mindfulness: a solution to bullying

Mindfulness, Bullying, and Victimization

Do Bullies and Victims Reside in the “Here and Now”?

MINDFULNESS AND BULLYING

Photograph: Sakchai Lalit/AP

i


DO BULLIES AND VICTIMS RESIDE IN THE “HERE AND NOW”? A

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MINDFULNESS AND BULLYING

By

Zachary Garofolo

A thesissubmitted to the Faculty of D’Youville College

Division of Academic Affairsin partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science

in

Education

Buffalo, NY

April 20, 2012

ii


Copyright © 2012 by Zachary Garofolo. All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be copied or reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission of Zachary Garofolo.

iii


THESIS APPROVAL

Thesis Committee Chairperson

Name: _________________________________________________

Discipline: ______________________________________________

Committee Members

Name: _________________________________________________

Discipline: ______________________________________________

Name: _________________________________________________

Discipline: ______________________________________________

Thesis Defended

on

April 20, 2012

iv


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine relations between mindfulness and

frequency of bullying behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of

victimization experiences in a sample of high school students. The participants

were 66 students from a high school in northern Ontario. The Five Facet

Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the Adolescent Peer Relations

Instrument (APRI) were used to collect data. Data was analyzed using Spearman

rank order correlation coefficients (rho). Nine significant negative associations

were found between the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ and the APRI,

with r values ranging from -.245 to -.314, indicating that a negative relationship

does exist between certain facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of

bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

v


Acknowledgment

The time and energy I invested in this work is wholeheartedly devoted to all

those who suffer from bullying and victimization. I continue to strive to relieve

you of that suffering.

I would like to express my gratitude to my committee for their support. I was

honored to have access to the wisdom and knowledge of Dr. Paul Hageman and

Dr. David Gorlewski. Over the past two years, Dr. Helen Kress has been my guru.

Her guidance, wisdom, and compassion helped shape my thesis and my

philosophy of education. She may very well be a bodhisattva.

I must also express my deepest gratitude to my family. Sandra, Mark, and

Chloe have always supported me through their love, and belief in me. And to my

Nan, Rita, who convinced me to be a teacher, I am forever grateful. Finally, it was

because of my wife Lisa, who nourished me with her smiles, succor, and

unconditional love, that I had the energy to complete this work. She is truly a

bodhisattva who embodies the spirit of compassion.

vi


Table of Contents

List of Tables ixList of Figures xList of Appendices xi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of Purpose 3Conceptual Framework 4

The Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM) 4Self-Regulation of Attention (Component 1) 8Orientation Towards Experience (Component 2) 9Orientation Towards Experience, Affect Intolerance, Cognitive/Behavioral Avoidance, and Psychopathology 9Self-Observation 11Self-Observation, Rumination, and Psychopathology 12Relevance of the TCMM to the Present Study 13

Significance and Justification 18Assumptions 18Research Questions 19Definitions of Terms 19Variables 22Limitations 23Summary 24

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 26

Mindfulness VS. Bullying and Victimization 27Mindfulness and Health 30Mindfulness, Education, and Character Strengths 32Bullying, Health, and Education 37What is Mindfulness? 43

Mindfulness and Buddhism 43An Analysis of the Anapanasatti and Sattipatthana Sutta’s 45The Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program 49Defining Mindfulness 51The Neurobiology of Mindfulness 52

Measuring Mindfulness: The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)56Relevance of the FFMQ to the Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM) 59

vii


What are Bullying and Victimization? 62Measuring the Frequency of Bullying Behaviors and Victimization Experiences: The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) 64Summary 68

III. PROCEDURES 70

Introduction 70Setting 71Population and Sample 71Protection of Human Rights 72Data Collection Methods 74Tools 78

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire 78 The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument 81Treatment of Data 84Summary 86

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 89

Introduction 89Description of the Population and Sample 90Research Questions 90Tools 91Descriptive Statistics 93Results of the Spearman Rank Order Correlations (rho) 100

Correlations Between Mindfulness and Frequency of Bullying Behaviors 101Correlations Between Mindfulness and Frequency of Victimization Experiences 102

Serendipitous Findings 104Summary 106

V. DISCUSSION108

Summary 108Conclusions 110Relationship of the Results to the Conceptual Framework 110

Relationship of the Victimization Scores to the Conceptual Framework 111Relationship of the Bullying Scores to the Conceptual Framework

117Relationship of the Results of the Literature 118

Mindfulness, Bullying, Victimization, and Psychosocial Health 118

viii


Mindfulness, Bullying, Victimization and Physical Health120

Mindfulness, Bullying, Victimization, and Education 121Relationship of the Results to the Research Questions 123Relationship of the Results to the Variables 125

Relationship of the Results to the Mindfulness Variables 125Relationship of the Results to the Bullying Variables 127Relationship of the Results to the Victimization Variables 128

Relationship of the Results to the Study Design and Data Collection Methods129

Relationship of the Results to the Tools Used 131Relationship of the Results to the Statistical and Data Analysis Methods 134Recommendations for Future Research 136Implications for Practice and Education 140

References 143Appendix 150

ix


List of Tables

Table

1. Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………… 95

2. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Among FFMQ and APRI Variables .…………………………………………………………………. 96

x


List of Figures

Figure

1. Diagram depicting Bishop et al.’s (2004) Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM), as developed by the present author ………………. 6

2. The relationship between mindfulness, bullying, and victimization as described in the conceptual framework, and depicted here by the present author …………………………………………………………………….. 14

3. Structure of the present study…………………………………………….. 17

xi


List of Appendices

Appendix

A Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire ………………………………….. 150

B Scoring the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire……………………… 154

C Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument…………………………………… 156

D Scoring the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument………………………. 159

E IRB Application…………………………………………………………... 161

F Letter to Principal………………………………………………………… 165

G Parental Consent Form………………………………………………....... 167

H Subject Assent Form…………………………………………………….. 170

I Instructions for Students…………………………………………………. 172

J Alternative Activity ……………………………………………………... 174

K D’Youville College IRB Letter of Full Approval ……………………… 179

xii


xiii


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It is estimated that 3.6 million youth in the United States

are involved in bullying behaviors, while an additional 3.2

million identify as being victims of bullying (Nansel et al., 2001).

Furthermore, it is estimated that 5.7 million U.S. youth identify

as being both a bully and a victim (i.e. bully-victim). Other

studies estimate worldwide prevalence of bullying and

victimization at 30% of the total student population (Gini &

Pozzoli, 2009). The consequences of bullying and victimization

on physical health include headaches, stomachaches, backaches, difficulty

sleeping, and dizziness (Due et al., 2005). Bullying and victimization can also

affect an individual’s psychosocial health. For instance, bullying and

victimization are associated with low self-esteem, low self-worth, poor social

skills, feelings of loneliness, depression, anxiety, academic problems, behavioral

problems, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). As a

result of these findings, many researchers and health experts

are urging the international community to consider bullying a

1


significant international public health issue (Gini & Pozzoli,

2009). Although many diverse bullying interventions exist, few

have looked at the role that mindfulness can play in reducing

the negative effects of bullying and victimization.

Mindfulness is a concept that has been studied and

practiced over thousands of years within Buddhist meditation

practices. Only recently, with the development of mindfulness-

based therapies such as the Mindfulness-Based Stress

Reduction program and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy,

has the concept of mindfulness become familiar to Western

medicine, psychology, and education. Mindfulness is defined as

a way of paying attention – a moment-to-moment non-

judgmental awareness of one’s conscious experience (Kabat-

Zinn, 1990). Buddhist traditions believe that mindfulness can be

cultivated through regular meditation practice. However,

mindfulness is also found within the general population,

including in those with little or no experience with meditation

(Roberts & Danoff-Burg, 2010). The benefits of mindfulness on

physical and mental health include alleviation from chronic

pain, improvement in anxiety disorders and symptoms of

depression, a reduction in stresses of context, as well as

2


improved immune function, and increased positive affect

(Davidson et al., 2003; Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, Walach,

2004). Within an educational context, mindfulness has been

shown to increase academic performance, increase self-esteem,

enhance mood, improve emotional coping, increase

concentration, and reduce behavioral problems (Napoli, Krech,

Holley, 2005; Wisner, Jones, & Gwin, 2010).

In the present thesis, a comparison of the effects of

bullying and victimization on physical and psychosocial health

with the physical and

psychosocial health benefits that can be derived from

mindfulness, suggests that mindfulness skills may act as

protective factors against the negative effects of

bullying and victimization. In other words, mindfulness-based

skills training may be considered a viable intervention for

bullying in schools. However, before conducting large scale

studies testing the efficacy of a mindfulness-based program on

reducing the frequency and negative effects of bullying in

schools, the literature could benefit from an exploratory

correlational study aimed at examining the relationship between

3


mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors, and

between mindfulness and frequency of victimization

experiences; and such is the purpose of the present study.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, this study aims

to examine relations between mindfulness as measured by the

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer, Smith,

Hopkins, Krietemeyer, 2006) and frequency of bullying

behaviors as measured by Section A of the Adolescent Peer

Relations Instrument (APRI) (Parada, 2000). Second, this study

aims to examine relations between mindfulness as measured by

the FFMQ and frequency of victimization experiences as

measured by Section B of the APRI.

Therefore, a correlational study will be performed on a

sample of high school students in order to examine relations of

the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ with the total and

subscale scores of the APRI.

Conceptual Framework

For the present study, the conceptual framework utilized

to support this research is the Two-Component Model of

Mindfulness (TCMM). In 2003, a panel of experts involved in

4


mindfulness research convened for a series of meetings to

establish a consensus on defining mindfulness, and to develop a

testable operational definition; the results of which were

published by Bishop and others (2004). The following

description of the TCMM is based on a paper published by

Bishop and others (2004).

The Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM)

In a state of mindfulness the subject is attempting to be

alert and vigilant in the here and now, fully present on a

moment-to-moment basis. This state of mind is usually difficult

to attain because our minds are constantly in a narrative state

of rumination and/or cognitive elaboration. In order to break

free from this narrative state of mind and to participate fully in

the present moment, a simple technique can be employed,

focusing one’s attention on the somatic sensations of their

breath. Whenever one inevitably notices that their attention has

wavered from their breath and into a narrative state of mind,

they are instructed to: (a) notice the distraction; (b) observe it

arise and depart with non-judgment, without elaboration or

reactivity; (c) but also with an attitude of curiosity, acceptance,

and openness; and, (d) bring one’s attention back to the somatic

sensations of the breath. According to Bishop and others (2004),

5


“this dispassionate state of self-observation is thought to

introduce a ‘space’ between one’s perception and

response. Thus, mindfulness is thought to enable one to respond

to situations more reflectively as opposed to reflexively” (p.9).

This technique can be practiced in sitting meditation, or in

everyday life. The breath merely represents an object of desired

attention, and can be substituted with a conversation, a book, a

lecture, homework, or whatever one believes should require

their full attention. The entire process of: (a) focusing one’s

attention on an object; (b) inevitably losing attention to the

narration of the mind; (c) observing the transient nature of the

distraction with non-judgment, non-reactivity, without

elaboration or absorption, and with an attitude of curiosity,

openness, and acceptance; (d) and bringing one’s attention back

to the desired object of attention; is considered a state of

mindfulness. The Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (figure

1) is summarized by Bishop and others (2004) as:

The first component involves the self-regulation of

attention so that it is maintained on immediate

experience, thereby allowing for increased

recognition of mental events in the present moment.

6


The second component involves adopting a

particular orientation toward one’s experience in the

present moment, an orientation that is characterized

by curiosity, openness and acceptance (p.9).

Self-regulation of attention is the capacity to selectively

choose what to become attentive to, monitor one’s focus of

attention, and maintain sustained attention on that object. When

this process of self-regulation of attention occurs,

Mindfulness

Orientation towards experience

CuriosityAcceptanceOpenness

Self-regulation of attention

Sustained attention skills

Attention switching skills

Inhibition of secondary elaborative processing skills

Component 1 Component 2

7


Figure 1: Diagram depicting Bishop et al.’s (2004) Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM), as developed by the present author.

one becomes more aware and sensitive to the information in

their environment, thus consequently the quality of their

conscious experience is thought to be enhanced. The TCMM

describes three skills that must be cultivated in order to self-

regulate attention in this manner: (a) skills in sustained

attention; (b) skills in attention switching; and (c) skills in

inhibiting secondary elaborative processing. Bishop and others

(2004) describe sustained attention as the ability to maintain a

state of vigilance over a prolonged period of time, and switching

as the ability to recognize when one’s focus of attention has

wavered and the returning of attention back to the original

object of focus. However, before one can switch their attention

Self-observation

skills

8


back to the original object of focus, one must develop skills in

inhibiting secondary elaborative processing.

When one recognizes that their focus of attention has

wavered from the object of interest to a random thought,

feeling, or sensation, rather than trying to suppress or ignore

these invasions of the mind, one is taught to stop the train of

thoughts from elaborating any further, observe them objectively

for what they are, and then return the focus of attention back to

the original object of interest. This skill is referred to by Bishop

and others (2004) as, “the inhibition of secondary elaborative

processing” or “cognitive inhibition at the level of stimulus

selection”.

Secondary elaborative processing is described by Bishop and

others (2004) as, “getting caught-up in ruminations about one’s

experience, its origins, implications and associations”, whereas

“mindfulness involves a direct experience of events in the mind

and body” (p10).

Self-Regulation of Attention (Component 1)

When one learns skills related to inhibiting secondary

elaborative processing, it is thought that one can begin to

experience reality one-mindedly, and more objectively, instead

9


of through the subjective lens of one’s preconceptions,

prejudgments, beliefs, aversions and desires (Bishop et al.,

2004). Zen Buddhists refer to this state of mind as ‘beginner’s

mind’ because one is viewing the object (physical or mental) as

though it is the first time they’ve seen it, and thus they have no

preconceived beliefs or judgments about the object. Bishop and

others (2004) hypothesize that such self-regulation of attention

skills may help reduce ruminative tendencies of the mind, which

ultimately may help in protecting individuals from anxiety and

depression. Furthermore, Bishop and others (2004) believe that

such reductions in ruminative tendencies may explain

why mindfulness-based meditation programs such as the

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program (MBSR) and

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) have had such great success

with reducing anxiety and depression-related episodes in

patients. In the context of a mindfulness-based intervention

against bullying in schools, a reduction in ruminative tendencies

may also reduce susceptibility of bullies and victims to the

anxiety and depression that is often associated with bullying

behavior and victimization experiences. The self-regulation of

attention helps foster two elements of component two of the

10


two-component model of mindfulness: (a) an orientation

towards experience and (b) self-observation skills.

Orientation Towards Experience (Component 2)

The second component of the two-component model of

mindfulness is the orientation to experience the world with an

attitude/effort of curiosity, acceptance, and openness. During a

state of mindfulness, the subject is not trying to accomplish any

particular goal such as concentration, relaxation, or mood

change. Instead, a state of mindfulness requires the open

canvassing of thoughts, emotions, and sensations, without any

particular objective or agenda. Thus, one is encouraged to

observe that which arises in the mind with an effort of curiosity,

and not to suppress or ignore it. By allowing whatever arises in

the mind to be observed with curiosity, and to not be reactive or

judgmental of one’s thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and

sensations, one has taken a stance of acceptance. It is

with acceptance that one can begin to experience and participate in their reality

without being quick to label or judge an experience. The result of this behavior

may be considered cognitive flexibility, or, an openness to multiple perspectives

11


or possibilities.

Orientation Towards Experience, Affect Intolerance,

Cognitive/Behavioral Avoidance, and Psychopathology

Bishop and others (2004) make three predictions based on

adopting a stance of curiosity, acceptance, and openness:

(1)This orientation should lead to reductions in episodes of

cognitive and behavioral avoidance (see figure 2).

(2)This orientation should lead to the development of

dispositional openness.

(3)This orientation should lead to improved affect tolerance.

For instance, if one can adopt a stance of acceptance

toward painful or unpleasant thoughts or feelings, this

might change the psychological context in which those

objects are experienced. Therefore, one might be able to

change the meaning of painful thoughts and sensations, or

dissociate the accompanying anxiety or distress from the

actual physical or psychological source (see figure 2).

Therefore, Bishop and others (2004) believe that adopting an

orientation of curiosity, openness, and acceptance towards

experience will reduce episodes of cognitive and behavioral

avoidance, as well as improve affect tolerance. Bishop

12


and others (2004) further argue that the improvement in

affect tolerance and the reduction in episodes of cognitive and

behavioral avoidance will ultimately result in reduced

psychopathology. This argument is based on the findings of

Hayes,

Wilson, Gifford, Follette, and Strosahl (1996), which suggest

that most forms of psychopathology involve aspects of affect

intolerance and experiential avoidance. It can therefore be

deduced that the psychopathology associated with bullying and

victimization – such as depression, anxiety, antisocial behavior,

behavioral problems, etc., – may be caused or associated with

affect intolerance and cognitive/behavioral avoidance. It has

been shown that mindfulness training can reduce or eliminate

panic attacks, binge eating episodes, the avoidance of activity in

chronic pain, as well as self-mutilation and suicidal behavior

associated with

personality disorder; all of which are associated with affect

intolerance and/or cognitive/behavioral avoidance (Bishop et al.,

2004). Therefore, in the context of a mindfulness-based

prevention or intervention strategy against bullying in schools,

an increase in affect tolerance and a decrease in episodes of

13


cognitive/behavioral avoidance may also reduce the

susceptibility of bullies and victims to the psychopathology that

is often associated with bullying behavior and victimization

experiences.

Self-Observation

In the TCMM, acceptance, openness and curiosity, are

catalysts for self-observation or investigative awareness skills.

In other words, mindfulness skills compel the subject to become

a student of their own mind, to study the true nature

of their thoughts, emotions, and perceptions, and to learn how

to most effectively and efficiently react to them. According to

Bishop and others (2004), mindfulness skills “focus on the

impact of, and response to, thoughts, feelings and sensations”

(p.20). In other words, adopting a stance of curiosity,

acceptance, and openness in

one’s experience is believed to catalyze a natural state of self-

observation. Thus, one’s awareness of their experience,

thoughts, emotions, sensations, is thought to become

investigative in nature. For example, as the subject learns to

canvass their mind with curiosity, openness, and acceptance,

they gain the ability to categorize or classify more appropriately

the nature of the experience, tease apart the various elements

14


of the experience (i.e.: between thoughts, emotions,

sensations), and also make connections about how and why the

various elements of the experience

arise. Bishop and others (2004) predict that such self-

observation can result in increased cognitive complexity and

could be positively correlated with measurements of emotional

awareness and psychological mindedness; and negatively

correlated with measures of alexithymia. Furthermore, the

authors point out that such self-observation in the context of

mindfulness can result in increased cognitive complexity of

one’s mental processes because they could more appropriately

describe one’s thoughts as contextual, relativistic, transient and

subjective in nature.

