, F = 49.97, p < .001, and F =

11.34, p < .01. Boys had higher scores than girls on the Bullying Behavior, Perceptions of Safety

and Negative Coping factors. Girls indicated higher scores than boys on the Assertive Coping

and Passive Coping factors.

Test of between subjects effects showed significant grade differences for the

Victimization, Perceptions of Safety, Negative Coping, Assertive Coping, and Passive factors, F

= 20.30, p < .001, F = 7.15, p = .001, F = 5.99, p < .01, F = 9.31, p < .001, and F = 3.59, p = 03.

Tukeys HSD post-hoc tests indicated that fifth grade students reported significantly lower levels

of victimization than both third and fourth grade students, p < .001 and p < .001. Both fourth and

fifth grade students scored significantly higher than third grade students on the Perceptions of

Safety factor (p = .05, p = .001). Third grade students also endorsed more Negative Coping types

of behaviors in comparison to fourth and fifth grade students, p = .002, p = .009. Post-hoc tests

indicated that fifth grade students reported significantly lower assertive coping behavior than

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

17/42


both fourth and third grade students, p = .012, p < .001. Third grade students reported

significantly higher levels of passive coping than both fourth and fifth grade students, p = .027, p

= .041.

Group Membership. The number of boys and girls were cross tabulated with group

membership (Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, Not Involved) and a chi-square statistic was used to

determine if there were significant differences in group membership based on gender (Table 6).

The null hypothesis was rejected, 2

(3, N = 1072) = 13.32, p = .004. Follow-up chi-square analyses

indicated that significantly more boys were identified a bullies than would be expected based on

chance alone (2

(1, N = 1072) = 5.94, p = .015). The null hypothesis was retained in comparisons

between gender and membership in the Victim, Bully/Victim, and Not Involved groups.

Grade level was cross tabulated with frequency of group membership (Victim, Bully,

Bully/Victim, Not Involved) and a chi-square statistic was used to determine if there were

significant differences in group membership based on grade. The null hypothesis was rejected,

2(6, N = 1081) = 40.94, p < .001. Follow-up chi-square analyses indicated significant grade effects

for membership in the Victim, Bully/Victim, and Not Involved groups (2(2, N = 1081) = 10.90, p =

.004, 2(2, N = 1080) = 11.12, p = .004,

2(2, N = 1080) = 31.22, p < .001 ). The null hypothesis was

retained in comparisons between grade and membership in the Bully group. The data indicated a

general trend of less Victim and Bully/Victim membership and greater likelihood of being in the

Not Involved group as students progressed from third through fifth grades (Table 7).

Discussion

Instrument Development

Self-report measures represent an important method for measuring peer victimization

(Ahmad & Smith, 1994; Kingery et al., 1998) because many children do not tell adults that they

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

18/42


are being bullied (Menesi et al., 1997; Whitney & Smith, 1993). Accurate assessment of bullying

is an important step in the initial stages of program development and implementation.

Instruments with strong psychometric properties are essential to measure change in intervention

programs (Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006). In addition, it is useful for schools to have measures

that simultaneously examine bullying, victimization, coping strategies and components of

schools climate relevant to bullying. The Student Survey of Bullying Behavior sought to address

these needs and was constructed based on moderately large set of participants in preliminary and

exploratory analyses, which constitutes a statistically sound basis for this first stage of scale

development.

The factors measuring assertive, passive and negative coping behaviors emerged as

potentially weak components of the survey with relatively lower reliability scores (all under .80)

and accounting for the least amount of variance. This may have occurred because the items

measuring coping required only a yes/no response as opposed to the 5-point Likert responses on

the other survey items. Further, these coping factors had relatively fewer items when compared

to the bullying, victimization and safety factors. As a result, future research is needed to

substantiate the constructs of assertive, passive and negative coping in relation to bullying and to

further develop items and response options that best exemplify these constructs.

The variance accounted for by the SSBB was relatively low (41%). However, this is

expected given the conceptual nature of the instrument. The SSBB measures six different

constructs relating to bullying. Further, the scales measuring bullying and victimization include

items measuring verbal, physical and relational behaviors. The survey is intended to be a

comprehensive assessment of bullying and associated variables. Therefore, by design it does not

measure one construct. By measuring varied behaviors associated with bullying, the results of

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

19/42


the instrument are intended to guide research and target behaviors for intervention.