Self-Observation, Rumination, and Psychopathology

Bishop and others (2004) believe that mindfulness skills

such as self-observation can protect individuals against the

tendency to ruminate, and therefore as a consequence reduce

psychopathology. Consider the following explanation Bishop and

others (2004) hypothesize that mindfulness may play in

protecting individuals from ruminative tendencies:

15


Mindfulness approaches teach the subject to

become more aware of thoughts and feelings and to

relate to them in a wider, de-centered perspective,

as transient mental events rather than a reflection of

the self or necessarily accurate reflection on

reality…if obsessive, self-defeating thoughts are

viewed simply for what they are – a transient

thought – the subject, will be better able to

disengage from them since no actions will be

required (i.e.,

since the thoughts are not ‘real’ there is no goal to

obtain and thus no need to ruminate to find a

solution) (p.19).

Therefore, Bishop and others (2004) believe that such self-

observation skills can lead to reductions in ruminative

tendencies, and may explain why mindfulness-based meditation

programs such as MBSR and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive

Therapy (MBCT) have had such great success with reducing

anxiety and depression-related episodes. Based on this model,

self-observation skills may act as protective factors against

ruminative tendencies, and ultimately result in reduced

16


psychopathology. In the context of a mindfulness-based

intervention

against bullying in schools, a reduction in ruminative tendencies

may also reduce susceptibility of bullies and victims to the

psychopathology that is often associated with bullying behavior

and victimization experiences.

Relevance of the TCMM to the Present Study

Figure 2 attempts to organize mindfulness, bullying, and victimization into

a coherent system, identify their relationships, and provide a framework for

exploring the associations between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences.

Central to this system is psychopathology. On the one hand, bullying and

victimization have consistently been shown to be associated with

psychopathology and poor health (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). On the other hand,

mindfulness has consistently been shown to be associated with reduced

psychopathology and improved health (Grossman et al., 2003). These

Bullying and Victimization

Associated with

increased…(Gini & Pozzoli, 2009)

? ?

Rumination Affect Intolerance&

Cognitive/Behavioral avoidance

17


Figure 2: The relationship between mindfulness, bullying, and victimization as described in the conceptual framework, and depicted here by the present author.

associations will be explored in depth in the literature review, and are the basis for

the present study’s correlational analysis between mindfulness and frequency of


The next important relationship to consider in figure 2 is the following: on

the one hand, rumination, affect intolerance, and cognitive/behavioral avoidance

Causes(Bishop et al., 2004)

Psychopathology

Causes…(Hayes et al., 1997)

Self-observation skills:

disengagement from the contents of the mind; de-centered

perspective

May Cultivate(Bishop et al., 2004

May Reduce...(Bishop et al., 2004)

Mindfulnes

May Reduce...(Bishop et al., 2004)

Attitude of acceptance, openness, and curiosity

May Cultivate(Bishop et al., 2004

Reduces…(Grossman et al., 2003)

18


have been shown to cause psychopathology (Bishop et al., 2004; Hayes et al.,

1996); on the other hand, the TCMM predicts that mindfulness skills cultivate an

orientation of acceptance, openness, and curiosity towards experience that may

result in reduced affect intolerance and reduced episodes of cognitive/behavioral

avoidance – which may ultimately reduce psychopathology (Bishop et al., 2003).

Additionally, the TCMM predicts that practicing mindfulness can also result in

self-observation skills, including the cultivation of a de-centered perspective of

the contents of the mind and the ability to disengage from the contents of the

mind, both of which may lead to the reduction in ruminative tendencies, and

ultimately reduce psychopathology (Bishop et al., 2003).

When taking into consideration the associations between all of the

variables discussed above, it is important to note that the present author was not

able to find any studies that have specifically investigated the relationship

between bullying/victimization and: (a) rumination, (b) affect intolerance, and (c)

cognitive behavioral avoidance. This could be the missing piece to the puzzle. A

study showing that bullying and victimization directly causes rumination, affect

intolerance, and cognitive behavioral avoidance, could provide support for the

hypothesis that mindfulness skills may act as protective factors against the

psychopathology associated with bullying and victimization.

Investigating the relationship between mindfulness, bullying and

victimization as depicted in figure 2 is beyond the scope of this study.

Nonetheless, it provides a framework for investigating the associations between

19

Could mindfulness skills act as protective factors against the


mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences. Furthermore, preliminary exploration of the topic may aid future

studies in the investigation of this proposed theory. Therefore, the present study

will consist of a preliminary exploration of the relationship between mindfulness

and frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences, to answer the

question: do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of

certain types of bullying behaviors, and between facets of mindfulness and

frequency of certain types of victimization experiences, in a sample of high

school students? As the literature review will demonstrate, the negative correlates

of bullying and victimization are also positive correlates of mindfulness, and the

positive correlates of bullying and victimization are also negative correlates of

mindfulness (see figure 3). Therefore, these findings provide justification for the

present study’s investigation of the potential relationship between mindfulness

and frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

Mindfulness Bullying and Victimization

Correlates

Positive Correlates:-Openness to experience-Emotional Intelligence-Self-compassion-Social skills-Self-esteem-Self-efficacy-Empathy-Emotional and behavioral self-regulation

Negative Correlates:-Self-esteem-Physical health-Social skills-Behavioral regulation-Academic success-Self-efficacy-Empathy

Positive Correlates:-Powerlessness/inadequacy

Does a relationship

exist?Correlates

20

Could mindfulness skills act as protective factors against the


Figure 3: Structure of the present study.

Significance and Justification

The widespread prevalence of bullying in schools coupled

with its negative effects on physical and psychosocial health,

have prompted researchers and health officials to urge the

international community to consider bullying a significant

Positive Correlates:-Openness to experience-Emotional Intelligence-Self-compassion-Social skills-Self-esteem-Self-efficacy-Empathy-Emotional and behavioral self-regulation

Negative Correlates:-Self-esteem-Physical health-Social skills-Behavioral regulation-Academic success-Self-efficacy-Empathy

Positive Correlates:-Powerlessness/inadequacy

Exploring the potential relationship b/w mindfulness and

bullying/victimization…

Mindfulness

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

Frequency of bullying and victimization

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI)

Does a relationship

exist?

Correlationalanalysis

21


international health issue (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). Very few

studies have considered mindfulness as an intervention for

bullying and victimization. Therefore, data collected from this

study will add to the limited body of knowledge that exists

regarding mindfulness in the context of bullying and

victimization. Furthermore, the author has not been able to

identify any studies that have tested for a correlation between

mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors and

victimization experiences. Therefore, this study will be the first

of its kind.

Assumptions

The present study was based upon the following four

assumptions:

(1)High school students with little or no mindfulness-based

knowledge or meditation experience can still register

significant scores on the Five Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire (FFMQ).

(2)The subscales of the FFMQ are measuring components of

the TCMM (see Relevance of the FFMQ to the TCMM).

(3)The APRI’s operationalization of bullying and victimization

are congruent with the definitions of bullying and

22


victimization as described in the literature (See What

are bullying and Victimization).

(4)Participants in the present study will answer items on the

FFMQ and the APRI honestly and to the best of their

knowledge.

Research Questions

This study sought to explore the following two research

questions:

(1)Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness

and frequency of certain types of bullying

behaviors?

(2)Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness

and frequency of certain types of victimization

experiences?

Definition of Terms

The following terms were theoretically and

operationally defined for the purpose of this study:

(1)Mindfulness – Theoretical Definition: The present study

theoretically defines mindfulness according to the Five

Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Therefore, the

present study defines the mindfulness construct as being:

23


(a) non-judgmental of one’s thoughts, emotions,

feelings, sensations and behaviors; (b) non-reactive to

one’s thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations, and

behaviors; (c) aware and non-automatic in the present

moment; (d) proficient and habitual at labeling and

describing thoughts, feeling, emotions, sensations, and

behaviors; and (e) self-observant.

Mindfulness – Operational Definition: The present study

operationally defines mindfulness as the scores attained

on the FFMQ.

(2)Bullying – Theoretical Definition: Bullying is theoretically

defined by the following three characteristics: (a) abusive

and usually unproved aggressive behavior (physical,

verbal, social) intended to harm or disturb; (b) behavior

that occurs repeatedly over time; (c) as an imbalance of

power (physical and/or psychological) (Nansel et al., 2001;

Swearer et al., 2001).

Bullying – Operational Definition: The present study

operationally defines bullying as the scores attained on

Section A of the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument

(APRI). This instrument measures the frequency of

24


physical, verbal, and social bullying behaviors, as the

perpetrator.

(3)Victimization – Theoretical Definition: Victimization is

theoretically defined as being on the receiving end of

repeated, abusive, and unproved aggressive behavior

(physical, verbal, social) intended to harm or disturb, and

that involves an imbalance of power (physical or

psychological).

Victimization – Operational Definition: The present study

operationally defines victimization as the scores attained

on Section B of the APRI. This instrument measures the

frequency of physical, verbal, and social victimization

experiences, as the victim.

(4) Physical bullying and victimization – Theoretical Definition: Physical

bullying and victimization involves behaviors where the perpetrator

directly physically attacks the victim by way of punching, hitting and/or

stealing money from the victim (Crick et al., 2001, as cited by Finger,

Marsh, Craven, & Parada, n.d., p.1).

Physical bullying and victimization – Operation Definitions: The present

study operationally defines physical bullying as the scores attained on

items 2, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 16 of Section A of the APRI, and physical

25


victimization as the scores attained on items 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 16 of

Section B of the APRI.

(5) Verbal bullying and victimization – Theoretical Definition: Verbal

bullying and victimization refers to direct or indirect comments aimed at

the victim. Verbal bullying is intended for the effect of intimidation,

humor and/or humiliation of the victim among the peer group, and can

include behaviors such as making rude remarks, jokes, threats and name-

calling about the victim (Crick et al., 2001, as cited by Finger, Marsh,

Craven, & Parada, n.d., p.1).

Verbal bullying and victimization – Operational Definition: The present

study operationally defines verbal bullying as the scores attained on items

1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14 on Section A of the APRI, and verbal victimization

as the scores attained on items 1, 4, 7, 11, 13, and 18 of Section B of the

APRI.

(6) Social bullying and victimization – Theoretical Definition: Social bullying

and victimization is a form of indirect aggression, which involves

psychological harm and can take the form of rumor spreading, and/or

social exclusion within the peer group (Crick et al., 2001, as cited by

Finger, Marsh, Craven, & Parada, n.d., p.1).

Social bullying and victimization – Operational Definition: The present

study operationally defines social bullying as the scores attained on items

4, 8, 11, 13, 17, and 18 of Section A of the APRI, and social victimization

26


as the scores attained on items 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 17 on Section B of

the APRI.

Variables

The relationship between and among the following

variables will be examined in this study:

(1) Total mindfulness score

(2) Non-judging of internal experience subscale score

of mindfulness

(3) Non-reactivity to internal experience subscale score

of mindfulness

(4) Observing subscale score of mindfulness

(5) Acting with awareness subscale score of

mindfulness

(6) Describing/labeling internal experience subscale

score of mindfulness

(7) Total frequency of bullying behaviors score

(8) Frequency of physical bullying behaviors subscale

score

(9) Frequency of verbal bullying behaviors subscale

score

(10) Frequency of social bullying behaviors subscale

score

27


(11) Total frequency of victimization

experiences score

(12) Frequency of physical victimization

experiences subscale score

(13) Frequency of verbal victimization experiences

subscale score

(14) Frequency of social victimization experiences

subscale score

Limitations

The following are limitations identified in this study:

(1)There is the possibility of semantic confusion regarding

mindfulness scale items by participants not familiar

with mindfulness terminology (Roberts & Danoff-Burg,

2010).

(2)There is the possibility that self-ratings of mindfulness

are affected by individual biases and inaccurate

estimations by the participant. Therefore, there may be

a discrepancy between an individual’s self-ratings of

mindfulness and their actual mindfulness levels

(Roberts & Danoff-Burg, 2010).

28


(3)There is the possibility that self-reporting of bullying

and victimization is affected by individual biases and

inaccurate estimations by the participant. Therefore,

there may be a discrepancy between an individual’s

self-reporting of bullying behaviors and/or victimization

experiences and their actual involvement in bullying

behaviors and/or victimization experiences.

(4)Due to the small convenience sample from only one

high school, the results should not be generalized to

populations outside of this high school.

Summary

In chapter one, a review of the Two-Component Model of Mindfulness

(TCMM) in the context of bullying and victimization, delineates the rationale that

supports the derivation of the research questions for this study: do relationships

exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying

behaviors, and between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of

victimization experiences? The presence of a relationship may form the basis for

future research directed at investigating the temporal ordering of, and the

mediating factors between mindfulness and reduced psychopathology, bullying

and victimization. Such research may reveal a process through which mindfulness

skills may protect from bullying, victimization, and associated psychopathologies.

29


Also included in the first chapter are a listing of the study’s

assumptions, research questions, definition of terms, variables,

and limitations.

The second chapter contains a review of information

relevant to mindfulness in the context of bullying and

victimization, including a review of related research studies

published from January 2000 to March 2012. Also included in

chapter two is a review of the instruments used in the present

study to measure mindfulness (i.e.: the FFMQ), and the

frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences

(i.e.: the APRI).

The third chapter delineates the methodology used in the

present study, including a description of the setting, population

and sample, data collection methods, human rights protection,

tools, and treatment of data.

The fourth chapter is a presentation of the analysis of the

data, and the fifth chapter consists of a summary of the present

study, conclusions and implications, as well as

recommendations for future studies based on the data collected.

30


CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

31


This chapter delineates the literature relevant to the topics that support

this study. The chapter begins with a comparison of the physical, psychosocial,

and educational benefits of mindfulness with the physical, psychosocial, and

educational effects of bullying and victimization. This comparison provides

justification for the present study, and thus literature relating to mindfulness in the

context of health and education, are discussed in more detail and compared with a

review of bullying and victimization in the context of health and education. Next,

the concept of mindfulness is explored in more detail. Mindfulness is discussed in

terms of its origins, its contemporary inclusion into clinical settings, its current

definition, and finally how it is thought to manifest neurobiologically. Next, the

multifaceted nature of mindfulness is revealed through a discussion of the Five

Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) – the tool used in the present study to

assess mindfulness. Definitions and statistics of bullying and victimization in

schools are then discussed, followed by a description of the Adolescent Peer

Relations Instrument – the tool used in the present study to measure the frequency

of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

Mindfulness VS. Bullying and Victimization

An analysis of available research suggests that aspects of mindfulness may

be negatively associated with aspects of bullying and victimization. In particular,

a review of the literature reveals that mindfulness skills may act as protective

factors against the negative effects of bullying and victimization. In the present

literature review, the effects of bullying and victimization on physical and

32


psychosocial health will be compared with the effects of mindfulness on

physical and psychosocial health. In addition, the effects of bullying and

victimization on education will also be compared with the effects of mindfulness

on education.

In terms of physical health, bullying and victimization are associated with

overall poor physical health (Due et al., 2005; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), whereas

mindfulness is associated with increased physical wellbeing (Baer, 2003;

Grossman et al., 2004), increased immune function (Davidson et al., 2003), as

well as increased self-perceptions of physical activity and physical health

(Roberts & Danoff-Burg, 2010).

In terms of psychosocial health, numerous studies have shown bullying

and victimization to be correlated with depression (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Slee,

1995; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, Mickelson, 2001). In contrast, mindfulness-

based training has been shown in several meta-analytical studies to decrease

symptoms of depression (Baer, 2003; Grossman et al., 2004). Similarly, bullying

and victimization have been shown in several studies to be correlated with anxiety

and stress (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Slee, 1995; Swearer et al., 2001). Contrarily,

mindfulness-based training has been shown to decrease symptoms of anxiety and

stresses of context (Grossman et al., 2004; Baer, 2003), decrease test anxiety

(Napoli et al., 2005), as well as enhance a sense of equanimity and clarity (Siegel,

2007). Whereas bullying and victimization have been associated with low self-

esteem (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), mindfulness-based interventions have been shown

33


to increase one’s sense of self-control and self-efficacy (Bishop, 2002;

Grossman et al., 2004). Furthermore, studies show that bullying and victimization

are associated with low empathy (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009), antisocial behavior,

and poor social skills (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). In contrast, mindfulness-based

interventions have been shown to increase social skills (Napoli, 2005), as well as

increase empathy and relational satisfaction (Siegel, 2007). In addition,

meditation-based training that elicits relaxation responses similar to that in

mindfulness meditation, have been shown to increase emotional and behavioral

self-regulation, increase frustration tolerance, and improve self-control in students

(Wisner, Jones, & Gwin, 2010). Moreover, it has also been shown that

mindfulness is positively correlated with self-compassion, openness to

experience, and emotional intelligence (Baer et al., 2006). Finally, several large-

scale studies have shown that bullying and victimization are associated with

overall increased negative psychological symptoms (Due et al., 2005; Gini &

Pozzoli, 2009), whereas mindfulness has been negatively correlated with

psychological symptoms, neuroticism, thought suppression, difficulties in

emotional regulation, alexithymia, dissociation, and experiential avoidance (Baer

et al., 2006).

Bullying, victimization and mindfulness can also be compared within the

context of education. For instance, bullying and victimization have been

associated with poor academic achievement (Nansel et al., 2001), whereas

34


mindfulness-based training has been shown to increase academic performance

and attention skills (Napoli et al., 2005). Furthermore, according to Langer and

Moldoveanu (2000), employing mindfulness skills in an educational setting can

lead to a number of results, including: (a) a greater sensitivity to one’s

environment, (b) more openness to new information, (c) the creation of new

categories for structuring perception, and (d) enhanced awareness of multiple

perspectives in problem solving.

Overall, these findings suggest that mindfulness skills may act as

protective factors against the negative effects of bullying and victimization. More

generally, these findings suggest a potential negative relationship between aspects

of mindfulness and aspects of bullying and victimization that warrants further

quantitative investigation. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to examine

relations between mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors, and between

mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences, in a sample of high

school students. A more in-depth analysis of these findings will be discussed

below.

Mindfulness and Health

Over the past three decades the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction

program (MBSR) has been found to have a wide range of physical and mental

health benefits, including alleviation from chronic pain, fibromyalgia, cancer,

anxiety disorders, depression, and stresses of context (Grossman et al., 2004). A

35


comprehensive meta-analytical review of 20 studies comprising 1605

subjects, confirmed that the MBSR program is consistent in improving anxiety,

depression, physical wellbeing, and the ability to cope with disability (Grossman

et al., 2004). A similar meta-analytical review conducted by Baer (2003) of 21

mindfulness-based therapy studies found comparable results. Particularly relevant

to the present study are the consistent findings that mindfulness training is

associated with decreased anxiety, depression, and stress. As we will see in the

following sections, anxiety, depression, and stress have been consistently

documented as positive correlates of bullying and victimization.

In an attempt to underpin the biological processes that are associated with

the physical and mental changes that occur as a result of the MBSR program,

Davidson and others (2003) conducted a randomized controlled study on the

effects of mindfulness-based meditation on brain and immune function. The study

found that mindfulness-based meditation produced observable effects on brain

and immune function. Specifically, mindfulness-based meditation was associated

with increased activation in areas of the brain that contributes to positive affect, as

determined by EEG recordings. Mindfulness meditation was also associated with

an increased immune response, as measured via influenza vaccine antibody titers.

Therefore, increased positive affect and immune function may be two of the

biological means by which mindfulness-based meditation exerts its positive

physical and mental health benefits.

36


Besides the effects of mindfulness-based therapies on physical and

mental health, mindfulness itself, as an innate quality of the mind, has also been

studied in the context of physical and mental health. In one study, Roberts and

Danoff-Burg (2010) looked at how several prevalent health problems in college

students (i.e.: sleep disturbances, cigarette smoking, binge eating, lack of physical

activity, and risky sexual behavior) might relate to mindfulness. The participants

were 553 students (age 18+) at a U.S. Northeastern university. The researchers

hypothesized that college students who scored higher on a measure of

mindfulness would report better heath, less health-related activity restriction, and

fewer harmful habits. The results showed that mindfulness was significantly

negatively associated with binge-eating, poor sleep quality, and higher stress.

Mindfulness was also negatively correlated with activity restriction, and

perceptions of poor overall health. Perceived daily physical activity, and the

extent to which the activities were enjoyed, as well as the number of days of

physical activity, were all positively correlated with mindfulness. Therefore,

individuals who scored higher on the mindfulness scale also perceived themselves

to have better overall physical and mental health. In addition, they also engaged

less frequently in behaviors associated with poor health. The authors believe that

mindfulness is related to better health and less stress because mindfulness leads to

relaxation, increased emotional regulation, increased nonattachment, and

decreased rumination, although they did not test for these mechanisms. Overall

the authors concluded that their study demonstrated a link between mindfulness

37


and health perceptions and behaviors in a college population. The authors

believe that mindfulness training might help college students to improve health

behaviors.

Danoff-Burg (2010) further explored the correlation between mindfulness

and perceived health, by performing a regression analysis to see if stress is a

mediator between mindfulness and health. The results of the regression analyses

revealed that stress partially mediates relations between mindfulness and sleep

quality, binge eating, activity restriction, perceived overall health, and physical

activity. In other words, those that are more mindful are more likely to experience

less stress, which in turn contributes to increased positive health perceptions and

behaviors. Roberts and Danoff-Burg (2010) suggest that one of the key

mechanisms of MBSR – relaxation – may reduce stress, and as a consequence

increase positive health perceptions and behaviors. The notion that mindfulness-

based interventions can significantly reduce stress is supported by several other

researchers in the field (Carmody & Baer, 2008; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, &

Freedman, 2006).

Mindfulness, Education, and Character Strengths

In an educational context, mindfulness has been associated with increased

focused attention, increased academic success, decreased anxiety and depression,

increased self-control, and reduced disruptive behaviors (Naploi, Krech, &

Holley, 2005). In one study, Napoli and others (2005) looked at stress and

attention in elementary students. According to Napoli and others (2005) stress

38


over-activates the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system

(ANS), which subsequently affects several organ systems, reduces the immune

response, and decreases higher-ordered cognitive processing. These effects have

been documented in numerous adult and children populations. In fact, the

literature shows that distressed children are experiencing the same physiological

symptoms as distressed adults (Naploi et al., 2005). Napoli and others (2005)

conducted the study on 194 first, second, and third grade students from two

elementary schools in a U.S. Southwestern city. Students were selected at random

and placed in either the experimental group (mindfulness training via the

Attention Awareness Program) or the control group. A total of 12 Attention

Awareness Program (AAP) training/control group sessions (45 minutes in length)

were administered bi-monthly over the course of 24 weeks. Each student was

measured with 3 instruments:

(1) The ADD-H Comprehensive Teacher Rating Scale (ACTeRS); which

measures attention, hyperactivity, social skills, oppositional behavior,

(2) Test Anxiety Scale (TAS); which measures self-evaluation, worry,

physiological reactions, concerns about time limits or constraints.

(3) Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEA-Ch); which measures

selective (visual) attention, and sustained attention. The tests were

administered pre- and post-program.

39


The findings revealed that those students who participated in the mindfulness-

based program, showed performance improvements in selective attention skills,

social skills, and test anxiety. In their analyses of the results, Napoli and others

(2005) emphasized that the stress response is overused in situations that do not

warrant its elicitation. For instance, in an educational context, this type of chronic

activation of the stress response can have a direct effect on the learning process

and academic performance (Naploi et al., 2005) For this reason, Napoli and others

(2005) believe that stress-reduction programs based on mindfulness training can

help foster healthy, productive learning environments. This statement is supported

by numerous studies, which shows that the incorporation of stress reduction

programs into the school curriculum is associated with improvements in academic

performance, self-esteem, mood, concentration and behavior problems (Napoli et

al., 2005).

Conduct disorders and behavioral problems in students can also be a

difficult barrier to overcome when trying to create and foster a healthy, productive

learning environment for all students. Barnes, Bauza, and Treiber (2003)

conducted a study on negative behavioral problems in high school adolescents in

a southeastern U.S. city. With 36.6% of high school students reporting having

been in a physical fight in the last month, and 5% of students missing school

because they do not feel safe to attend, Barnes and others (2003) wanted to see if

a Transcendental Meditation (TM) intervention program would have an effect on

negative school behavior in adolescents. TM, although different from

40


mindfulness-based meditation, shares some similarities, the most important of

which is stress reduction (Baer, 2003). In fact, the cornerstone of the TM program

is its ability to effectively reduce behavioral-related stress, which according to

Barnes, Bauza, and Treiber (2003), is thought to be the primary factor causing

negative school behaviors. In the past, stress-reduction via the TM program has

been shown to reduce depression, anxiety, hostility, emotional instability,

neuroticism, and aggression (Barnes, Bauza, Treiber, 2003). With this in mind,

Barnes and others (2003) conducted a study on the effects of TM on negative

school behavior in adolescents. The study was conducted on 45 adolescents, aged

15 to18. Twenty-five students were assigned to the TM group, and 20 students to

the control (CTL) group. The TM group engaged in two 15-min meditation

sessions every day for four months. The CTL group was given daily 15-min

sessions on lifestyle education for four months. Data were collected using six

measures: rule infractions, suspension rates, tardy periods, absentee periods,

grades, and anger. These data were recorded for the four months preceding the

intervention and for the four months during the intervention.

The results indicated that the TM group showed a reduction in rule

infractions, a reduction in suspension days, and a reduction in absentee class

periods over the four months of intervention. In contrast the control group showed

an increase in rule infractions, an increase in suspension days, and an increase in

absentee class periods. No significant changes were found in tardy periods or

grades. Furthermore, only females showed a decrease in anger compared to the

41


control group over the four-month intervention period. These results

demonstrate that stress-reduction associated with meditation can have a positive

effect on reducing conduct disorders and behavioral problems in students.

Perhaps the reduction in behavioral and conduct disorders as a result of

mindfulness training is also due to the cultivation of positive character strengths.

For example, in one study conducted on 613 undergraduate students, mindfulness

was positively correlated with emotional intelligence, self-compassion, and

openness to experience; and negatively correlated with psychological symptoms,

neuroticism, through suppression, difficulties in emotional regulation,

alexithymia, dissociation, experiential avoidance, and absent-mindedness (Baer,

Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006) In a separate but related study,

Wisner, Jones, and Gwin (2010) reported on an eight-week mindfulness-

meditation program that was conducted in an alternative high school for 36

students. The students meditated for 10 minutes, four days a week. According to

teacher ratings taken before and after the program, the students showed increases

in interpersonal and intrapersonal strengths, family involvement, school

functioning, and affective strengths. Furthermore, students themselves reported

that mindfulness training helped them with self-regulation, relieving stress,

increasing relaxation, and improving emotional coping.

In addition to increasing attention skills, decreasing anxiety and

depression, cultivating character strengths, and reducing behavioral problems and

conduct disorders, mindfulness-oriented classrooms have been shown to foster

42


creativity, independent thinking, and more focused thinking (Langer, 1998).

Langer (1998) believes that mindfulness teaches students to approach each

situation with a ‘beginner’s mind’. In other words, mindfulness can also cultivate

open-mindedness, attentiveness to distinctions, sensitivity to context, awareness

of multiple perspectives, and an orientation in the present. In an educational

context, these characteristics can foster creativity, cognitive flexibility, and

enhance memory. As shall be revealed in the following section, the physical,

psychosocial, and educational benefits of mindfulness may act as protective

factors against the harmful effects that result from bullying behaviors and

victimization experiences. It is this comparison between the benefits of

mindfulness and the harmful effects of bullying and victimization that justifies the

need for further exploration into the potential relationship between mindfulness,

bullying, and victimization.

Bullying, Health, and Education

Bullying and victimization can affect a student’s physical and

psychological health, their social adaptation and development, as well as their

academic achievement (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). In the literature, the effects of

bullying and victimization are often discussed separately, as they pertain to three

groups of individuals: the bullies, the victims, and the bully-victims.

According to Gini and Pozzoli (2009), frequent victimization is associated

with low self-esteem, low self-worth, depression, anxiety, academic problems,

and suicidal ideation. In other studies, victims have been shown to exhibit poor

43


psychosocial functioning, higher levels of insecurity, loneliness, unhappiness,

as well as physical and mental symptoms (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). In comparison,

bullies are more likely to engage in negative and antisocial behavior such as

truancy, delinquency, and substance abuse during adolescence, and are at a high

risk for psychiatric disorders (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). Finally, bully-victims

appear to be the most affected, demonstrating the highest risk for physical and

psychological distress and other health-related issues, poor social adjustment, and

increased academic problems (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009).

Due and others (2005) studied data from the Health Behavior in School-

aged Children (HBSC) initiative, a large-scale international World Health

Organization collaborative study of bullying across 28 countries, completed in

1998. In particular, this study examined the relationship between the prevalence

of bullying and 12 physical and psychological symptoms. Each participating

country conducted a national survey. The total sample population across the 28

countries was 123, 227 students aged 11, 13, and 15 years old. The students

answered a questionnaire which measured the prevalence of bullying and the

frequency of 12 symptoms (physical and psychological), including: headache,

stomachache, backache, feeling low, bad temper, nervousness, difficulty sleeping,

dizziness, loneliness, tired in the morning, feeling left out of things, and feeling

helpless. In all 28 countries there was a graded association between bullying and

each symptom separately. These results confirm the suggestions of many studies

that bullying is a precursor for health problems in childhood (Due et al., 2005). As

44


an example, the study found that 17% of 11, 13, and 15-year old boys in

Canada experience bullying, and 12% for girls. Furthermore, 24.5% of boys

experienced 5 or more of the symptoms on a regular basis, and 35.2% for girls.

The study also found that countries that had a higher prevalence of bullying also

showed a higher prevalence of students with 5 or more symptoms. Due and others

(2005) point out that the appearance of these symptoms could be indicative of

physical and psychological health, school attendance, as well as academic and

social development issues.

Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, and Scheidt (2001) also

analyzed data from the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC)

initiative. The sample for this study included 15, 686 students within the grade

range of 6 through 10, from catholic, public, and private schools in the U.S. This

sample was used to gain a better understanding of the relationship between the

prevalence of bullying and psychosocial adjustment and behavior. In particular,

the prevalence of bullying was compared with social and emotional well-being,

parental influence, alcohol use, frequency of smoking, frequency of fighting,

frequency of truancy, academic achievement, loneliness, relationships with

classmates, school climate, parental involvement in school, and perception of the

school and teachers.

In relation to psychosocial adjustment, bullies, victims, and bully-victims

all demonstrated poorer psychosocial adjustment than noninvolved youth. In

particular, victims reported greater difficulty making friends, poorer relationships

45


with classmates, and greater loneliness. In comparison, bullies demonstrated

that they had higher levels of behavioral and delinquency issues, showed poorer

school adjustment, and yet reported that they were not socially isolated like

victims. In addition, bully-victims demonstrated the poorest social and emotional

adjustment when compared with all four groups, including social isolation, lack of

success in school, as well as behavioral and delinquency issues.

In terms of items that tested for conduct disorders, deviancy, delinquency,

as well as anger and violence, the following results were obtained: (1) fighting

was positively associated with bullies, victims, and bully-victims; (2) alcohol use

was positively associated with bullies; (3) smoking and poorer academic

achievement were associated with bullies and bully-victims; (4) poorer

relationships with classmates and increased loneliness were associated with

victims and bully-vicitms; and, (5) the ability to make friends was negatively

related with victims, and positively related with bullies.

In another study, Gini and Pozzoli (2009) conducted three separate meta-

analytical studies (for victims, bullies, and bully-victims) to test whether children

involved in bullying and victimization are at risk for psychosomatic problems.

Gini and Pozzoli (2009) define psychosomatic symptoms as a combination of

somatic symptoms such as, “headaches, backaches, abdominal pain, sleeping

problems, bad appetite, bed-wetting” (p.1059), and psychosocial issues, such as

psychological health and well-being, social and behavioral development, and

emotional adjustment. The literature included articles up until March 2008. In

46


total, 19 articles were collected from this search. Gini and Pozzoli (2009) then

subjected these 19 articles to their inclusion criteria and came up with a final 11

articles that would be included in the meta-analysis. The 11 studies included a

total of 152, 186 children and adolescents between 7 and 16 years old. The results

are discussed in three sections. First, the association between victimization and

psychosomatic problems was considered. The results showed that victimized

children were found to have a higher risk for psychosomatic problems than

noninvolved peers. This is in support of the literature, suggesting that

victimization leads to poor emotional adjustment, low self-esteem, loneliness,

depression, anxiety, poor relationships with classmates, and an increased risk of

physical and psychological health problems. Second, the association between

active bullying and psychosomatic problems was addressed. The results from the

meta-analysis showed that bullies had a higher risk for psychosomatic problems

than noninvolved children, but were at a lower risk than victims and bully-

victims. Finally, bully-victims were found to be at the highest risk for

psychosomatic problems when compared with noninvolved peers, bullies, and

victims. This supports other research, which shows that bully-victims are often,

“poorly socially adjusted, isolated, anxious, hyperactive, and have disturbed

personalities” (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009, p.1063).

In another study, Swearer and others (2001) studied the internalizing

psychopathologies (i.e.: anxiety and depression) of bullies, victims, bully-victims,

and students who identify as neither. They used a sample of 133 six-grade

47


students from a mid-western U.S. middle school. The Bully Survey was used

to identify bullies, victims, and bully-victims. The Children’s Depression

Inventory was used to measure depression. And the Multidimensional Anxiety

Scale for Children was used to measure anxiety. The questionnaires were

administered to two cohorts over the course of 1.5 hours during class time, in

April 1999 and April 2000. The results revealed several interesting findings. First,

bully-victims were found to experience the greatest depression and anxiety of all

subgroups. Second, bullies and bully-victims were found to experience higher

levels of depression than victims and no status students. Third, both bully-victims

and victims showed high levels of anxiety compared with bullies who showed

significantly low levels. Finally, the no status students showed low anxiety and

depression.

The above juxtaposition of the harmful effects of bullying and

victimization with the benefits of cultivating mindfulness, illustrates that aspects

of bullying and victimization may be negatively correlated with aspects of

mindfulness. This not only provides justification for conducting a correlational

study on mindfulness and bullying/victimization, but on a practical level, this

comparison also suggests that mindfulness skills might act as protective factors

against the negative effects of bullying and victimization. Therefore, the aim of

the present study is to examine relations between mindfulness and frequency of

bullying behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of victimization

48


experiences; and the aim of future studies may be the design of a mindfulness-

based intervention for bullying in schools.

What is Mindfulness?

Mindfulness is discussed in the following chronologically ordered

contexts: first, from its origins in eastern Buddhist meditation traditions; then,

how the West adopted mindfulness techniques for clinical interventions in

medicine; next, how it is understood and defined in contemporary psychology;

and finally how mindfulness is understood to manifest neurobiologically.

Mindfulness and Buddhism

According to Thich Nhat Hanh (2006), The Pali word sati, means “to

stop”, and “to maintain awareness of the object” (p.10). Pali is the ancient Indic

language in which the sacred texts of Theravada Buddhism were written. The

word sati can be found in two very important Theravada Buddhist texts: the

Anapanasati Sutta (The Full Awareness of Breathing Sutra) and the Satipatthana

Sutta (The Four Establishments of Mindfulness Sutra). In 1881, the Pali-language

scholar Thomas William Rhys Davids, translated sati into English as

“mindfulness” (Didonna, 2008). Since this time, other scholars have interpreted

an expanded definition of sati to mean all of the following: awareness, attention,

and remembering to be aware and attentive (Didonna, 2008).

According to Hanh (1997; 2006), his translations of the Anapanasati and

Satipatthana Sutta’s, are direct translations from the original Pali text into

49


English. Hanh (2006) maintains that, “Throughout 2,600 years of Buddhist

history, all generations of the Buddha’s disciple have respected these works [i.e.:

the Anapanasati and the Satipathana Suttas] and have not embellished them (as

they have so many other scriptures)” (p.18). In the Theravada tradition, the Full

Awareness of Breathing and the Four Establishments of Mindfulness are still

regarded as the most important texts on meditation (Hanh, 1997, p.15).

It can be said that the establishment of mindfulness is rooted in the

awareness of the breath. According to Thich Nhat Hanh (1997), “The practice of

Full Awareness of Breathing, if developed and practiced continuously, will lead

to perfect accomplishment of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness” (p.8). In

the Theravada tradition, the path to enlightenment begins with the full awareness

of breathing. The full awareness of breathing, if developed and practiced

continuously, will lead to the four establishments of mindfulness. If the methods

of the four establishments of mindfulness are developed and practiced

continuously, it will lead to the development of the Seven Factors Of Awakening

(i.e.: full attention, investigation, energy, joy, ease, concentration, and letting go),

which if developed and practiced continuously will give rise to understanding and

liberation of the mind (Hanh, 1997).

An Analysis of the Anapanasati and Satipatthana Sutta’s

50


The Four Establishments of Mindfulness can be understood as having

two main components: (1) full awareness of breathing, and (2) self-observation.

Both of these components will be discussed below.

If an individual wishes to embark on the Buddhist path to attaining

mindfulness they must first perfect the full awareness of breathing. This is

accomplished through the development and continual practice of specific

breathing exercises (Hanh, 1997). These breathing exercises – 16 in total – are

expounded in the Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing (Anapanasati Sutta),

and are stated within the sutra as being a catalyst to establishing and practicing the

Four Establishments of Mindfulness (Hanh, 1997). Specifically, each of the Four

Establishments of Mindfulness is attained by following a series of four breathing

exercises in a step-wise manner (Hanh, 1997). For instance, the first four

breathing exercises found in the Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing are

meant to be used as practice tools in establishing mindfulness of the body, the

next four breathing exercises are meant to be used as practice tools in establishing

mindfulness of feelings, the next four in establishing mindfulness of the mind, and

the final four in establishing mindfulness of perceptions. Consider the following

four breathing exercises found in the Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing.

These breathing exercises are said to help one develop full awareness of the body.

They are also the first step in establishing mindfulness of the body:

51


1. “Breathing in a long breath, I know I am breathing in a long

breath. Breathing out a long breath, I know I am breathing out

a long breath.”

2. “Breathing in a short breath, I know I am breathing in a short

breath. Breathing out a short breath, I know I am breathing out

a short breath.”

3. “Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out I

am aware of my whole body”

4. “Breathing in, I calm my whole body. Breathing out, I calm my

whole body.” (Hanh, 1997, p.6).