Student Survey of Bullying Behavior Findings

Bullying is a significant problem among elementary school children in this sample. In

this study, 4.1% of students were identified as Bullies only. This is consistent with estimates of

2% of students in grades two through six (Olweus, 1991), 4% of students ages 8 to 11 (Whitney

& Smith, 1993), and 5.2% of fourth through sixth graders identified as bullies in previous studies

(Bentley & Li, 1995).

Estimates of bully/victims vary from study to study. This study indicated 13.6% of third

through fifth graders identified as bully/victims. This is consistent with research by Austin and

Joseph (1996) and Andreou (2000) that used similar procedures to calculate group membership

and identified, respectively, 15% and 18.2% of elementary age participants as bully/victims. It is

important to note that in the current study, group membership (Victim, Bully, Bully/Victim, Not

Involved) was mutually exclusive. That is, a member of one group could not be a member of any

other group.

Research reporting on victimization from bullying has also been varied with some studies

reporting low numbers (i.e., 3% 10%; Olweus, 1991; Bently & Li, 1995; Whitney & Smith,

1993) and some reporting much higher numbers (i.e., 34% using subjective assessment of

bullying, and 66% and 76% when queried using behavioral descriptions of verbal or physical

bullying; Stockdale et al., 2002). Similar to Stockdale, et al., the present study found relatively

high rates of reported victimization (41% of respondents were identified as Victims).

The higher percentage of victimization reported in this study is an important finding that

underscores the serious nature of problems associated with bullying in todays schools. This

finding, as well as the variability in number of victims, bullies and bully-victims reported in prior

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

20/42


research, is likely to be a function of several measurement issues that were considered in

developing the Student Survey of Bullying Behavior. For example, Olweus (1993) indicated that

students reporting being bullied now and then over the last two months were considered

victims. Rigby and Slee (1996) defined bullying as occurring often during the school year. In

another report, a serious bully/victim problem was described as occurring about once a week or

more frequently (Olweus, 1993). There is a potential range of frequency of behaviors that could

be considered bullying (often, now and then, sometimes, about once a week, or most days) and

these terms are ambiguous. Therefore, it can be difficult to compare results from study to study.

The present investigation was designed to overcome these problems in the following

ways. First, an attempt was made to reduce ambiguous terms in this study by including specific

frequencies (never, once or twice a year, monthly, weekly, daily) and by making it clear that the

focus of this study is on severe bullying behaviors, defined as occurring weekly or more often. In

addition, the Student Survey of Bullying Behavior avoids using the word bullying, and instead,

uses operational definitions of bullying behaviors. Finally, while many surveys use only one or a

small number of items to define bullying and victimization, the present survey incorporates a

range of items reflecting specific behaviors related to bullying or victimization. To be defined as

a victim or bully, our definition requires that the student report weekly or daily occurrence of

least 2 of the specific behaviors listed.

Significantly more boys were identified as bullies in this study than would be expected

based on chance alone. Although there has been some inconsistency in prior research on gender

effects in bullying (Espelage, Mebane, & Swearer, 2004), these observed gender differences

support some of the previous literature (Andreou, 2001; Nansel et al., 2001; Whitney & Smith,

1993). Also in line with some previous findings, boys and girls were equally likely to be

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

21/42


victimized (Andreou, 2001; Boulton & Smith, 1994, Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988).

Reports of victimization from large-scale studies have shown a clear decrease as children

get older (Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993; Whitney & Smith, 1993). Indeed, this study

indicated the highest level of victimization among third grade students, and the lowest level

among fifth grade students. The grade level trends observed in much of the research about

bullying can be affected by a number of variables, such as how grade levels are grouped within a

school system, what kind of methodologies are used to assess rates of victimization, and

potential age-related changes in the way children define bullying as they mature.

A majority of students in this study felt safe in school. Students felt the safest in media

centers, classrooms and lunchrooms. Increased perceptions of safety in these areas are likely due

to a high level of adult supervision. Although a majority of students felt safe, there was still a

significant number who felt unsafe on the way to and from school (particularly on the bus) and

within their neighborhoods. It was disturbing to find that 16.1% of children in this study felt

unsafe or mostly unsafe on the school bus. It was clear that students in this study perceived a

much lower level of safety on the school bus than any other area of school property. This has

direct implications for the need for schools to develop more effective ways of improving student

perceptions of safety while in transit to and from school. Overall perceptions of safety at school

and on the way to and from school (excluding the school bus) are similar to survey results of

students from the United States conducted by Kingery et al. (1998). In that study, a range of 1.4

to 11.8% of students felt unsafe either at school or on the way to or from school.