In his analysis of the sutra, Hanh (1997) explains, “The first four exercises of

fully aware breathing help us return to our body in order to look deeply at it and

care for it…to reunite body and mind” (p.23). In other words, these breathing

exercises are concerned with developing a deeper awareness of our bodies. In

particular, Hanh (1997) points out that the first two exercises are meant to

demonstrate that our minds and our breathing are connected – if our breathing is

calm, our minds are calm, and vice versa. In the third exercise, one should

become aware that breathing is an aspect of the body, thus, the mind, breath, and

body, are all connected. And, as the fourth exercise demonstrates, the mind, the

breath, and the body can all be controlled by developing awareness of breathing.

Hanh (2006) goes into more detail about these exercises in the Sutra on the Four

Establishments of Mindfulness; he writes,

52


To succeed, we must put our whole mind into our breathing and

nowhere else. As we follow our in-breath, for example we need to

be watchful of distracting thoughts. As soon as a thought such as,

“I forgot to turn off the light in the kitchen,” arises, our breathing

is no longer conscious breathing as we are thinking about

something else. To succeed, our mind needs to stay focused on our

breathing for the entire length of each breath (p.36).

Once the practitioner develops full awareness of breathing, the next step in

establishing mindfulness is to develop self-observation skills (Hanh, 1997). After

listing the 16 breathing exercises in the Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing,

the next section of the sutra addresses the following question: “In what way does

one develop and continuously practice the Full Awareness of Breathing, in order

to succeed in the practice of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness” (Hanh,

1997, p.7). In other words, how can breathing help one to develop mindfulness?

The following description addresses this question:

When the practitioner breaths in or out a long or a short breath,

aware of his breath or his whole body, or aware that he is making

his whole body calm and at peace, he abides peacefully in the

observation of the body in the body, persevering, fully awake,

clearly understanding his state, gone beyond all attachment and

aversion to this life. These exercises of breathing with Full

53


Awareness belong to the first Establishment of Mindfulness, the

body (Hanh, 1997, p.7).

As described in the passage above, an important element in the development of

mindfulness is the practice of self-observation with an attitude/effort of non-

judgment and non-reactivity – or as the passage describes, “he abides peacefully

in the observation of the body in the body”. The present study interprets

‘peaceful observation’ as observation with an attitude/effort of non-judgment and

non-reactivity, both of which can be considered aspects of acceptance. The theme

of acceptance can be further found in this statement of the passage: “gone beyond

all attachment and aversion to this life”. The present study interprets the

transcending of attachment and aversion as the acceptance of one’s internal and

external conditions. Cultivating an acceptance of one’s condition is an integral

component of not only the TCMM, but also several modern

mindfulness/acceptance-based clinical interventions, such as the Mindfulness-

Based Stress Reduction program, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy,

Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, and

Relapse Prevention Therapy.

In summary, the Sutra on the full Awareness of Breathing, and the Sutra

on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness can be understood as expounding two

main components as essential to establishing mindfulness: (1) the full awareness

of breathing, and (2) self-observation. According to Hanh (2006), “The first step

is awareness of that object, and the second step is looking deeply at the object to

54


shed light on it. Therefore, mindfulness means awareness and it also means

looking deeply” (p.9). Here, the first step, “awareness”, is similar to the first

component of the two-component model of mindfulness – the “self-regulation of

attention”. And, “looking deeply” is similar to component two of the TCMM,

“self-observation”. Thus it appears that mindfulness as understood in the

Theravada Buddhist tradition by Buddhist scholar Thich Nhat Hanh, is very

similar to mindfulness as understood by contemporary western academia.

The Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program

The most widely cited method of mindfulness training is the Mindfulness-

Based Stress Reduction Program (MBSR), established in 1979 by Dr. Jon Kabat-

Zinn at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. It is estimated that well

over 240 hospitals around the world offer clinical interventions based on the

MBSR program (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). In fact, in the province of Ontario, the

MBSR course is covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), and the

program is led by physicians at various hospital (North York General Hospital,

2009).

MBSR is an 8-week, structured, mindfulness meditation program. The

program is delivered in a group setting, consisting of eight weekly sessions, each

2.5 hous in length, and one full-day retreat. During these sessions, state- and trait-

mindfulness are explored through breathing awareness, body scans, hatha yoga

postures, and discussions. The program also requires participants to commit to

daily 45-minute homework assignments requiring the application of mindfulness

55


to everyday situations. A meta-analysis conducted by Grossman and others (2004)

found the following characteristics to be important elements in cultivating

mindfulness under the MBSR program: (a) purposeful awareness of the present

moment; (b) non-deliberative awareness of physical sensations, perceptions,

affective states, thoughts, and imagery; (c) dispassionate, non-evaluative,

naturalistic observation; (d) focusing the breath, the mind, and regulating the

autonomic nervous system; (e) and increasing self-awareness. Bishop and others

(2004) stress however that mindfulness training is not a relaxation or mood

management technique, but rather, “a form of mental training to reduce cognitive

vulnerability to reactive modes of mind that might otherwise heighten stress and

emotional distress, or that may otherwise perpetuate psychopathology” (p. 6).

Moreover, the program is secular and non-esoteric in nature; according to Kabat-

Zinn (2005), “Although mindfulness has been described as the ‘heart of Buddhist

meditation’, being mindful is considered an innate human capacity that is

universal, secular, and compatible with nearly every major world religion”

(Didonna, 2008, p.177). The major clinical applications of this program were

discussed in the Mindfulness and Health section.

Another clinical intervention that is based on mindfulness training is

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). MBCT is also an 8-week group

intervention that was designed primarily to help in preventing the relapse of major

depressive episodes (Baer, 2003). One of the common elements that this program

shares with MBSR is its emphasis on a detached, non-reactive and non-

56


judgmental view of one’s cognitions, emotions, perceptions, and bodily

sensations. The purpose of this practice is the recognition that your thoughts are

transient events and do not reflect objective, permanent reflections of reality

(Baer, 2003). This practice is thought to help stop negative autobiographical

thought, self-defeating thought patterns, obsessive thinking, and ruminating

tendencies before they evolve into the relapse of a depressive episode (Baer,

2003). Other clinical interventions that incorporate mindfulness training are:

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) which is commonly used in the treatment of

borderline personality disorder; Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT);

and Relapse Prevention to aid in the treatment of substance abuse (Baer, 2003).

Defining Mindfulness

As mindfulness was integrated into therapeutic applications in the West, it

took on additional defining qualities. Jon Kabat-Zinn (1990), the founder of one

of the first mindfulness-based clinical health programs in the West stressed the

qualities of non-judgment, acceptance, and compassion, as integral components of

mindfulness. He later defined mindfulness as, “the awareness that emerges

through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-

judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment to moment” (Kabat-Zinn,

2003, p.145). Other clinicians in the field of psychology have defined it as, “self-

regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby

allowing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment, and

adopting a particular orientation toward one’s experience that is characterized by

57


curiosity, openness, and acceptance” (Bishop et al., 2004, p.9). In other words,

our minds construct our experience moment-by-moment; and, the various

contents of our mind (i.e.: our perceptions, emotions, cognitions) often determine

the quality of our conscious experience; in this regard, mindfulness is a skill that

can be used to optimize one’s moment-to-moment conscious experience.

As a cognitive process, mindfulness is often described as a “bottom-up”

rather than “top-down” functioning of the mind. According to Didonna (2008),

mindfulness is considered a “bottom-up” process because one focuses their

attention one-mindedly on sensory data, in a non-judgmental and non-reactive

manner, instead of viewing the internal and external world through a “top-down”

process whereby we interpret sensory data through higher-order, preconceived

judgments and labels, or as experienced through our minds narrative stories. In

some respects, mindfulness has been considered a much more primitive

expression of consciousness as opposed to higher-order thinking. Although

primitive in its manifestation, mindfulness allows one to experience the present

moment much more effectively, whereas personal narrative, ruminations, and

self-defeating thought patterns, which are much more complex in terms of

cognition, can become an immense burden on one’s mind and ultimately

negatively affect the quality of their conscious experience of life.

The Neurobiology of Mindfulness

It is believed that humans have two or more neural modes for experiencing

and interpreting the world (Farb et al., 2007). One of these neural networks has

58


been characterized as our self-reference or self-awareness mental state, and has

been isolated to the medial prefrontal cortex [mPFC] (Farb et al, 2007).

According to Farb and others (2007), it is in this region that we store memories of

self-traits, traits of similar others, reflected self-knowledge, and aspirations for the

future. It is the mPFC that is responsible for maintaining (i.e.: continually

updating) the identity of oneself across time. It is also believed however, that we

can experience the self outside of this narrative, in the present moment. Farb and

others (2007) refer to these two distinct modes of awareness as: narrative self-

reference or narrative focus (NF), and momentary self-reference or experiential

focus (EF).

NF manifests as cognitive elaboration of mental events or “getting caught

up in a train of thoughts”, which may result in ruminating thoughts about the self.

EF manifests as an inhibition of cognitive elaboration or the disengagement of

attentional processes of self-referential elaboration, in favor of a more open,

curious, accepting awareness of thoughts, emotions, and feelings as they arise and

depart, awareness of these thoughts and emotions without purpose or goal,

without rumination or focus on any one thought/emotion, and awareness of

present sensory experience without focus on any one sensation (Farb et al., 2007).

Farb and others (2007) tested for the existence of these distinct neural

networks. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group 1

(MT) (N=20) was enrolled in the mindfulness-based stress reduction program

(MBSR). Group 2 (Novice) (N=16) did not partake in the MBSR program.

59


Participants were then trained on the difference between narrative-focus (NF) and

experiential-focus (EF), given multiple examples of each mental state, and only

after being tested for comprehension on these states were they allowed to proceed

with the experiment. Both groups were asked to engage in each of these mental

states while being scanned by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The results of the experiment indicated that both the MT and novice

groups showed pronounced recruitment of the mPFC (responsible for many self-

reference mental activities and maintaining the identity of oneself across time),

and the posterior cingulated left hemisphere language areas during NF

engagement (Farb et al., 2007). This indicates that NF strongly activates areas of

the brain involved in higher-order and linguistic activities. It is believed that most

people reside in this automatic “default” mind state (Farb et al., 2007). Part of

mindfulness training however, is aimed at breaking away from labeling concepts

and objects (i.e. activating these linguistic areas of the brain) and viewing these

concepts and objects from an objective standpoint. In terms of the experiential-

focus (EF) mind state, both MT and novice groups showed reductions in mPFC

activation during an induced EF mind state. In particular, the MT group showed

significant reduction in mPFC activation, as well as increased engagement of the

lateral PFC (lPFC) and viscerosomatic areas while engaged in an EF mind state

(Farb et al.,2007). Farb and others (2007) also noted that novices are not able to

separate NF and EF modes of self-awareness because they unknowingly,

habitually couple viscerosomatic and linguistic neural networks. Therefore,

60


novices are thought to experience viscerosomatic activity through the lens of

language. In other words, these individuals may be experiencing the sensory

world through the lens of their narrative mind. This will undoubtedly distort and

reduce the quality of their interpretation of the true physical and sensory world. In

contrast, those trained in mindfulness are able to tease apart these mind states and

select at will, which is most appropriate for the particular circumstances. This was

shown in the study by the uncoupling of viscerosomatic and mPFC neural

networks in the MT group. Therefore, those that can uncouple these neural

networks and experience the world through a more present-centered awareness

via the LPFC and viscerosomatic neural networks, may experience a more

objective, “self-detached” awareness of their internal and external environment.

This mechanism is similar to that in which individuals can separate the neural

networks that code for the affective and sensory components of pain.

These results confirmed the prediction of Farb and others (2007) as well as

many other researchers, that humans possess more than one stream of awareness

(Siegel, 2007). We all possess a primary-sensing awareness, as well as a narrative

meaning-making stream of awareness. Other researchers claim that we even

possess an observational stream and a non-conceptual stream of awareness

(Siegel, 2007). This suggests that there are many, potentially more effective and

efficient, means for integrating and interpreting data from our internal and

external environment.

61


Measuring Mindfulness: The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is a 39-item self-

report measure that was developed by Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, and

Toney (2006) by integrating items from five previously developed mindfulness

questionnaires: the MAAS, FMI, KIMS, CAMS and MQ. The five self-report

questionnaires represent attempts made by independent researchers to

operationalize mindfulness. Due to varying operationalizations of mindfulness in

the literature, progress in understanding the construct of mindfulness has been

slow (Bishop et al., 2004). In an attempt to correct this flaw, Baer and others

(2006) empirically examined the following five mindfulness questionnaires

described below:

The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale

In this instrument, mindfulness is operationalized as being attentive to and

aware of present-moment experience (Baer et al., 2006). According to Baer et al.

(2006), “the MAAS was significantly positively correlated with openness to

experience, emotional intelligence, and well-being; and negatively correlated with

rumination and social anxiety”.

The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

In this instrument, mindfulness is operationalized as non-judgmental

awareness of the present moment, and was designed primarily to measure

mindfulness in experienced meditators (Baer et al., 2006).

62


The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills

In this instrument, mindfulness is operationalized as a 4-factor construct:

observing, describing, acting with awareness, and accepting without judgment.

All are considered components of a multi-faceted mindfulness construct (Baer et

al., 2006). Each component is measured as a subcomponent on the assessment.

The Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale

In this instrument, mindfulness is operationalized as attention, awareness,

acceptance, and non-judgment of one’s thoughts and feelings in the present

moment (Baer et al., 2006). These various components are not measured

separately, but as a total score (Baer et al., 2006). According to Baer and others

(2006) the CAMS is negatively correlated with experiential avoidance, thought

suppression, rumination, worry, depression, and anxiety; and positively correlated

with clarity of feelings, mood repair, cognitive flexibility, and well-being.

The Mindfulness Questionnaire

In this instrument, mindfulness is operationalized as mindful observation,

letting go, non-aversion, and non-judgment (Baer et al., 2006). These various

components are measured as a total score (Baer et al., 2006).

Baer and others (2006) subjected the five questionnaires to internal

consistency and correlation tests. The results showed good internal consistency in

all five questionnaires, and all instruments were significantly positively correlated

with each other (Baer et al., 2006). This demonstrates that all 5 questionnaires are

psychometrically sound instruments for measuring mindfulness. Furthermore, all

63


five mindfulness questionnaires were found to be positively correlated with

meditation experience, emotional intelligence, self-compassion, and openness to

experience (the MQ scale and openness to experience were not statistically

significant scores). In addition, all five mindfulness measures were found to be

negatively correlated with psychological symptoms, neuroticism, thought

suppression, difficulties in emotional regulation, alexithymia, dissociation,

experiential avoidance, and absent-mindedness. However, the correlation between

these psychological constructs and the 5 mindfulness questionnaires varied

widely. For instance, some measured emotional intelligence more strongly than

others. The same variation in correlations was found in most measures. Baer and

others (2006) understood this observation to mean that mindfulness may be more

accurately conceptualized as a multifaceted construct. To test this theory, the data

from Part 1 (a combined item pool of 112 items from all five mindfulness

questionnaires, and the responses to these questionnaires from the 613

participants) was combined into a single data set and subjected to exploratory

factor analyses (EFA). The results revealed that, “five distinct facets are

represented within the currently available mindfulness questionnaires” (Baer et

al., 2006, p.42). To create the FFMQ, the seven or eight items with the highest

loadings on their respective factors and low loadings on all other factors, were

selected for each facet. These facets were described as: non-reactivity to inner

experience, labeling and describing with words the internal world, acting with

awareness, non-judging of experience, and self-observation. According to Baer

64


and others (2006), “the FFMQ is the only one that addresses all five of the

mindfulness facets identified in this project” (p.43). Items are rated on a 5-point

scale ranging from “never or very rarely true” to “very often or always true”.

Recent findings support the use of the FFMQ to measure facets of

mindfulness separately. In one study, 174 individuals were scored on the FFMQ

pre- and post- mindfulness-based training via the MBSR program (Carmody &

Baer, 2008). The results demonstrated a significant increase in scores on all five

facets of mindfulness.

Relevance of the FFMQ to the Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM)

The present study suggests that the TCMM and the FFMQ are congruent

in their operationalizations of mindfulness. In other words, the present study

suggests that the five facets represented within the FFMQ are measuring

components of the TCMM. Therefore, the present study assumes that the FFMQ

is the most appropriate assessment of mindfulness for the context of this study.

Items that represent the awareness facet of the FFMQ include questions

such as, “When I do things my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted” and “I

do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing”. These and

other similar items representing the awareness facet within the FFMQ are

congruent with the elements of component 1 of the TCMM, namely: the

inhibition of secondary elaborative processing skills, sustained attention skills,

and attention switching skills. In other words, if an individual reports that their

mind very rarely wanders during activities, and that they can remain focused on

65


tasks once they start, then it can be assumed that the individual is likely proficient

at inhibiting secondary elaborative processes, and/or sustaining attention, and/or

attention switching. Therefore the present study assumes that items representing

the awareness facet of the FFMQ are congruent with the ‘self-regulation of

attention’ component of the TCMM.

Items representing the non-reactivity facet within the FFMQ include, “ In

difficult situations, I can pause without immediately reacting” and “When I have

distressing thoughts or images, I step back and am aware of the thought or image

without getting taken over by it”. These and other items representing the non-

reactivity facet appear to be measuring what Bishop and others (2004) refer to as

“introducing a ‘space’ between one’s perceptions and response” and “responding

to situations more reflectively as opposed to reflexively”, when describing aspects

of self-observation from component 2 of the TCMM.

Items representing the describing facet within the FFMQ include

questions such as, “ I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings”, and

“Even when I’m terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words”. These and

other items representing the describing facet appear to be measuring the analytical

and investigative skills associated with the self-observation component of the

TCMM. For instance, by being able to describe one’s feelings and put them into

their proper context, one can be said to have the ability – as the TCMM describes

– to categorize or classify more appropriately the nature of one’s experience, tease

apart the various elements of the experience (i.e.: between thoughts, emotions,

66


sensations), and also make connections about how and why the various elements

of the experience arise.

Items that represent the self-observation facet within the FFMQ include

questions such as, “I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and

behavior” and “I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on

my face”. These and other items representing the self-observation facet appear to

be measuring aspects of ‘investigative awareness’ and ‘self-observation’ as

described by component two of the TCMM.

Finally, items that represent the non-judging facet within the FFMQ

include questions such as, “I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas”

and “I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and that I shouldn’t

feel them”. These and other items representing the non-judging facet appear to be

measuring aspects of acceptance, openness, and curiosity, as defined by the

TCMM. For instance, the TCMM predicts that by allowing whatever arises in the

mind to be observed with curiosity, and to not try to control one’s thoughts,

emotions, perceptions, or sensations, one has taken a stance of acceptance; and it

is with an orientation towards acceptance that one can begin to experience their

reality without being quick to label or judge an experience. The result of this

behavior may be considered cognitive flexibility, or, an openness to multiple

perspectives or possibilities. However, if one is quick to label or judge their

experience – as in the two questions above – then it is likely that they are not

67


observing their thoughts and emotions with an attitude of acceptance and

openness.

Therefore, the present study suggests that component one of the TCMM is

congruent with the awareness facet of the FFMQ, and that the various elements

that compose component two of the TCMM (i.e.: curiosity, openness, acceptance,

self-observation) are congruent with the following four facets of the FFMQ: non-

reactivity to internal experience, describing/labeling with words the internal

world, self-observation, and non-judging of internal experience. Therefore, the

present study suggests that the five facets represented within the FFMQ are

measuring components of the TCMM. Therefore, the present study assumes that

the FFMQ is the most appropriate assessment of mindfulness for the context of

this study.

What are Bullying and Victimization?

It is estimated that 2, 027, 254 youth in the United States are involved in

moderate bullying and 1, 681, 030 youth in frequent bullying. Furthermore, it is

estimated that 1, 634, 095 US youth are victimized with moderate frequency, and

1, 611, 809 victimized frequently. In addition, it is estimated that 5, 736, 417

identify as being both a bully and a victim (Nansel et al., 2001). Other studies

estimate worldwide prevalence of bullying and victimization at 30% of the total

student population (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009).

Bullying can affect a students’ physical and psychological health, their

social adaptation and development, as well as their academic achievement (Gini

68


& Pozzoli, 2009). The literature describes three types of children and adolescents

as being affected by bullying behavior in school: the bully, the victim, and the

bully-victim (i.e. those who are both a perpetrator and a victim of bullying).

Bullying has been defined in the literature as possessing the following three

characteristics: (1) abusive and usually unprovoked aggressive behavior (verbal,

physical, psychological) intended to harm or disturb; (2) behavior that occurs

repeatedly over time; and (3) as an imbalance of power (physical and/or

psychological) (Nansel et al., 2001; Swearer et al., 2001). It is important to note

that bullying can take the form of direct and indirect aggression and is made up of

three types. According to Crick and others (2001), these types are:

(1) Physical bullying and victimization involves behaviors where the

perpetrator directly physically attacks the victim by way of punching,

hitting and/or stealing money from the victim;

(2) Verbal bullying and victimization refers to direct or indirect comments

aimed at the victim. Verbal bullying is intended for the effect of

intimidation, humor and/or humiliation of the victim among the peer

group, and can include behaviors such as making rude remarks, jokes,

threats and name-calling about the victim, and

(3) Social bullying and victimization, is a form of indirect aggression, which

involves psychological harm and can take the form of rumor spreading,

and/or social exclusion within the peer group (as cited by Finger, Marsh,

Craven, & Parada, n.d., p.1).

69


According to Finger, Marsh, Craven, and Parada (n.d.), measuring these

three types of bullying and victimization are important because many studies

suggests the existence of these three types of bullying and victimization. The

instrument used in the present study – the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument –

does measure these three types of bullying and victimization. In fact, according to

Marsh and others (2004), “the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument is the only

bullying and victimization instrument that the authors are aware of which has

been empirically supported as a robust measure of bullying and victimization, in

addition to a measure of all 3 types of behavior” (as cited by Finger et al., n.d.,

p.3).

Measuring the Frequency of Bullying Behaviors and Victimization Experiences:

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI)

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) was developed by

Parada (2000) to measure specifically 3 types of bullying behaviors and 3 types of

victimization experiences, as well as to generate total-bullying and total-

victimization scores. A high score in these subscales indicates frequent bullying

behavior and frequent experiences of victimization. On the other hand, low scores

indicate bullying or victimization that is not as frequent (Finger et al., n.d.). The

questionnaire is divided into two sections: Section A measures the frequency of

bullying behaviors and Section B measures the frequency of victimization

experiences.

70


Section A is an 18-item self-report measure with 3 subscales assessing the

frequency of physical, verbal, and social bullying as the perpetrator. All items

begin with the statement, “In the past year at this school I…” Examples of

physical bullying items include: “crashed into a student on purpose as they

walked by”. Examples of verbal bullying items include: “picked on a student by

swearing at them”. Examples of social bullying items include: “got my friends to

turn against a student”.

Section B is an 18-item self-report measure with 3 subscales assessing the

frequency of physical, verbal, and social bullying as the victim. All items begin

with the statement. “In the past year at this school…” Examples of physical

victimization items include “I was pushed or shoved”. Examples of verbal

victimization items include, “jokes were made about me”. Examples of social

victimization items include, “A student got students to start a rumor about me”.

All items are rated on a 6-point scale ranging from “never” to “everyday”.

The APRI was developed for youth aged 12-17 years. One study showed the

reliability of the 3-factor structure for bully and victim subscales ranged from .83

to .92, and the reliability of total bully and total victim scores were .93, .95

respectively (Finger et al., n.d.). According to Marsh et al., (2004) confirmatory

factor analysis and reliability psychometric evaluations of the bullying and

victimization APRI scales with a sample of approximately 4000 students in

grades 7 to 11 from 8 high school in Australia, showed support for the first-order

a priori 6-factor structure (i.e.: three types of bullying and victimization: physical,

71


verbal, social), and a higher order a priori 2-factor structure for total bullying and

victimization (i.e.: bully, victim)(Finger et al., n.d.).

One study compared the APRI scale to three of the most well-known

bullying/victimization instruments. The study looked at three important

methodological concerns: (1) utilizing uni-dimensional approaches to assess

multi-dimensional concepts; (2) using instruments that have not been

demonstrated with sound psychometric properties; and (3) dichotomizing

continuous variables (Finger et al., n.d.).

In examining the first methodological issue of using uni-dimensional

approaches to assess multi-dimensional concepts, the authors found that none of

the popular instruments supported the 3-factor structure for types of bullying and

victimization, despite extensive research showing that these three factors do exist

for bullying and victimization. Instead, all three popular instruments use a global

measure of bullying and victimization, with additional separate measures for the

types of bullying and victimization. On the other hand, the APRI uses 18 items to

measure 3 types of bullying and victimization. This design is supported by a study

done by Marsh and others (2004) which found strong factor loadings and

psychometric properties for the APRI (as cited by Finger et al., n.d.).

Furthermore, the APRI can also be used to generate a total (global alternative)

measure of bullying and victimization (Finger et al., n.d.).

In examining the second methodological issue of using instruments

without demonstrated sound psychometric properties, the authors point to the

72


problem of the popular instruments using inconsistent response scales to measure

global scales and subscale scores. For instance, the Rigby and Slee Peer Relations

Questionnaire measures global items on a prevalence response scale using

specified time periods (i.e.: ‘weekly’) yet the subscale items are measured on a

subjective frequency scale (i.e.: ‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’) (Finger et al., n.d.).

Alternatively, the APRI uses a 6-point prevalence response scale using specified

time periods (‘never’ to ‘everyday’) for all types of bullying and victimization,

and therefore total scores and subscale score are measured on the same response

scale and matched on the same time period (Finger et al., n.d.).

In examining the third methodological issue, the authors note that

dichotomization is often used in other popular instruments. The authors point to

other research which has shown that the,

… dichotomization of continuous and quantitative variables leads

to: (a) loss of effect size and statistical significance; (b) distortion

of effects; (c) the potential of researchers to overlook non-linear

relationships; and (d) differences between variables that existed

prior to dichotomization are considered as equal when

dichotomized (Finger et al., n.d., p.4).

Therefore, when data analyzing bullying and victimization is dichotomized,

children are unavoidably categorized, as opposed to the behavior, into a bully,

victim, or non-involved group. For instance, the Salmivalli Participant Role

Questionnaire uses cut-off scores to classify students into participant roles: bully,

73


assistant, reinforcer, defender, outsider, no clear role and victim. Conversely, the

APRI scale does not advocate dichotomization of variables and the scale can be

used without the use of cut-off scores (Finger et al., n.d.).

Therefore, the work conducted by Finger and others (n.d) demonstrated

that the APRI scale is the only instrument in comparison to the most well-known

measures, which has overcome the following methodological concerns: (a)

utilizing uni-dimensional approaches to assess multi-dimensional concepts; (b)

using measurement instruments which have not been demonstrated with sound

pscyhometric properties; and (c) dichotomizing continuous variables. Thus,

according to Finger and others (n.d.), “the APRI is a psychometrically robust

instrument which consistently measures the 3 types of bullying and victimization

while also calculating the total bully/total victim score” (p.6).

Summary

The chapter began with a comparison of the benefits of mindfulness with

the harmful effects of bullying and victimization. When bullying and mindfulness

are compared in terms of their effects on physical health, psychosocial health and

development, and education, it appears as though aspects of mindfulness may be

negatively associated with aspects of bullying and victimization. In particular, it

appears as though mindfulness skills may act as protective factors against the

harmful effects of bullying and victimization. To understand how mindfulness

skills might act as protective factors against the harmful effects of bullying and

victimization, the concept of mindfulness was discussed at length. Included was a

74


discussion of its origins in Buddhist meditation traditions, its therapeutic

applications in clinical settings in the West, current definitions, and how it is

currently understood in contemporary psychology and neurobiology. This review

provides a framework for understanding how mindfulness skills may act as

protective factors against the harmful effects of bullying and victimization in

schools. As a preliminary step to investigating the relationship between

mindfulness, bullying, and victimization, the aim of the present study was to

conduct a correlational analysis between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences

in a sample of high school students. As was discussed in this chapter, the

correlational analysis will be accomplished by administering the FFMQ, which

assesses mindfulness, and the APRI, which measures the frequency of bullying

behaviors and victimization experiences. The procedure for the collection and

treatment of this data will be outlined in the following chapter.

75


CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine relations between mindfulness

and frequency of bullying behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of

victimization experiences in a sample of high school students. The Five Facet



rank order correlations (rho). Correlations of the total and subscale scores of the

FFMQ with the total and subscale scores of Section A of the APRI were used to

examine relations between mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors.

Correlations of the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ with the total and

subscale scores of Section B of the APRI were used to examine relations between

mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences.

This chapter presents information on the setting, the population and

sample, the protection of human rights, the assessment tools, as well as the

procedure for the collection and analysis of the data.

76


Setting

The setting for the study was a public high school located in northern

Ontario. The school draws its students from a number of surrounding small towns

and First Nations communities. The high school offers English language

programs from Grades 9 through 12. Consent letters were sent home with 105

students, with 66 students from 6 different classes returning signed consent

letters. Those students that volunteered to participate and had parental consent

were given the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire and the Adolescent Peer

Relations Instrument. Those students that did not have consent were given an

interest survey. Classes were tested on different days during the month of

November 2011, in their regular classrooms, and at their own desks.

Population and Sample

This study used a convenience sample. The population for this study

consisted of the 616 students in grades 9 through 12 that attended this public high

school in northern Ontario. The sample for this study consisted of the 66 students

who agreed to participate, had parental consent, and completed the Five Facet


Instrument (APRI). The sample of 66 students was drawn from six different

classes, including two grade 9 classes, two grade 10 classes, and two grade 11

classes.

77


Protection of Human Rights

The study involved the administration of two assessments that relate to the

behavior and characteristics of individuals, including: the Five Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire (FFMQ) to assess mindfulness, and the Adolescent Peer Relations

Instrument (APRI) to assess frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences. The researcher did not manipulate subjects’ behavior and the

research did not involve stress to subjects. Furthermore, the subjects were not

exposed to any physical or psychological risks, nor were they exposed to any

physical discomfort. For these reasons, the researcher applied for an expedited

review application with the D’Youville College Institutional Review Board (IRB).

The IRB subsequently granted full approval with respect to the protection of

human subjects.

The subjects were protected from coercion during the recruitment and

research process because the researcher, who has no previous relationship with

the students, recruited subjects as opposed to the principal or teacher. To ensure

protection from coercion, the researcher was the first and only individual to

approach the students about the research and offer them the chance to participate.

The researcher did this by visiting the classrooms, reading the assent form, and

answering questions. Therefore, this prevented students from feeling compelled or

obligated to participate because their principal, teacher, or parent(s) asked them to

be subjects in the study. Furthermore, throughout this process the subjects were

not exposed to any deception. The researcher distributed to each student the

78


subject assent and parental consent forms. The researcher instructed those

students that were interested in participating in the study to sign the assent form

and have a parent or legal guardian sign the consent form, and return both signed

documents to the teacher in a sealed envelope with the researchers name on it.

Because the subjects were under the age of 18, voluntary informed

consent was required from a parent or legal guardian. A letter was sent home with

those students that wanted to participate. This letter explained the research topic

and the purpose of the research. Furthermore, the letter informed parents: (a) that

the duration of the study would be approximately 30 minutes; (b) of the

procedures that would be followed, including a brief explanation of the two

assessment tools; (c) that there would be no risk to their child; (d) that subjects’

data will remain confidential (i.e. names with corresponding codes will ensure

that students do not know who received the assessment and who received an

alternative activity, and that only the investigator will have access to this list) until

data collection, at which time data will become anonymous (i.e. list of names with

corresponding codes will be destroyed upon completion of data collection); (e)

that the results from this study may be used to develop an intervention against the

harmful effects of bullying and victimization; (f) that participation was voluntary

and refusal to participate would involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which

subjects were otherwise entitled; (g) that subjects would have the right to

withdraw their consent by contacting the researcher prior to data collection; and

(h) that they could obtain a copy of the results of the study by putting their

79


address on the reverse side of the consent form. Furthermore, the letter provided

the name and telephone number of the thesis director, Dr. Helen Kress, whom

they could contact if they had questions concerning the research, or their child’s

rights as a research subject. The students whom did not have a signed parental

consent form, nor a signed assent form, were given an interest survey.

Subjects’ data remained confidential until data was fully collected, at

which time data became anonymous (i.e. the list of names with associated number

codes was destroyed). See Data Collection Methods for more information on how

subjects’ data will remain confidential. Subjects’ data will be securely stored in a

locked desk at the researcher’s house for 6 years.

Data Collection Methods

Upon being granted full approval by the D’Youville College IRB, the

researcher contacted the principal of the high school by email to request

permission to conduct a study at the school. Following preliminary approval, the

researcher then wrote a formal letter to the principal explaining the nature of the

research project and the purpose for conducting the study. The researcher also

mailed the following items to the principal: (a) a copy of the data collection

methods, (b) a copy of the assessments used in the study, (c) a sample of the

consent letters to be sent to the parents, (d) a sample of the assent forms to be read

to and signed by students, and (e) a copy of the Institutional Review Board

approval letter from D’Youville College.

80


Upon receiving formal approval from the school’s principal, the researcher

was ready to begin recruiting subjects for the study. At a staff meeting, the

researcher introduced himself to the school’s teachers, and explained the nature of

the research project, the purpose for conducting the study, the protection of

human rights, and the data collection procedure. The researcher then asked if any

teachers would like to volunteer their class for the study. If a teacher was

interested in volunteering their class, they were instructed to contact the

researcher by email. The teachers were also instructed to not discuss any aspect of

the study with their class in order to protect students from coercion. After one

week, the researcher received requests from six teachers interested in volunteering

their class for the research, including, two grade 9 classes, two grade 10 classes,

and two grade 11 classes.

Moving forward, the researcher then organized two dates that were

convenient for each teacher, in order to: (a) meet with the class to discuss the

research and hand out student assent and parental consent forms, and, (b)

administer the questionnaires. All dates were set for the month of November

2011. On the date that the researcher first met with a class, he took ten minutes to

explain the nature, purpose, and procedure of the research, and to answer

questions related to the protection of human rights, confidentiality, and

anonymity. Specifically, the investigator explained that the questionnaires

included questions about their experiences at school and how they think in their

day-to-day life (see Appendix A and C). The investigator explained that

81


participation in the study was completely voluntary, and that those students who

did not wish to participate or whose parents did not give consent would not be

penalized or at a loss of benefit to which they were otherwise entitled, and would

be given an interest questionnaire instead (see Appendix J). The investigator also

assured students that nobody would know who was writing the research

questionnaire, and who was writing the interest survey. In other words, students

were assured that their willingness or non-willingness to participate in the study

would remain confidential. The investigator explained that this would be done by

not putting their names on the booklets; but instead, that matching code numbers

would be placed by the investigator on each booklet. The students were told that a

list comprised of the students’ names and code numbers would be used so that the

research questionnaire and the interest survey would be given to the appropriate

students. The researcher assured the students that he would destroy this list

immediately following the collection of data. The investigator pointed out that

this would ensure that their answers to the questionnaires would remain

anonymous. Finally, the researcher then distributed assent (see Appendix H) and

parental consent forms (see Appendix G) to the students. The students were told

that if they wished to participate in the study, they would have to first circle “yes”

on the subject assent form, then have their parent of legal guardian sign the

parental consent form. If a student did not wish to participate, they were told to

circle “no” on the subject assent form. In both cases, students were instructed to

82


return their assent and parental consent forms in a sealed envelope to their teacher

within one week.

After one week, the researcher met with the teacher to collect the

envelopes and a class list. The researcher then determined which students were

writing the research questionnaire, and which were writing the interest survey.

Booklets containing the research questionnaire were prepared and codified for

those students who circled “yes” on the assent form and had a signed parental

consent form. Booklets containing the interest survey were prepared and codified

for those students who either circled “no” on the assent form or who did not

return a signed parental consent form. The codes were written beside the

corresponding student name on the class list. The tests were then ready to be

administered.

On the day of the test, a standardized script was read to the students (see

Appendix I) followed by written directions for completing the assessments (see

instructions on Appendices A, C, and J). A booklet with only a code on the cover

sheet, and containing either the research questionnaire or the interest survey, was

given to the appropriate student according to the codified student list.

The students were reminded not to put their names on the booklets. The students

were told that they would have approximately 30 minutes to complete the

questionnaire. All students were able to complete the questionnaire in that time

frame. During that time, the researcher made himself available to answer

questions while the students were completing the assessments. Students were

83


instructed to raise their hand once they were finished, and the researcher would

collect their booklet. After collecting all the booklets, the researcher thanked the

students and the teacher for their participation. Furthermore, the researcher

debriefed that class by detailing instructions for contacting the school counselor

or principal in case of any psychological discomfort from participating in the

study, or to report incidences of bullying. Finally, immediately following the

collection of data, the researcher destroyed the codified class list.

Tools

The instruments used in this study were the: the Five Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer et al., 2006) to assess mindfulness; and the

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) (Parada, 2000) to assess frequency

of bullying behaviors and frequency of victimization experiences.

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

The FFMQ was used to assess mindfulness. The FFMQ is a 39-item self-

report measure of mindfulness. According to Baer and others (2008), “the

assessment of complex constructs at the facet level is essential for clarifying their

relationship with other variables” (p.330). Therefore, the FFMQ was primarily

selected because of its ability to measure mindfulness at the facet level. This is

particularly relevant to the present study because a more comprehensive and

detailed assessment of mindfulness allowed for a more sensitive detection of

potential relationships between aspects of mindfulness and bullying/victimization.

Furthermore, granular data from the FFMQ may help isolate specific facets of

84


mindfulness that are more successful than other facets at reducing the frequency

of bullying behaviors and/or victimization experiences. This data may then be

used to develop a mindfulness-based skills training course tailored specifically to

reducing the frequency of bullying behaviors and/or victimization experiences.

The FFMQ has been shown to have satisfactory to good internal consistency, with

alpha coefficients ranging from .75 to .91 (Baer et al., 2006). Further studies

confirm this, with alpha coefficients ranging from .72 to .92 (Baer et al., 2008).

Additionally, all five instruments from which the items of the FFMQ were taken

are significantly correlated with the FFMQ. Furthermore, mediation, regression,

and confirmatory factor analyses have reinforced the validity of the FFMQ (Baer

et al., 2006; Baer et al., 2008). Other studies show test-retest reliability of the

FFMQ to be good to excellent (Veehof, Klooster, Taal, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer

2011). Overall, these studies demonstrate that the FFMQ is a reliable and valid

measure for assessing mindfulness.