Most students in this study were able to identify effective means of coping in bullying

situations, such as trying to talk to the student and telling him or her to stop, or telling an adult at

home or at school. This factor also encompassed a number of items regarding pro-social

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

22/42


bystander behavior, such as making friends with the child being hurt and intervening on behalf of

a victimized child. These kinds of behaviors were labeled Assertive Coping.

A number of students selected methods of coping that could be considered reactive

aggression, such as fighting back, and planning revenge or trying to get the other student in

trouble. These behaviors were labeled Negative Coping. A sizable number of students selected

aggressive choices when asked what they would do if another child picked on them, such as fight

back (26.3%), try to get the other kid in trouble (16.4%) and plan a way to get the kid back

(19.4%). This has significant implications for the need of preventive intervention programs and

social skills instruction to assist children in developing better mechanisms for coping with peer

harassment.

The coping behaviors factors generated on the SSBB correspond to methods of coping

described by Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004) and Hunter and Boyle (2004) in recent literature on

childrens coping with bullying. The Negative Coping, Assertive Coping, and Passive Coping

factors on the SSBB are similar to the coping strategies described by Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004)

(i.e., Conflict Resolution, Cognitive Distancing, Advice and Support, and Revenge) and Hunter

and Boyle (2004) (i.e., Wishful Thinking, Seeks Social Support, Problem Focused, and

Avoidance coping). Certain types of coping with bullying can lead to either a decrease or

increase in victimization. For example, Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004) found that revenge seeking

and cognitive distancing are likely to lead to increased levels of victimization, while conflict

resolution, and seeking advice or support are likely to decrease victimization. Measurement of

coping behaviors in reaction to bullying similar to those within the SSBB have emerged in recent

literature as having important implications for designing interventions to reduce the likelihood of

peer victimization (Hunter & Boyle, 2004; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004).

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

23/42


Practical Implications

Interventions that target changing the behavior of bystanders have the potential to

enhance bullying prevention efforts. Although not an explicit goal of this research, results of the

survey can be used to draw tentative recommendations for invention in this area. Peer norms of

acceptable behavior can be a tremendous influence on students. Often, interventions focus

heavily on educating and changing the behavior of students that are victimized or students that

bully. Items within the three factors from the SSBB associated with coping assess assertive,

negative and passive bystander behaviors. Future research could use these items to examine

differences in bystander behavior between groups. A significant number of students may be

inadvertently reinforcing bullying behavior by watching it and doing nothing. In many cases, the

students may not understand the harmful affects of bullying, or simply may not know how to

intervene. Passive bystanders could be specifically targeted for education about bullying and

taught skills for effective intervention.

With further development, the SSBB can potentially be a useful tool to collect data about

bullying and related constructs. More information about bullying has the potential to provide

insight about the relationships between victimization, bullying behavior, perceptions of safety,

negative coping, assertive coping and passive coping. It is important to learn more about these

relationships in the context of multiple moderating variables (such as gender and grade level).

Use of subsets of items within the victim and bully behavior scales also has the potential to

provide data about verbal, physical, and relational aggression, and about different types of

bystander behaviors and this could be a useful focus of future research.

The SSBB can be used to conduct needs assessments to support consultation with the

goal of planning classroom, grade level or school-wide interventions. Along these lines,

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

24/42


inclusion of methods of peer nomination and observation (Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006) in

conjunction with the SSBB would allow the identification of individual students in need of

additional support and training. In addition to providing data to guide program planning, the

SSBB can be used to assess pre and post differences in intervention programs.

Students are required by law to attend school. At a minimum, schools are obligated to

maximize student perceptions of safety and to promote a social climate that inhibits bullying.

Bullying has serious long-term negative affects on todays youth. Victims of bullying have

difficulties in social-emotional functioning, have difficulty making friends, have poor

relationships and feel lonely more often than children who are not victimized (Nansel et al.,

2001). The psychological damage and physical harm implied in bullying can be prevented, and

the problem of bullying must be addressed systematically. Prevention and intervention in this

area has promise for improving the social climate within our schools and communities.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

25/42


References

Ahmad, Y., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Behavioural measures: Bullying in schools.Newsletter of the

Association of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 26-27.

Anderman, E. M., Kimweli, D. M. S. (1997). Victimization and safety in schools serving early

adolescents.Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 408-438.

Andreou, E. (2001). Bully/victim problems and their association with coping behavior in

conflictual peer interactions among school-age children.Educational Psychology, 21, 59-

66.

Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in

8- to 12-year-old Greek schoolchildren.Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49-56.

Austin, S. & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds.British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.

Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive

problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-174.

Bentley, K. M., & Li, A. K. F. (1995). Bully and victim problems in elementary school and

students beliefs about aggression. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 153-165.

Borg, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary

schoolchildren.Educational Research, 41, 137-153.

Callaghan, S., & Joseph, S. (1995). Self-concept and peer victimisation among schoolchildren.

Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 161-163.

Carney, J. V. (2000). Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse and suicidal behaviour during

adolescence. School Psychology International, 21, 213-223.

Cleary, S. D. (2000). Adolescent victimization and associated suicidal and violent behaviors.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

26/42


Adolescence, 35, 671-682.

Cornell, D.G., Sheras, P.L., & Cole, J.C.M. (2006). Assessment of Bullying. In S.R. Jimerson &

M.J. Furlong (Eds.),Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to

practice. (pp. 191-209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and

aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24,

123-130.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. P. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological

adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Dulmus, C.N., & Sowers, K.M. (Eds.) (2004).Kids and violence: The invisible school

experience. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Dulmus, C. N., Theriot, M. T., Sowers, K. M., & Blackburn, J., A. (2004). Student reports of

victimization in a rural school. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 7, 1-16.

Eron, L. D., & Huesmann, L. R. (1984). The control of aggressive behavior by changes in

attitudes, values, and the conditions of learning. In R. J. Blanchard & D. C. Blanchard

(Eds.)Advances in the Study of Aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Espelage, D.L., & Holt, M.K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer

influences and psychosocial correlates.Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2,123-142.

Espelage, D.L., Mebane, S.E., & Adams, R.S. (2004). Empathy, caring and bullying: Toward an

understanding of complex associations. In D.L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.).

Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevehntion and

intervention (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Espelage, D.L., Mebane, S. E, & Swearer, S.M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Moving

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

27/42


beyond mean level differences. In D.L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.).Bullying in

American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevehntion and intervention (pp.

15-35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.) (2004).Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological

perspective on prevehntion and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Farrington, D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and later-

life outcomes. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The Development and Treatment of

Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression

among children.Developmental Psychology, 33, 589-600.

Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli, C. (1996).Bully-proofing your

school: A comprehensive approach for elementary schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Gilmartin, B. G. (1987). Peer group antecedents of severe love-shyness in males. Journal of

Personality, 55, 467-489.

Graham, S. Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An

attributional bias.Developmental Psychology, 34, 538-587.

Greenbaum, S. (1989). Set straight on bullies. Malibu, CA: National School Safety Center.

Hanish, L.D. & Guerra, N.G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies:

Developmental continuity or developmental change? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 17-

38.

Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1992). What kids say about bullying. The Executive

Educator, 14, 20-22.

Holmes, S. R., & Brandenburg-Ayres, S. J. (1998). Bullying behavior in school: A predictor of

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

28/42


later gang involvement.Journal of Gang Research, 5, 1-6.

Hunter, S. C. & Boyle, J. M. E. (2004). Appraisal and coping strategy use in victims of school

bullying.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 83 107.

Jarrett, O., Davies, G., Hunt, M. H., Rogers, K. (2000, April). Fear, fighting, and bullying in

high poverty environments: Survey results. Paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Jimerson, S.R., & Furlong, M.J., (Eds.) (2006).Handbook of school violence and school safety:

From research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kingery, P. M., Coggeshall, M. B., & Alford, A. A. (1998). Violence at school: Recent evidence

from four national surveys.Psychology in the Schools, 35, 247-258.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2004). Peer victimization: The role of emotions in adaptive and

maladaptive coping. Social Development, 13, 329 349.

Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by Danish children

classified as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response to different

(hypothetical) types of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 479-488.

Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of

females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children.Aggressive

Behavior, 14, 403-414.

Lowenstein, L. F. (1978). Who is the bully?Home and School. 11, 3-4.

Menesini, E., Eslea, M., Smith, P. K., Genta, M. L., Fonzi, A., & Costabile, A. (1997). Cross-

national comparison of childrens attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school.

Aggressive Behavior, 23, 245-257.

Mynard, H. & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

29/42


Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169-178.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).

Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial

adjustment.Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

Neary, A. & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its relationship to self-concept and

depression among schoolgirls. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 183-186.

OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components

using parallel analysis and Velicers MAP test.Behavior Research Methods, 32, 396

402.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a

school-based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.) The

development and treatment of childhood Aggression (pp.411-447). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do . Oxford: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus Bully Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen Norway:

Mimeo, Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL). Uinveristy of Bergen.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression.Developmental

Psychology, 24, 807-814.

Reynolds, W. (2003).Reynolds Bully Victimization Scales for Schools. San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and

attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615-627.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

30/42


schoolchildren and their implications for psychological well-being.Journal of Social

Psychology, 133, 33-42.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1996).Bullying in schools and what to do about it. Melbourne, Victoria:

The Australian Council for Educational Research.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children, involvement in

bully-victim problems, and perceived social support. Suicide and Life Threatening

Behavior, 29, 119-130.

Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates. Aggressive

Behavior, 20, 359-368.

Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender,

grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression.Adolescence, 38, 736 747.

Sharp, S., Thompson, D., & Arora, T. (2000). How long before it hurts?: An investigation into

long-term bullying. School Psychology International, 21, 37-46.

Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer

victimisation. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97-107.

Slee, P. T. (1995). Peer victimization and its relationship to depression among Australian

primary school students.Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 57-62.

Solberg, M.E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus

Bully Victim Questionnaire.Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.

Spivack, H.,, & Prothrow-Stith, D. (2001). The need to address bullying: An important

component of violence prevention.Journal the American Medical Association, 285,

2131-2132.

Stevens, J. (1996).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (3rd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

31/42


Erlbaum.

Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larons, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural

elementary students, parents, and teachers perceptions of bullying.American Journal

of Health Behavior, 26, 266-277.

Sullivan, K. (2000). The anti-bullying book. Oxford: University Press.

Swearer, S.M. (2001). The bully survey. Unpublished manuscript. The University of Nebraska-

Lincoln.

Swearer, S.M., Song, S.Y., Cary, P.T., Eagle, J.W., & Mickelson, W.T. (2001). Psychosocial

correlates in bullying an victimization: The relationship between depression, anxiety, and

bully/victim status.Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 95-121.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in

junior/middle and secondary schools.Educational Research, 35, 3-25.

Wilton, M. M. M., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regulation and display in

classroom victims of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and

relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 226-245.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L., (2000). The association between direct

and relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary school children. Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 989-1002.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

32/42


Table 1

Preliminary Data Factor Eigenvalues and the Variance Accounted for by Each

Factors

1 2 3

Eigenvalues 5.04 3.72 2.36

Percent of variance explained by factor 15.74 11.61 7.37

Number Item

Assertive

Coping

Perceptions

of Safety

Negat

ive

Copin

g,

Victi

mizati

on,

Bullyi

ng

17.6 Told the teacher or another adult .69 -.08 -.04

14.6 I tell somebody at home .66 -.03 .01

16.2 Try to talk to the kid and tell him or her to stop .64 .11 -.02

15.2 Try to talk to the kid and tell him or her to stop .64 .09 -.06

15.5 Tell an adult .64 .08 -.13

17.4

Tried to talk it out with the kid to stop him or her from being

mean

.59 .02 .04

14.3 I try to talk to the kid and tell him or her to stop .59 -.07 -.01

16.3 Walk away from it .58 .11 .08

15.3 Walk away from it .54 -.06 -.02

16.5 Tell an adult .53 .08 -.08

14.7 I tell the teacher or another adult at school .53 -.09 -.06

14.4 I try to ignore him or her .51 -.04 .02

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

33/42


17.7 Made friends with the child who is being hurt .49 -.08 .18

14.8 I tell another kid at school .43 .06 .24

3 This is how safe I feel in the lunchroom .05 .68 .04

2 This is how safe I feel in my classroom -.01 .68 .05

5 This is how safe I feel going to school .02 .67 -.08

1 This is how I feel being in my school .13 .64 .03

6 This is how safe I feel on the way home from school .06 .61 -.03

7

This is how safe I feel outside during P.E. when we have free

time

-.07 .59 .03

4 This is how safe I feel in the bathroom -.01 .55 .02

8 This is how safe I feel in my neighborhood -.12 .49 -.05

14.2 I fight back -.20 .15 .685

13 How often do you get into a fight someone else started? -.01 -.05 .63

15.4 Fight back or get even in some way -.19 .03 .60

17.5 Fought back the mean kid .08 .17 .57

16.4 Fight back or get even in some other way .03 .07 .52

12

How often are you unpleasant to another child by saying mean

things?