The FFMQ consists of five subscales that are defined as follows:

(a) Observing includes noticing or attending to internal and external experiences,

such as sensations, cognitions, emotions, sights, sounds, and smells; (b)

Describing refers to labeling internal experiences with words; (c) Acting with

awareness includes attending to one’s activities of the moment and can be

contrasted with behaving mechanically while attention is focused elsewhere

(often called automatic pilot); (d) Non-judging of inner experience refers to

taking a non-evaluative stance toward thoughts and feelings; and (e) Non-

85


reactivity to inner experience is the tendency to allow thoughts and feelings to

come and go, without getting caught up in or carried away by them (Baer et al.,

2008, p.330).

Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “never or very

rarely true” (1 point) to “very often or always true” (5 points).

Items are stated as positive or negative statements. An example of a

positive statement is, “I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings”.

An example of a negative statement is, “I criticize myself for having

irrational or inappropriate emotions”. For scoring negative items the scale

must be reversed. In other words, a subject that records a 5 on the negative

item would be scored as a 1, a 4 would be scored as a 2, a 3 as a 3, a 4 as a

2, and a 1 as a 5. Negative items are marked in appendix B (Scoring the

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire) and below by the letter R. Items 1,

6, 11, 15, 20, 26, 31, and 36 measure Observing. Items 2, 7, 12R, 16R,

22R, 27, 32, and 37 measure Describing. Items 5R, 8R, 13R, 18R, 23R,

28R, 34R, and 38R measure Acting with Awareness. Items 3R, 10R, 14R,

17R, 25R, 30R, 35R, and 39R measure Non-judging of inner experience.

And, items 4, 9, 19, 21, 24, 29, and 33 measure Non-reactivity to inner

experience.

Scoring is achieved by adding the items up for a subscale or total

score. For instance, say subject 1 records the following scores for the

Describe items on the FFMQ: a 5 on item 2, a 3 on item 7, a 4 on item

86


12R, a 1 on item 16R, a 3 on item 22R, a 5 on item 27, a 2 on item 32, and

a 1 on item 37. The Describe subscale score for subject 1 would be: 5 + 3

+ 2 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 2 + 1 = 26. This score would be entered into the Excel

worksheet under Describe for subject 1. The same process is applied for

each of the five subscales. To obtain a total mindfulness score, the scores

from all five subscales are summated. This process is repeated for each

subject. An explanation of how the FFMQ was developed, and a

description of its relation to the present study can be found in Chapter II,

Measuring Mindfulness: The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire.

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument

Section A of the APRI will be used to assess the frequency of

bullying behaviors committed by a student in the past year. Section A is an

18-item self-report measure consisting of three subscale scores and a total

score. The Physical bullying subscale assesses the frequency of physical

bullying behaviors committed by the student in the past year. The Verbal

bullying subscale assesses the frequency of verbal bullying behaviors

committed by the student in the past year. And, the Social bullying

subscale assesses the frequency of social bullying behaviors committed by

the student in the past year. All three subscales consist of 6 items each.

Items 2, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 16 assess the frequency of physical bullying

behaviors committed by the student in the past year. Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 10,

and 14 assess the frequency of verbal bullying behaviors committed by the

87


student in the past year. Finally, items 4, 8, 11, 13, 17, and 18 assess the

frequency of social bullying behaviors committed by the student in the

past year. Items are rated on the following 6-point scale: Never;

Sometimes; Once or twice a month; Once a week; Several times a week;

Everyday. Each item is rated with a point value, “Never” having a point

value of “1”, “Sometimes” a point value of “2”, and so-on up to

“Everyday” with a point value of “6”. Scoring is achieved by adding the

items up for a total or subscale score. For instance, say subject 1 records

the following scores for the Physical bullying items on Section A of the

APRI: a 5 on item 2, a 3 on item 6, a 4 on item 9, a 1 on item 12, a 3 on

item 15, and a 5 on item16. The Physical bullying subscale score for

subject 1 would be: 5 + 3 + 4 + 1 + 3 + 5 = 21. This score would be

entered into the Excel worksheet under Physical bullying for subject 1.

The same process is applied for each of the three subscales. To obtain a

total frequency of bullying behaviors score, the scores from all three

subscales are summated. This process is repeated for each subject. A total

score of 18 or a subscale score of 6 means that the respondent has never

bullied or has never bullied in that particular way, respectively.

Section B of the APRI will be used to assess the frequency of

victimization incidences experienced by a student in the past year. Section

B is an 18-item self-report measure consisting of three subscale scores and

a total score. The Physical victimization subscale assesses the frequency of

88


physical victimization incidences experienced by the student in the past

year. The Verbal victimization subscale assesses the frequency of verbal

victimization incidences experienced by the student in the past year. And,

the Social victimization subscale assesses the frequency of social

victimization incidences experienced by the student in the past year. All

three subscales consist of 6 items each. Items 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 16 assess

the frequency of physical victimization incidences experienced by the

student in the past year. Items 1, 4, 7, 11, 13, and 18 assess the frequency

of verbal victimization incidences experienced by the student in the past

year. Finally, items 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 17 assess the frequency of social

victimization incidences experienced by the student in the past year. Items

are rated on the same 6-point scale described above. Furthermore, scoring

is achieved by using the same method outlined above. A total score of 18

or a subscale score of 6 means that the respondent has never been bullied

or has never been bullied in that particular way, respectively.

The APRI is a relatively new instrument and has not been

extensively used or tested for in terms of validity and reliability. However,

one study showed the reliability of the 3-factor structure for bully and

victim subscales ranged from .83 to .92, and the reliability of total bully

and total victim scores were .93, .95 respectively (Finger et al., n.d.).

According to Marsh et al., (2004) confirmatory factor analysis and

reliability psychometric evaluations of the bullying and victimization

89


APRI scales with a sample of approximately 4000 students in grades 7 to

11 from 8 high school in Australia, showed support for the first-order a

priori 6-factor structure (i.e.: three types of bullying and victimization:

physical, verbal, social), and a higher order a priori 2-factor structure for

total bullying and victimization (i.e.: bully, victim) (Finger et al., n.d.).

For a more detailed description of the APRI, studies pertaining to

its reliability and validity, and its relation to the present study see

Measuring the Frequency of Bullying and Victimization: The Adolescent

Peer Relations Instrument in Chapter II.

Treatment of Data

Statistical analysis of data was performed using SPSS. This study met the

criteria for correlational analysis, i.e.: that associations will be examined, that data

will be collected from only one sample, that no experimental treatment will be

involved, and that the sample was not randomly selected. Furthermore, the data

obtained from both the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) is ordinal. With ordinal data, only

the order of scores is relevant, not the distance between scores. In other words,

you cannot quantify the difference between “never or very rarely true” and “very

often or always true”. For example, if subject A records a 5 for “very often or

always true” in response to “I am easily distracted”, this does not indicate that

subject A is exactly five times more frequently distracted than subject B who

selected a 1 for “never or very rarely true” on the same item. The scales used on

90


the FFMQ and the APRI produce ordinal data. Therefore, the researcher

concluded that the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient (rho) was the most

appropriate statistical analysis tool for this study. Furthermore, because the

Spearman test only uses ranks, the affect of outliers is lessened (i.e. a subject with

the highest score receives the same rank whether they scored a 20 or 100).

Data from the Spearman rank order correlation (rho) revealed the nature and

strength of the relationship among and between the variables of the FFMQ and

the APRI. An r value between -1 and +1 was the outcome of the analysis, with the

minus value indicating an inverse relationship and the positive value indicating a

direct relationship. Whether negative or positive, the magnitude of the values

were interpreted according to the following accepted strengths for correlations in

educational research: .20 - .34 weak, .35 - .65 moderate, .66 – 1.0 strong (Gay &

Airasian, 2003). Furthermore, because there has been no previous research

conducted on the relationship between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors and victimization experiences, the researcher cannot predict the

direction of a potential relationship, and will therefore use a two-tailed test.

The FFMQ consists of a total mindfulness score and five subscale scores,

including: (a) non-judging of internal experience subscale; (b) non-reactivity to

internal experience subscale; (c) observing subscale; (d) acting with awareness

subscale; and (e) describing/labeling internal experience subscale. The APRI

consists of two sections: Section A and Section B. Section A consists of a total

frequency of bullying behaviors score, and three subscale scores, including: (a)

91


frequency of physical bullying behaviors subscale score; (b) frequency of verbal

bullying behaviors subscale score; and, (c) frequency of social bullying behaviors

subscale score. Section B consists of a total frequency of victimization

experiences score, and three subscale scores, including: (a) frequency of physical

victimization experiences subscale score; (b) frequency of verbal victimization

experiences subscale score; and (c) frequency of social victimization experiences

subscale score. Spearman rank order correlations (rho) were calculated among

and between all of the aforementioned variables, and a correlation matrix was

produced (see table 2). Additionally, descriptive statistics including minimum and

maximum scores, means, and standard deviations were also calculated (see table

1).

Summary

This chapter presented the procedure for the collection of data for this

study, including: the setting, the population and sample, human rights

protection, data collection methods, tools, and treatment of data.

The study was conducted at a high school in northern Ontario and

consisted of a convenience sample of 66 students. The D’Youville College

IRB granted the study full approval with respect to the protection of human

subjects. In particular, the researcher was careful to protect the students from

coercion, to obtain voluntary informed consent from a parent or legal

guardian, and to ensure that data was kept confidential until it became

anonymous.

92


The researcher collected data in the following sequence: (a) obtained

approval from the principal of the high school; (b) met with the school’s

teachers to recruit classes for the study; (c) met with each class to discuss the

research, answer questions, and distribute assent and consent forms; (d)

collected the submitted assent and parental consent forms from the teachers

after one week; (e) prepared and codified the test booklets; and (f)

administered the test to each class separately, and on different days. Those

students that did not have parental consent were given an interest survey.

Those students who gave assent and who had parental consent, were

administered the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI). Data from these two

questionnaires was entered into an Excel worksheet then transferred to SPSS

for statistical analysis. Because the data was ordinal, it was concluded that a

Spearman rank order test was the most appropriate tool for examining

relations between the six variables of the FFMQ and the eight variables of the

APRI. Examining and interpreting the correlation coefficients obtained from

the SPSS correlation matrix would help answer the study’s two research

questions: (a) Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness and

frequency of certain types of bullying behaviors; and, (b) Do relationships

exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of

victimization experiences?

93


Chapter IV will describe the results that were obtained from the study.

Chapter V will include the discussion, implications for practice and education,

and recommendations for further research.

94


CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine relations between mindfulness

and frequency of bullying behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of

victimization experiences in a sample of high school students. The Five Facet



rank order correlation coefficients (rho). Correlations of the total and subscale

scores of the FFMQ with the total and subscale scores of Section A of the APRI

were used to examine relations between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors. Correlations of the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ with the

total and subscale scores of Section B of the APRI were used to examine relations

between mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences.

Upon examination of the results, weak but significant findings found

between the FFMQ and APRI subscale and total scores revealed that certain

facets of mindfulness are negatively associated with the frequency of certain types

95


of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. This chapter will present the

analysis of data for this exploratory correlational research study. Also included in

this chapter is a description of the population and sample, the research questions,

tools used, serendipitous findings, as well as the results of the descriptive statistics

and Spearman rank order correlation coefficients (rho).

Description of the Population and Sample

This study used a convenience sample. The population for this study

consisted of the 616 students in grades 9 through 12 that attended this public high

school in northern Ontario. The school draws its students from a number of

surrounding small towns and First Nations communities. Consent letters were sent

home with 105 students, with 66 students from 6 different classes returning

signed consent letters. Therefore, the sample consisted of the 66 students who

agreed to participate, had parental consent, and completed the Five Facet


Instrument (APRI). The sample of 66 students was drawn from six different

classes, including two grade 9 classes, two grade 10 classes, and two grade 11

classes. Those students that did not have consent were given an interest survey.

Classes were tested on different days during the month of November 2011, in

their regular classrooms, and at their own desks.

Research Questions

This study was designed to examine relations between mindfulness and


96


victimization experiences, in a sample of high school students. In particular, this

study sought to explore the following two research questions:

(1) Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of

certain types of bullying behaviors?

(2) Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of

certain types of victimization experiences?

Tools

The instruments used in this study were the: the Five Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer et al., 2006) to assess mindfulness; and the

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) (Parada, 2000) to assess the

frequency of bullying behaviors and frequency of victimization experiences.

Correlations of the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ with the total and

subscale scores of Section A of the APRI were used to examine relations between

mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors. Correlations of the total and

subscale scores of the FFMQ with the total and subscale scores of Section B of the

APRI were used to examine relations between mindfulness and frequency of

victimization experiences.

The FFMQ consists of a total mindfulness score and five subscale scores,

including: (a) non-judging of internal experience subscale; (b) non-reactivity to

internal experience subscale; (c) observing subscale; (d) acting with awareness

subscale; and (e) describing/labeling internal experience subscale. The APRI

consists of two sections: Section A and Section B. Section A consists of a total

97



frequency of physical bullying behaviors subscale score; (b) frequency of verbal

bullying behaviors subscale score; and, (c) frequency of social bullying behaviors

subscale score. Section B consists of a total frequency of victimization

experiences score, and three subscale scores, including: (a) frequency of physical

victimization experiences subscale score; (b) frequency of verbal victimization

experiences subscale score; and (c) frequency of social victimization experiences

subscale score.

Each participating subject received a booklet containing the two

instruments. The FFMQ appeared before the APRI. The researcher did not

instruct the subjects to complete the assessments in any particular order. Subjects

most likely completed the FFMQ first, but some may have done otherwise. No

questionnaires had to be excluded from the data set because they were incomplete

or because the researcher couldn’t read the response. Therefore, 66 subjects were

given both assessments, and 66 subjects were included in the data analysis.

Responses on items were summated using a calculator to obtain subscale scores

from both the FFMQ and the APRI for each subject. In all, five subscale scores

for the FFMQ, and six subscale scores for the APRI were summated for each

subject using a calculator, and the scores entered into an Excel worksheet. A

formula was entered into the Excel worksheet to automatically calculate the total

mindfulness score, the total frequency of bullying behaviors score, and the total

frequency of victimization experiences score. After recording the data from all 66

98


subjects, the excel worksheet was then imported into an SPSS computer program

for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarize means

and standard deviations (see Table 1). To examine relations between facets

mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying behaviors, and between

facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of victimization experiences,

Spearman rank order correlation tests (rho) were conducted between the total and

subscale scores of the FFMQ and the APRI. The results of were displayed in a

correlation matrix (see Table 2). The obtained data were compared at a p < .05

level of significance.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 1. Mean levels of mindfulness

and standard deviations (total score and subscale scores) were similar to levels in

other studies using the FFMQ (Roberts & Danoff-Burg, 2010).

The lowest possible score for the non-react subscale of the Five Facet

Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is 7, and the highest possible score is 35. Of

the 66 subjects, scores ranged from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 30. For the

remaining subscales of the FFMQ (i.e. observe, describe, act with awareness, and

non-judge), the lowest possible score is 8, and the highest possible score is 40. Of

the 66 subjects, scores on these subscales ranged from a minimum of 10 to 14, to

a maximum of 37 to 40. Finally, the lowest possible score for total mindfulness is

39, and the highest possible score is 180. Of the 66 subjects, scores ranged from a

minimum of 81 to a maximum of 161.

99


The lowest possible score for all six subscales of the Adolescent Peer

Relations Instrument (APRI) is 6, and the highest possible score is 36. Of the 66

subjects, a minimum score of 6 was recorded for all six subscales. The following

maximum scores were recorded for the six subscales: 24 for verbal bullying, 13

for social bullying, 23 for physical bullying, 30 for verbal victimization, 32 for

social victimization, and 22 for physical victimization. Finally, the lowest

possible total bullying score and total victimization score is 18, and the highest

possible score is 108. Of the 66 subjects, total bullying scores ranged from a

minimum of 18 to a maximum of 58. Total victimization scores ranged from a

minimum of 18 to a maximum of 67.

100


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 66)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

M(Observe) 10 37 23.86 5.678

M(Describe) 14 40 25.82 5.508

M(Awareness) 10 40 26.55 6.062

M(Nonjudge) 12 37 27.41 5.651

M(Nonreact) 10 30 18.91 4.285

M(Total) 81 161 122.55 14.166

B(Verbal) 6 24 11.02 4.408

B(Social) 6 13 7.48 1.947

B(Physical) 6 23 8.92 3.931

B(Total) 18 58 27.42 8.910

V(Verbal) 6 30 11.00 5.684

V(Social) 6 32 9.15 4.470

V(Physical) 6 22 8.82 3.671

V(Total) 18 67 28.97 11.946

101


Table 2. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Among FFMQ and APRI Variables (N = 66)

Variable 1 2 3 4

1. M(Observe) 1.000

2. M(Describe) .302* 1.000

3. M(Awareness) -.105 .169 1.000

4. M(Nonjudge) -.332** -.044 .417** 1.000

5. M(Nonreact) .503** .315** .042 -.222

6. M(Total) .452** .654** .576** .293*

7. B(Verbal) .048 .193 -.091 -.090

8. B(Social) .081 .042 -.284* -.108

9. B(Physical) -.097 -.170 -.180 -.023

10. B(Total) .049 .104 -.219 -.097

11. V(Verbal) .201 -.206 -.224 -.268*

12. V(Social) .113 -.045 -.258* -.213

13. V(Physical) .113 -.284* -.258* -.245*

14. V(Total) .212 -.170 -.281* -.314*

Note. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

102


Table 2 (continued). Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients Among FFMQ and APRI Variables (N = 66)

Variable 5 6 7 8

1. M(Observe)

2. M(Describe)

3. M(Awareness)

4. M(Nonjudge)

5. M(Nonreact) 1.000

6. M(Total) .557** 1.000

7. B(Verbal) -.084 .022 1.000

8. B(Social) -.086 -.183 .487** 1.000

9. B(Physical) -.150 -.217 .714** .421**

10. B(Total) -.082 -.078 .938** .617**

11. V(Verbal) .074 -.186 .322** .267*

12. V(Social) -.101 -.220 .306* .324**

13. V(Physical) -.041 -.255* .365** .319**

14. V(Total) -.003 -.242 .409** .320**


103



Variable 9 10 11 12

1. M(Observe)

2. M(Describe)

3. M(Awareness)

4. M(Nonjudge)

5. M(Nonreact)

6. M(Total)

7. B(Verbal)

8. B(Social)

9. B(Physical) 1.000

10. B(Total) .853** 1.000

11. V(Verbal) .355** .371** 1.000

12. V(Social) .276* .338** .645** 1.000

13. V(Physical) .602** .496** .667** .466**

14. V(Total) .471** .473** .925** .793**


104



Variable 13 14

1. M(Observe)

2. M(Describe)

3. M(Awareness)

4. M(Nonjudge)

5. M(Nonreact)

6. M(Total)

7. B(Verbal)

8. B(Social)

9. B(Physical)

10. B(Total)

11. V(Verbal)

12. V(Social)

13. V(Physical) 1.000

14. V(Total) .788** 1.000


105


Results of the Spearman Rank Order Correlations (rho)

In order to conclude whether or not the results are meaningful, the

correlation coefficient should be analyzed against the following three

benchmarks: (a) the statistical significance of the association; (b) the strength of

the association; and (c) the square of the correlation coefficient (Cohen,

Lawrence, & Morrison, 2007). According to Cohen, Lawrence and Morrision

(2007) exploratory relationship studies – such as the present study – are generally

interpreted with reference to their statistical significance, and can use the

statistical significance to extrapolate to the populations from which the samples

are drawn. The present study found nine significant negative correlations at p

< .05. Therefore, there is less than a 5% chance that the results of these

correlations occurred by chance, and the null hypothesis can be rejected. In other

words, the researcher can conclude that in this population, a negative relationship

does exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of

bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. However, this conclusion

provides no information about the strength of the relationships. In order to

determine this information, the researcher must consider the value of the

correlation coefficient. Whether negative or positive, the magnitude of the values

were interpreted according to the following accepted strengths for correlations in

educational research: .20 - .34 weak, .35 - .65 moderate, .66 – 1.0 strong (Gay &

Airasian, 2003). All nine significant negative correlations found in the present

study were

106


less than .34, and are therefore interpreted as being weak correlations. Cohen,

Lawrence, and Morrison (2007) point out that although correlations at this level

show only very slight relationship between variables, they still have meaning in

exploratory relationship research. Therefore, the nine significant negative

correlations found in the present study will be interpreted as weak, but meaningful

associations that suggest doing further research. Finally, the square of the

correlation coefficient, r2, shows the proportion in variance in one variable that

can be attributed to its linear relationship with the second variable (Cohen,

Lawrence, & Morrison, 2007). Of the nine significant correlations found in the

present study, values of r2 range from .06 to .10. In other words, 6 to 10 percent of

the variation shown by the mindfulness scores can be attributed to the tendency of

mindfulness to vary linearly with frequency of bullying and victimization.