-.01 -.19 .43

17.1 Ive never seen a child being mean to another child -.26 .04 -.43

10

How often are other children unpleasant to you by saying mean

things to you, saying mean things about you, or by threatening

you?

.12 -.18 .42

11

How often are you unpleasant to another child by starting fights,

hitting, kicking, or pushing?

-.10 -.03 .42

14.1 Nobody has been mean to me -.21 .17 -.40

Note. Items 14.1 and 14.2 indicate student response when bullied. Item 15.4 indicates student response for advice

given at home for dealing with bullying. Item 16.4 indicates student response for advice given at school for dealingwith bullying. Items 17.1 and 17.5 indicate student response when a bystander to bullying.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

34/42


Table 2

Preliminary Data Factor Intercorrelations

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Factor 1 1.00 -.02 -.09

Factor 2 -.02 1.00 -.20

Factor 3 -.09 -.20 1.00

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

35/42


Table 3

Factor Loadings for the SSBB Using a Six-Factor Model

Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6

Eigenvalues 9.04 5.66 3.45 2.76 2.40 1.81

Percent of variance explained by factor 14.82 9.28 5.66 4.53 3.94 2.96

Victimizati

on

Bullying Safety

Assertive

Coping

Negative

Coping

Passive

Coping

Number Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

17 Saying mean things to you.76 -.01 -.03 -.10 -.07 .08

21 Teasing you.75 -.02 -.03 -.06 -.02 .05

26 Call you names.75 .06 .03 -.07 -.02 .00

25 Making faces at you.70 .01 .02 .01 .09 -.02

24 Leaving you out.69 .01 -.06 -.08 .03 -.02

16

Hitting, kicking or pushing

you.69 -.05 .01 .03 -.05 .01

18

Spreading rumors about

you.67 .02 .04 .08 .04 -.02

22 Ignoring you.65 .00 .03 -.05 .04 -.09

19 Threatening you.64 .03 .02 .08 .06 -.06

23

Trying to turn friends

against you.63

.03 -.07 .03 .07 -.11

20 Stealing from you.52 -.10 .01 .20 .15 -.06

15

How often do you see one

child being mean to

another child?

.45 .03 -.02 .04 -.10 .15

13 How often do you get into.45 .18 .07 .02 -.18 .08

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

36/42


a fight someone else

started?