Therefore, the following nine associations discussed below should be interpreted

as significant (i.e. did not occur by chance), negative, weak (i.e. only a slight

relationship), and meaningful (i.e. suggest further research).

Correlations Between Mindfulness and Frequency of Bullying Behaviors

Spearman rank order correlations (rho) among the mindfulness scores

(total and subscale scores) on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

and the bullying scores (total and subscale scores) on Section A of the Adolescent

Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) are reported in Table 2. A significant but weak

107


negative association at p < .05 found between the FFMQ scores and Section A

APRI scores indicates that a negative relationship exists between facets of

mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying behaviors. Specifically,

acting with awareness was significantly negatively associated with frequency of

social bullying (r = -.284, p < .05). That is, students with higher levels of acting

with awareness are less likely to socially bully other students. Acting with

awareness was not significantly associated with frequency of physical, verbal, or

overall bullying behaviors. In addition, non-judging of internal experience, non-

reactivity to internal experience, observing, describing/labeling internal

experience, and total mindfulness were not significantly associated with any of

the following four variables: (a) frequency of social bullying behaviors, (b)

frequency of verbal bullying behaviors, (c) frequency of physical bullying

behaviors, or (d) frequency of total bullying behaviors.

Correlations Between Mindfulness and Frequency of Victimization Experiences



and the victimization scores (total and subscale scores) on Section B of the

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) are reported in Table 2. Significant

but weak negative associations at p < .05 found between the FFMQ scores and

Section B APRI scores indicate that a negative relationship exists between facets

of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of victimization experiences. The

following describes the significant negative associations found.

108


Acting with awareness was significantly negatively associated with

frequency of social victimization (r = -.258, p < .05). That is, students with higher

levels of acting with awareness are less likely to be victims of social bullying.

Acting with awareness was also significantly negatively associated with

frequency of physical victimization (r = -.258, p < .05). That is, students with

higher levels of acting with awareness are less likely to be victims of physical

bullying. Furthermore, acting with awareness was significantly negatively

associated with frequency of overall victimization (r = -.281, p < .05). That is,

students with higher levels of acting with awareness are less likely to be victims

of bullying in general. Acting with awareness was not significantly associated

with frequency of verbal victimization.

Labeling and describing with words the internal world was significantly

negatively associated with frequency of physical victimization (r = -.284, p < .05).

That is, students that are more adept and habitual at labeling and describing with

words their internal world are less likely to be victims of physical bullying.

Labeling and describing with words the internal world was not significantly

associated with frequency of verbal, social, or overall victimization.

Non-judging of internal experience was significantly negatively associated

with frequency of physical victimization (r = -.245, p < .05). That is, students that

are less judgmental of their internal experiences are less likely to be victims of

physical bullying. Non-judging of internal experience was significantly negatively

associated with frequency of overall victimization (r = -.314, p < .05). That is,

109


students that are less judgmental of their internal experiences are less likely to

be victims of bullying in general. Furthermore, non-judging of internal experience

was also significantly negatively associated with verbal victimization (r = -.268, p

< .05). That is students that are less judgmental of their internal experiences are

less likely to be victims of verbal bullying. Non-judging of internal experience

was not significantly associated with frequency of social victimization.

Total mindfulness was significantly negatively associated with frequency

of physical victimization (r = -.255, p < .05). That is, students with overall higher

levels of mindfulness are less likely to be victims of physical bullying. Total

mindfulness was not significantly associated with frequency of social, verbal, or

overall victimization.

Finally, both non-reactivity to internal experience and observing were not

significantly associated with frequency of physical, social, verbal, or overall

victimization.

Serendipitous Findings

Although the present study was only examining relations between

mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors, and between mindfulness and

frequency of victimization experiences, the results of the Spearman rank order

correlation test (rho) also revealed weak, moderate, and strong significant positive

associations between bullying and victimization scores. These findings indicate

that a direct relationship exists between frequency of bullying behaviors and

frequency of victimization experiences. First, verbal bullying was significantly

110


positively associated with verbal victimization (r = .322, p < .01), social

victimization (r = .306, p < .05), physical victimization (r = .365, p < .01), and

total victimization (r = .409, p < .01). That is, students that more frequently

verbally bully other students are more likely to be bullied themselves.

Specifically, they are more likely to bullied verbally, socially, physically, and in

general. Second, social bullying was significantly positively associated with

verbal victimization (r = .267, p < .05), social victimization (r = .324, p < .01),

physical victimization (r = .319, p < .01), and total victimization (r = .320, p

< .01). That is, students that more frequently socially bully other students are

more likely to be bullied themselves. Specifically, they are more likely to be

bullied verbally, socially, physically, and in general. Third, physical bullying was

significantly positively associated with verbal victimization (r = .355, p < .01),

social victimization (r = .276, p < .05), physical victimization (r = .602, p < .01),

and total victimization (r = .471, p < .01). That is, students that more frequently

physically bully other students are more likely to be bullied themselves.

Specifically, they are more likely to be bullied verbally, socially, physically, and

in general. Finally, total bullying was significantly positively associated with

verbal victimization (r = .371, p < .01), social victimization (r = .338, p < .01),

physical victimization (r = .496, p < .01), and total victimization (r = .473, p <

.01). That is, students that more frequently bully other students in general are

more likely to be bullied themselves. Specifically, they are more likely to be

bullied verbally, socially, physically, and in general.

111


These findings support research into bully-victims, which shows that

children who bully are often bullied themselves. For instance, in one large study

involving 25 high schools and 7,290 students in a southern Ontario region of

Canada, bully-victims comprised approximately one third of the students who

were involved in some type of bullying or victimization (Marini, Dane, Bosacki,

& YLC-CURA, 2006). Furthermore, it is estimated that 5.7 million U.S. youth

identify as being both a bully and a victim (Nansel et al., 2001). These findings

are relevant since numerous studies have demonstrated that bully-victims

demonstrate the highest risk for physical, psychological, social, behavioral, and

educational problems when compared with bullies, victims, and non-involved

youth (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Nansel et al., 2001; Swearer et al., 2001).

Summary

This exploratory correlational study examined relations between facets of

mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying behaviors, and between

facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of victimization experiences,

in a sample of 66 high school students in northern Ontario. Spearman rank order

correlation coefficients (rho) were calculated among and between the students’

total and subscale scores on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

and Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI).

Significant but weak negative associations at p < .05 found between the

FFMQ scores and APRI scores indicate that a negative relationship exists

between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types bullying behaviors,

112


and between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of

victimization experiences (see table 2). Specifically, significant negative

relationships were

found in four out of the six mindfulness scores. First, acting with awareness was

significantly negatively associating with social bullying, social victimization,

physical victimization, and overall victimization. Second, labeling and describing

with words the internal world was significantly negatively associated with

physical victimization. Third, non-judging of experience was significantly

negatively associated with physical victimization, verbal victimization, and

overall victimization. Finally, overall mindfulness was significantly negatively

associated with physical victimization. Additionally, the spearman rank order

correlation coefficients (rho) revealed weak, moderate, and strong significant

positive associations between frequency of bullying and victimization scores,

suggesting that a direct relationship exists between frequency of bullying

behaviors and frequency of victimization experiences.

Collectively, these findings support the need for further research into

studying the relationship between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors and victimization experiences, as well as further investigation into the

direct association between frequency of bullying behaviors and frequency of

victimization experiences. Interpretations of these findings and their relevance to

educational practice are discussed in Chapter V.

113


CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Summary

A literature review indicated the need to study the relationship between

mindfulness, bullying, and victimization, in schools. Thus, an exploratory,

correlational study was conducted to examine relations between mindfulness and


victimization experiences, in a sample of high school students.

The study consisted of a convenience sample of 66 students from six

different classes at a high school in northern Ontario. Each subject volunteered to

take part in the study and had parental consent. The researcher collected data on

various dates during November 2011. The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

(FFMQ) and the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) were used to

collect data. Data was analyzed using Spearman rank order correlation

coefficients (rho). Correlations of the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ with

114


the total and subscale scores of Section A of the APRI were used to examine

relations between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying

behaviors. Correlations of the total and subscale scores of the FFMQ with the

total and subscale scores of Section B of the APRI were used to examine relations

between facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of victimization

experiences.

Results of the study revealed nine significant negative associations

between various total and subscale sores of the FFMQ and the APRI, with r-

values ranging from -.245 to -.314 at p < .05. These results suggest that a negative

relationship does exist between certain facets of mindfulness and frequency of

certain types of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. Despite the

results being significant and meaningful for exploratory relationship research, the

associations found were weak, and thus should be interpreted with caution until

further research is conducted.

A three-phase proposal for conducting further research into mindfulness,

bullying, and victimization, is outlined in chapter V. The three-phase proposal

consists of recommendations: (a) for improving the present study, (b) for

conducting randomized controlled studies testing the efficacy of mindfulness-

based skills training on reducing the frequency and harmful effects of bullying

and victimization, and (c) for testing a mechanism of how mindfulness might

reduce the frequency and harmful effects of bullying and victimization. Finally, it

115


is suggested that granular data on mindfulness, bullying, and victimization

continue to be collected so that a mindfulness-based skills training program may

be customized specifically for victims of bullying.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationship of the Results to the Conceptual Framework

For the present study, the conceptual framework utilized to support this

research is the Two-Component Model of Mindfulness (TCMM). The TCMM

predicts that practicing self-regulation of attention skills, self-observation skills,

and adopting an orientation towards experience that is characterized by curiosity,

openness, and acceptance, will foster the development of a psychological state of

mindful awareness. The TCMM further goes on to predict two possible

mechanisms by which mindfulness may reduce psychopathology. First, Bishop

and others (2004) hypothesize that a psychological state of mindful awareness can

lead to a decentered perspective and the ability to disengage from the contents of

the mind, which in turn can lead to reductions in ruminative thinking, and

ultimately reduced psychopathology such as anxiety and depression. Second,

Bishop and others (2004) also hypothesize that a psychological state of mindful

awareness encourages an attitude of acceptance, openness, and curiosity towards

one’s experience, which can lead to increased affect tolerance and decreased

patterns of cognitive and behavioral avoidance, which ultimately may reduce

psychopathology such as anxiety and depression. These hypotheses are

strengthened by one study which showed that increased mindfulness in daily life

116


is associated with decreased rumination, decreased fear of emotion, and

increased behavioral self-regulation (Lykins & Baer, 2009). The present study’s

conceptual framework uses the TCMM to predict how mindfulness skills may act

as

protective factors against the psychopathologies – such as anxiety and depression

– that are associated with bullying and victimization (see figure 2).

As noted in the conceptual framework, testing this theory was beyond the

scope of this study. Furthermore, there is very little research exploring the

relationship between mindfulness, bullying and victimization. Therefore, it was

the purpose of the present study to first conduct exploratory research to

investigate the relationship between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors, and between mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences,

in a sample of high school students.

Relationship of the Victimization Scores to the Conceptual Framework


(total and subscale) on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the

victimization scores (total and subscale scores) on Section B of the Adolescent

Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) revealed eight significant but weak negative

associations, indicating that a negative relationship does exist between facets of

mindfulness and frequency of certain types of victimization experiences.

First, acting with awareness was significantly negatively associated with

social, physical, and overall victimization. That is, students with higher levels of

117


acting with awareness are less likely to become victims of social, physical,

and general bullying. Second, labeling and describing with words the internal

world was significantly negatively associated with physical victimization. That is,

students that are more proficient and habitual at labeling and describing their

thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations, are less likely to become victims of

physical bullying. Third, non-judging of internal experience was significantly

negatively associated with physical, verbal, and overall victimization. That is,

students that are less judgmental of their thoughts, feeling, emotions, and

sensations, are less likely to become victims of physical, verbal, and general

bullying. Finally, total mindfulness was significantly negatively associated with

physical victimization. That is, students with overall higher levels of mindfulness

are less likely to become victims of physical bullying.

In relation to the present study’s conceptual framework, these results can

be interpreted as follows: acting with awareness, labeling and describing with

words the internal world, and non-judging of experience, are all aspect of

mindfulness that may cultivate: (a) self-regulation of attention skills, (b) self-

observation skills (such as the ability to disengage from the contents of the mind

and adopt a decentered perspective), and (c) an attitude of acceptance, openness,

and curiosity towards one’s experiences. These skills then in turn may act to

reduce or prevent rumination, affect intolerance, and cognitive and behavioral

avoidance patterns. Ultimately, these effects may act to reduce or prevent the

psychopathologies that are often associated with bullying and victimization, such

118


as anxiety and depression. Finally, as psychopathology is reduced or

prevented, the child or adolescent may become less of a target for bullies. In fact,

a recent study showed that depressive symptoms in children precede

victimization. Specifically, the study showed that children who displayed higher

levels of

depressive symptoms in grade 4 were more likely to be bullied in grade 5

(Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012). Therefore, mindfulness skills may disrupt this

process, preventing both psychopathology and bullying/victimization.

Furthermore, mindfulness skills may empower the child or adolescent with the

ability to successfully avoid or effectively respond to threats of bullying behavior

in real time. Let’s consider each of the associations found in this study in more

detail.

Acting with awareness in operationalized in the FFMQ by items such as:

When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted; I don’t pay

attention to what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise

distracted; I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present; It

seems I am “running on automatic” without much awareness of what I’m doing;

and I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing. By

acting with awareness – i.e.; staying anchored in the present moment by self-

regulating attention through: (1) sustained attention skills, (2) attention switching

skills, and (3) inhibition of secondary elaborative processing skills – a student can

become more open and curious to their present moment experience rather than

119


having their attention continually tied up in secondary elaborative processing

or ruminative thinking. A reduction in ruminative thinking may lead to a

reduction in psychopathology. As psychopathology is reduced, the student may

become less of a target for bullies. Furthermore, by remaining alert and vigilant in

the present

moment, the student may be better able to evaluate and successfully avoid or

effectively respond to potential threats of bullying behavior.

Having the ability to label and describe with words the internal world is

operationalized in the FFMQ by the following items: I’m good at finding words to

describe my feelings; I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into

words; When I have sensations in my body, it’s difficult for me to describe it

because I can’t find the right words; Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can

find a way to put it into words; and, my natural tendency is to put my experiences

into words. By adopting an open, exploratory, and curious orientation towards

their internal experiences, a student may be more comfortable and more skillful at

labeling and describing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations. In fact,

part of the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) course focuses on how

one use language to internally express and understand one’s thoughts, feelings,

emotions, and sensations (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). In order to more appropriately label

and describe one’s thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations, the MBSR course

exposes the student to a list of hundreds of descriptive words that can help them

120


better express their internal experiences, and encourages the student to learn

and use the words more frequently. Ultimately, improving language can enhance

mindfulness by altering how one perceives and responds to their internal

experience. For example, by not having a selection of words available to express

how one feels, the student may consistently classify many of their thoughts,

feelings, emotions, and sensations as “bad” or “stupid”, when in fact they may

have been feeling “frustrated”, “annoyed”, “manipulated”, “disconnected”, or

“rejected”. By funneling all of one’s internal experiences into one category of

“bad”, one is then restricting the potential range of emotions they are capable of

experiencing. For instance, by understanding that one is feeling rejected or

disconnected, it is expected that one will then not have the same internal

experience as that of feeling “bad” – which, after years of associating all negative

experiences to, may possess powerful negative connotations and potential

psychosomatic effects. It is now well established that beliefs, attitudes, thoughts,

and emotions can affect health and cause disease (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Therefore,

improving one’s ability to appropriately label and describe one’s thoughts,

feelings, emotions, and sensations, may improve how one perceives and responds

to their internal experiences. Bishop and others (2004) believe that,

“[mindfulness] approaches alter the impact of, and response to, thoughts, feelings

and sensations” (p.20). It is also believed that altering the impact of, and response

to one’s internal experience, may be an effective strategy for reducing affect

intolerance and cognitive and behavioral avoidance patterns, and may ultimately

121


act to reduce or prevent psychopathology (Bishop et al., 2004). Furthermore,

as psychopathology is reduced, a student may become less of a target for bullies.

Non-judging of experience is operationalized in the FFMQ by the

following items: I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions;

I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling; I make judgments about

whether my thoughts are good or bad; I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the

way I’m thinking; and, when I have distressing thoughts or images, I judge myself

as good or bad, depending what the thought/image is about. In relation to the

present study’s conceptual framework, being less judgmental may cultivate an

attitude of acceptance towards one’s internal experience. In mindfulness

philosophy, acceptance does not mean having a passive attitude, tolerating things,

or giving-up, instead, acceptance is about being prepared to see things as they are

(Kabat-Zinn, 1990, p. 39). According to Kabat-Zinn, by adopting an attitude of

acceptance, one may have a clearer picture of what is happening and may be

better able to decide on an appropriate response. By practicing a non-judgmental

attitude towards their internal experiences, a victim of bullying may be better able

to accept their thoughts and feelings for what they are, and realize that their

negative thoughts, feelings, and emotions aren’t necessarily accurate reflections

of themselves or reality, and decide on a more effective response, or perhaps that

“no response” is the most effective response. Bishop and others (2004) predict

that these types of strategies may act to reduce rumination, affect intolerance, and

cognitive and behavioral avoidance patterns, and may ultimately reduce

122


psychopathology. As previously noted, as psychopathology is reduced, a

student may become less of a target for bullies.