28

Saying mean things to

them-.02 .82 .01 -.11 -.07 .08

32 Teasing them-.00 .79 -.04 -.11 -.05 .10

37 Calling them names.02 .77 .02 -.08 -.12 .11

35 Leaving them out-.02 .74 -.03 -.07 -.02 .04

36 Making faces at them-.00 .71 .00 -.08 .05 .08

27

Hitting, kicking or pushing

them.03 .68 .06 -.03 -.03 .00

33 Ignoring them.09 .67 .08 -.04 .05 .01

29

Spreading rumors about

them-.01 .63 -.01 .14 .12 -.21

34

Trying to turn friends

against them-.04 .61 -.04 .19 .14 -.23

30 Threatening them .01 .58 -.04 .15 .12 -.14

31 Stealing from them-.01 .41 .02 .13 .06 -.18

2 In the lunchroom.08 .04 .75 -.04 .03 -.01

9 On the playground-.01 -.00 .74 .09 .00 -.01

7 In the hall at school.01 .05 .71 -.02 .04 -.02

12 In the media center.09 .02 .64 -.03 -.01 -.02

5

On the way home from

school-.02 -.09 .63 .01 -.07 .02

8 On the bus-.03 -.08 .62 .05 -.05 .03

3 In the bathroom.03 .03 .61 -.01 .02 -.00

4 Going to school-.09 -.04 .60 -.04 -.08 .05

6 In P.E. class.02 .06 .55 .03 .04 -.06

1 In my classroom-.12 .07 .53 .05 .16 -.08

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

37/42


11 In my neighborhood-.12 -.02 .45 -.08 -.04 .05

40.14 Call the kid names-.00 .01 -.03 .68 -.04 -.01

40.11

Spread rumors about the

kid-.02 .00 -.02 .66 .07 -.09

40.8Gang up on the kid with

your friends.02 -.06 .03 .64 -.02 -.03

39.5 Told the kids to fight it out-.03 -.01 .01 .61 .03 -.01

39.1

Joined up with the kid who

was being mean-.01 -.08 .01 .57 .00 -.02

38.10

I spread rumors about the

kid-.04 .12 .00 .56 -.02 .11

40.13 Dont tell anybody.19 -.21 .09 .54 .05 -.06

40.3 Fight back.01 -.05 -.03 .44 -.31 .14

38.12

I steal or break something

that belongs to the kid-.05 .08 .03 .43 .06 -.06

40.4Figure out a way to get

even-.01 .05 -.10 .43 .22 -.04

39.3 Fought back the mean kid.02 .10 -.05 .32 -.30 .22

38.5

I tell the teacher or another

adult at school.04 .03 -.01 .08 .72 .08

39.4

Told the teacher or another

adult at school.00 .03 .00 .05 .70 .00

38.2

I try to talk to the kid and

tell him or her to stop.08 .00 .01 .02 .66 .18

40.1

Try to talk to the kid and

tell him or her to stop-.02 .08 .02 .04 .55 .28

39.2

Tried to talk it out with the

kid to stop him or her from.07 .02 .02 -.00 .54 .20

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

38/42


being mean

40.5 Tell an adult at school-.08 -.01 .01 -.06 .54 .27

38.4 I tell somebody at home.06 -.07 -.01 .09 .45 .37

38.1 I fight back.02 .10 .05 .30 -.40 .31

40.10 Try to ignore him or her.02 -.02 .01 -.06 .12 .66

40.2 Walk away from it-.04 -.08 .02 -.02 .14 .57

38.11 I try to ignore him or her.06 -.00 -.09 -.09 .14 .52

40.12 Avoid the kid.09 -.07 .02 -.07 .16 .50

38.6

I tell my best friend or

another kid at school-.15 .09 -.02 .08 .14 .47

40.6 Tell an adult at home-.11 .01 .04 .03 .41 .45

39.8 I watched-.03 .10 -.04 .22 -.11 .31

Note. Items 38.1 through 38.13 indicate student response when bullied. Items 39.1 through 39.9 indicate student

response as a bystander of bullying. Items 40.1 through 40.14 indicate student response for advice given about

dealing with bullying.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

39/42


Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for the Factors on the SSBB

Mean SD Sample Size

FACTOR 1 Victimization 2.47 .92 1081

2 Bullying 1.52 .65 1080

3 Perceptions of Safety 4.24 .64 1079

4 Negative Coping .07 .14 1080

5 Assertive Coping .71 .27 1080

6 Passive Coping .66 .28 1080

Note. The Victimization, Bullying and Perceptions of Safety factors included a 5 point Likertscale. The Negative Coping, Assertive Coping, and Passive Coping factors included

dichotomously

scored items; either the student endorsed using the strategy or not.

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

40/42


Table 5

Exploratory Data Factor Intercorrelations

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Factor 1 1.00 .29 -.41 .23 -.01 .17

Factor 2 .29 1.00 -.13 .41 -.26 .13

Factor 3 -.41 -.13 1.00 -.14 -.10 -.04

Factor 4 .23 .41 -.14 1.00 -.28 .03

Factor 5 -.01 -.26 -.10 -.28 1.00 .02

Factor 6 .17 .13 -.04 .03 .02 1.00

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

41/42


Table 6

Cross-tabulation of Gender and Group Membership

Group Membership

Victim Bully Bully/Victim Not Involved Total

GENDER Boy Count 191 31 72 196 490

Expected Count 20.4 20.1 66.3 200.2 490.0

Girl Count 254 13 73 242 582

Expected Count 241.6 23.9 78.7 237.8 582.0

Total Count 445 44 145 438 1072

8/7/2019 Hunt, Meyers, & Neel (2005)

42/42


Table 7

Cross-tabulation of Grade and Group Membership

Group Membership

Victim Bull

y

Bully/Victim Not Involved Total

GRADE 3 Count 187 11 57 122 377

Expected

Count

155.5 15.3 51.3 154.8 377.0

4 Count 136 16 58 133 343

Expected

Count

141.5 14.0 46.6 140.9 343.0

5 Count 123 17 32 189 361

Expected

Count

148.9 14.7 49.1 148.3 361.0

Total Count 446 44 147 444 1081

hunt, meyers, & neel (2005)

Documents