In summary, acting with awareness, labeling and describing with words

the internal world, and being non-judgmental, are all aspects of mindfulness that

may cultivate: (a) self-regulation of attentions skills; (b) self-observation skills;

and (c) an attitude of acceptance, openness, and curiosity. These skills may help a

student or victim of bullying to reduce: (a) rumination; (b) affect intolerance; and

(c) cognitive and behavioral avoidance patterns, which ultimately may reduce

psychopathology. Finally, as psychopathology is reduced, the student may

become less of a target for bullies. Furthermore, these mindfulness skills may help

orient the student in the present moment, allowing them to better evaluate and

successfully avoid or effectively respond to potential threats of bullying behavior.

Relationship of the Bullying Scores to the Conceptual Framework

Spearman’s rank order correlations (rho) among the mindfulness scores


and the bullying scores (total and subscale scores) on Section A of the Adolescent

Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) revealed one significant but weak negative

association, indicating that a negative relationship does exist between facets of

mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying behaviors. Specifically,

acting with awareness was significantly negatively associated with social

bullying. That is, students with higher levels of acting with awareness are less

likely to socially bully other students.

123


As previously noted, acting with awareness is operationalized in the

FFMQ as being alert, attentive, focused, and aware, in the present moment, the

opposite of “running on automatic”. Acting with awareness may affect bullies the

same way it does victims. By acting with awareness – i.e.; staying anchored in the

present moment by self-regulating attention through: (a) sustained attention skills,

(b) attention switching skills, and (c) inhibition of secondary elaborative

processing skills – a student can become more open and curious to their present

moment experience rather than having their attention continually tied up in

secondary elaborative processing or ruminative thinking. A reduction in

ruminative thinking may lead to a reduction in psychopathology. As

psychopathology is reduced, there may be an associated decline in bullying

behaviors. Furthermore, acting with awareness may act to increase a bully’s

emotional awareness of their victim.

Relationship of the Results to the Literature

The present study’s review of the literature demonstrated that aspects of

mindfulness may be negatively associated with aspects of bullying and

victimization. In particular, the present study looked at how bullying and

victimization negatively affect psychosocial health, physical health, and

education, and juxtaposed these harmful effects with the psychosocial, physical,

and educational benefits that are derived from increased levels of mindfulness.

The results of the present study support this exposition, and will be discussed in

more detail below.

124


Mindfulness, Bullying, Victimization, and Psychosocial Health

Numerous studies show that bullying and victimization are associated with

depression (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Slee, 1995; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle,

Mickelson, 2001), anxiety, and stress (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Slee, 1995; Swearer

et al., 2001). In contrast, mindfulness-based training has been shown in several

meta-analytical studies to decrease symptoms of depression (Baer, 2003;

Grossman et al., 2004), anxiety, and stresses of context (Grossman et al., 2004;

Baer, 2003). Furthermore, bullying and victimization have been associated with

low self-esteem (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), low empathy (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009),

antisocial behavior and poor social skills (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), and increased

negative psychological symptoms (Due et al., 2005; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). In

contrast, increased levels of mindfulness are associated with an increased sense of

self-control and self-efficacy (Bishop, 2002; Grossman et al., 2004), increased

social skills (Napoli, 2005), increased empathy and relational satisfaction (Siegel,

2007), and increased self-compassion, openness to experience, and emotional

intelligence (Baer et al., 2006). Mindfulness is also negatively correlated with

psychological symptoms, neuroticism, thought suppression, difficulties in

emotional regulation, alexithymia, dissociation, and experiential avoidance (Baer

et al., 2006).

Current research suggests that students that display symptoms of

depression such as low energy, social withdrawal, passive behavior, and obsessive

negative self-focus, are rejected by their peers, which results in them being

125


marked as having low social status, and are then subsequently targeted by

bullies because of the perceived imbalance in power (Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph,

2012). Because increased levels of mindfulness are associated with reduced

symptoms of depression, students that are more mindful may be less likely to

become rejected by their peers, and therefore less likely to become a target for

bullies. Furthermore, increased levels of self-control, self-efficacy, empathy,

emotional

intelligence, and decreased levels of neuroticism, psychological symptoms, and

difficulties in emotional regulation – all associated with increased levels of

mindfulness – are all expected to increase relationships with peers and facilitate

forging new friendships. Therefore, mindfulness skills may help students develop

and maintain groups of friends, which prevents social isolation and becoming

marked as having low social status, and provides safety in numbers. The result of

this may ultimately be a reduction in the frequency of victimization experiences.

Mindfulness, Bullying, Victimization, and Physical Health

Studies show that bullying and victimization are associated with overall

poor health, including increased symptoms relating to headaches, stomachaches,

and backaches (Due et al., 2005; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). In contrast, studies show

that increased levels of mindfulness are associated with increased physical

wellbeing (Baer, 2003; Grossman et al., 2004), increased immune function

(Davidson et al., 2003), as well as increased self-perceptions of physical activity

and physical health (Roberts & Danoff-Burg, 2010). Since bullying is defined as

126


an imbalance of power (physical and/or psychological) (Swearer et al., 2001),

perhaps the appearance of overall better physical health and fitness in those

students that are more mindful, reduces any perceived imbalance of power, and

makes the student less of a target for bullies. Furthermore, students that are

constantly absent from school due to illness may have limited opportunities to

socialize with peers and forge friendships. Because increased levels of

mindfulness are associated with increased health, perhaps students that are more

mindful are less frequently absent from school, and therefore have more

opportunities to socialize and forge friendships. By belonging to a larger social

group at school, the student may then reduce becoming isolated from their peers,

reduced becoming labeled as having low social status, and subsequently reduce

becoming targeted by bullies due to a perceived imbalance in power.

Mindfulness, Bullying, Victimization, and Education

Studies show that bullying and victimization are associated with poor

academic achievement (Nansel et al., 2001), increased academic problems,

truancy and delinquency (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), poorer relationships with

classmates, and increased frequency of fighting (Nansel et al., 2001). In contrast,

increased levels of mindfulness have been associated with increased academic

success, increased focused attention, decreased test-taking anxiety, increased self

control, decreased disruptive behavior (Napoli, Krech, & Holley, 2005), as well as

increased creativity and independent thinking (Langer, 1998). Becoming

successful at school may prevent students from engaging in bullying behaviors

127


because they may feel that they have more to lose if they get caught.

Furthermore, by being more focused and attentive at school, more of the student’s

attention and energy may be directed at classroom and school activities, rather

than on findings ways to bully other students.

When the negative effects of bullying and victimization are juxtaposed

with the positive effects of increased levels of mindfulness, it becomes apparent

that a negative relationship may exist between bullying, victimization, and

mindfulness. The results of the present study support this hypothesis, and suggest

the need for further investigation. Specifically, the results of this study show that

a negative relationship does exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of

certain types of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. Subsequent

studies need to test whether increased levels of mindfulness can cause a decrease

in the frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

Furthermore, subsequent studies may look at whether mindfulness-based skills

training can reduce the negative physical, psychosocial, and educational effects of

bullying and victimization. In addition, such studies need to be combined with

functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Studies using fMRI show that a

state of mindfulness manifests in distinct neural networks in the Lateral Pre-

Frontal Cortex (LPFC) and viscerosomatic areas of the brain (Farb et al., 2007).

Therefore, research should test whether bullies and victims have reduced

activation in these areas of the brain. Such findings could provide a neurological

128


basis for using mindfulness-based skills training to reduce bullying behaviors

and victimization experiences.

Nothing from the literature review can explain why the present study

found that some facets of mindfulness (i.e. acting with awareness, non-judging of

internal experience, and labeling/describing with words the internal world) were

significantly negatively associated with frequency of bullying behaviors and

victimization experiences, while other facets of mindfulness (i.e. non-reactivity to

internal experience, and observing) were not. However, one study may provide a

clue as to why the observing facet was found not to be significantly negatively

associated with frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

Baer and others (2006) found that the observing facet was positively correlated

with absentmindedness, psychological symptoms, and thought suppression in a

non-meditating sample. The reason for this could be a misinterpretation of the

observing items on the FFMQ in non-meditating samples (see Relationship of the

Results to the tools), or that non-meditating samples do not know how to

effectively observe the mind (see Relationship of the Results to the Variables). As

the present study used a non-meditating sample, it is possible that similar results

were obtained.

In addition, nothing in the literature review can explain why the present

study found that facets of mindfulness were more predominantly associated with a

reduced frequency of physical bullying behaviors. Perhaps studies using larger

129


sample sizes, more schools, and across more diverse areas of socio-economic

status would reveal different results.

Relationship of the Results to the Research Questions

This study sought to explore the following two research questions:

(1) Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness and

frequency of certain types of bullying behaviors?

(2) Do relationships exist between facets of mindfulness and

frequency of certain types of victimization experiences?

Regarding the first research question, results of the Spearman rank order

correlations (rho) between the mindfulness scores (total and subscale scores) on

the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the bullying scores (total

and subscale scores) on Section A of the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument

(APRI) revealed one significant but weak negative association, indicating that a

negative relationship does exist between facets of mindfulness and frequency of

certain types bullying behaviors. Specifically, acting with awareness was

significantly negatively associated with social bullying. That is, students with

higher levels of acting with awareness are less likely to socially bully other

students.

Regarding the second research question, results of the Spearman rank

order correlations (rho) between the mindfulness scores (total and subscale) on

the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the victimization scores

130


(total and subscale scores) on Section B of the Adolescent Peer Relations

Instrument (APRI) revealed eight significant but weak negative associations,

indicating that a negative relationship does exist between facets of mindfulness

and frequency of certain types of victimization experiences.

First, acting with awareness was significantly negatively associated with

social, physical, and overall victimization. That is, students with higher levels of

acting with awareness are less likely to become victims of social and physical

bullying, and bullying in general. Second, labeling and describing with words the

internal world was significantly negatively associated with physical victimization.

That is, students that are more proficient and habitual at labeling and describing

their thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations, are less likely to become

victims of physical bullying. Third, non-judging of internal experience was

significantly negatively associated with physical, verbal and overall victimization.

That is, students that are less judgmental of their thoughts, feeling, emotions, and

sensations, are less likely to become victims of physical and verbal bullying, and

bullying in general. Finally, total mindfulness was significantly negatively

associated with physical victimization. That is, students with overall higher levels

of mindfulness are less likely to become victims of physical bullying.

Relationship of the Results to the Variables

The fourteen variables examined in this study can be organized into three

categories: (a) mindfulness variables; (b) bullying variables; and, (c) victimization

131


variables. The relationship of the results to each of the variables, in each

category, will be discussed below.

Relationship of the Results to the Mindfulness Variables

The following six mindfulness variables were included in this study: (a)

total mindfulness; (b) non-judging of internal experiences; (c) non-reactivity to

internal experiences; (d) acting with awareness; (e) labeling and describing with

words the internal world; and (f) observing. Each of these variables was tested for

associations with frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

In total, four of the six mindfulness variables were found to have significant

negative associations.

Acting with awareness was found to have the most numerous significant

negative associations with frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences. Acting with awareness was found to be weakly but significantly

negatively associated with social bullying, social victimization, physical

victimization, and overall victimization. These results suggest that acting with

awareness – self-regulating attention, remaining alert and vigilant to the here and

now, staying anchored in the present moment, and not “running on automatic

pilot” – may be the specific facet of mindfulness that most strongly influences the

association with reduced frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences. Therefore, future studies may look at whether acting with awareness

mediates the negative association between mindfulness and frequency of bullying

behaviors and victimization experiences.

132


Labeling and describing with words the internal world, non-judging of

internal experience, and total mindfulness, were the other three variables found to

have weak but significant negative associations with frequency of victimization

experiences, but not with frequency of bullying behaviors. Labeling and

describing with words the internal world was significantly negatively associated

with physical victimization. Non-judging of internal experience was significantly

negatively associated with physical victimization, verbal victimization, and

overall victimization. And, total mindfulness was significantly negatively

associated with physical victimization. Therefore, future studies may also look at

whether the ability to proficiently and habitually label and describe one’s internal

experience, and be less judgmental of one’s internal experience, mediate negative

associations between mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences.

Non-reactivity to internal experiences and observing were not significantly

associated with any of the bullying or victimization variables. These results

suggest that non-reactivity to internal experience and observing internal

experience may not be facets of mindfulness that are associated with a reduced

frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. These results may

be partly explained by one study, which showed that the observing facet may not

be an element of mindfulness in non-meditating samples (Baer et al., 2006). In

fact, the observing facet was shown to be positively correlated with

absentmindedness, psychological symptoms, and thought suppression in a non-

meditating sample. However, this pattern was not found in the meditating sample

133


(Baer et al., 2006). Baer and others (2006) believe that with mindfulness

meditation practice, the experience of observing one’s cognitions and emotions

goes from a maladaptive self-focused type of observation to an adaptive

accepting, non-judgmental and non-reactive type of observation.

Relationship of the Results to the Bullying Variables

The following four bullying variables were included in this study: (a) total

frequency of bullying behaviors; (b) frequency of physical bullying behaviors; (c)

frequency of verbal bullying behaviors; and, (d) frequency of social bullying

behaviors. The results revealed only one significant association between

frequency of bullying behaviors and facets of mindfulness. Specifically, social

bullying was weakly, but significantly negatively associated with acting with

awareness. These results suggest that higher levels of acting with awareness is

associated with a reduced frequency of social bullying, but not with a reduced

frequency of verbal or physical bullying.

Relationship of the Results to the Victimization Variables

The following four victimization variables were included in this study: (a)

total frequency of victimization experiences; (b) frequency of physical

victimization experiences; (c) frequency of verbal victimization experiences; and,

(d) frequency of social victimization experiences. The results revealed eight

significant but weak negative associations between frequency of victimization

experiences and facets of mindfulness. Physical victimization was found to have

the most numerous significant negative associations with the mindfulness

134


variables. Specifically, physical victimization was found to be significantly

negatively associated with total mindfulness, non-judging of internal experience,

labeling and describing with words the internal world, and acting with awareness.

These results suggest that more facets of mindfulness are negatively associated

with physical victimization, than with social, verbal, or overall victimization. In

other words, physical victimization is the specific type of victimization that is

most predominantly negatively associated with facets of mindfulness.

The results also revealed the following significant negative associations of

the victimization variables with the mindfulness variables: (a) social victimization

was significantly negatively associated with acting with awareness; (b) overall

victimization was significantly negatively associated with acting with awareness,

and non-judging of experience; and, (c) verbal victimization was significantly

negatively associated with non-judging of experience.

Overall, these results suggest that higher levels of certain facets of

mindfulness are associated with a reduced frequency of physical, social, verbal,

and overall victimization.

Relationship of the results to the Study Design and Data Collection Methods

The researcher was able to pinpoint four factors of the study design and data

collection methods that may have influenced the results. These four factors

include: (a) Data collection on different dates; (b) Sending students home with

parental consent forms; (c) A small convenience sample from only one high

135


school; and, (d) Not collecting demographic data. The effects of each of these

factors on the results are considered below.

Data was collected on different dates for all six classes. Therefore, students

that already took the test may have had the chance to speak with students from

another class about the content of the test before they wrote it. This could have

influenced their answers and biased the results of the study. This may be avoided

in future studies by trying to coordinate administering the test to all classes on the

same day.

Parental consent forms were given to 105 students with 66 students from 6

different classes returning signed consent letters. The study therefore had a 63%

participation rate. Of the 105 students, no student returned a subject assent form

indicating that they did not want to participate, and no parental consent forms

were returned to the researcher indicating that they did not want their son or

daughter to participate in the research. Therefore, 39 students failed to return their

consent forms for reasons other than not wanting, or not being allowed to

participate. A larger sample size would have made the data more accurate for

drawing conclusions about the population. The researcher believes that these

students failed to return their parental consent forms due to a lack of motivation

and/or interest in the study. This may be avoided in future studies by first calling,

then visiting the house of those students’ who agree to participate, and having the

parental consent forms signed in person.

136


Due to the small convenience sample from only one high

school, the results cannot be generalized to populations outside

of this high school. Future studies may benefit from conducting

the study in multiple cities, at multiple high schools, and in

neighborhoods of various socio-economic statuses.

Finally, the researcher did not collect demographic data,

including: gender, race, age, or socio-economic status.

Therefore, data from this study describes characteristics of the

population in general. Detailed demographic data would have

provided more specific information about mindfulness and

frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences in

the population. Furthermore, demographic data would have

provided an overall better context for interpreting the results.

Relationship of the Results to the Tools Used

Two tools were used to collect data in this study: the Five Facet


Instrument (APRI). The FFMQ consists of a total mindfulness score and five

subscale scores, including: (a) non-judging of internal experience subscale; (b)

non-reactivity to internal experience subscale; (c) observing subscale; (d) acting

with awareness subscale; and (e) describing/labeling internal experience subscale.

137


As noted in the limitations, there was the possibility of semantic

confusion regarding mindfulness scale items by students not familiar with

mindfulness terminology that may have affected the results. In particular,

previous studies have shown the observing facet to be positively correlated with

absentmindedness, psychological symptoms, and thought suppression in non-

meditating samples (Baer et al., 2006). It is therefore possible that subjects in the

present study were misinterpreting the meaning of the observe subscale items, and

this could have affected the results. For instance, observe item 11 states, “I notice

how foods and drinks affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions”. A

subject may interpret a 5 on the scale (very often or always true) for this item as

meaning they obsess or ruminate over the food and drinks they consume (which

would be the opposite of mindfulness), when in fact a score of 5 on this scale

would represent the highest level of mindfulness for this item.

The results on the FFMQ may also have been affected by self-ratings of

mindfulness that were biased or inaccurately estimated. Therefore, there may be a

discrepancy between an individual’s self-ratings of mindfulness and their actual

mindfulness level. Future studies may benefit from incorporating teacher and/or

parent ratings in addition to self-ratings of mindfulness.

Additionally, the results of the FFMQ may have been affected by incorrect

usage of the scale at the top of the page. Consider the following observations: The

FFMQ consists of a mixture of positive and negative statements. An example of a

positive statement is: “I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into

138


words”. An example of a negative statement is: “It’s hard for me to find the

words to describe what I’m thinking”. While entering the data into the Excel

worksheet, a pattern was noted on several students’ FFMQs. It appeared as though

these students were potentially not reversing the scale when answering the

negative statements. For example, some of these students scored a 4 (i.e.; often

true) or 5 (i.e.; very often or always true) on nearly all the 39-items from the

FFMQ. Similarly, other students scored a 1 (i.e.; never or very rarely true) or 2

(i.e.; rarely true) on nearly all of the 39-items from the FFMQ. This could indicate

that the students were not referring to the scale at the top of the page after each

question, and were not reversing the scale in order to appropriately answer the

negative statements. However, it is also possible that such results may in fact be

true representations of their opinions, or that these students simply recorded

scores at random. The researcher was also unable to locate any research

pertaining to the testing of the FFMQ on high school adolescents. Future research

may look at adapting a version of the FFMQ for use with adolescents.

The APRI consisted of two sections. Section A consisted of a total


frequency of physical bullying behaviors score; (b) frequency of verbal bullying

behaviors score; and, (c) frequency of social bullying behaviors score. Section B

consisted of a total frequency of victimization experiences score, and three

subscale scores, including: (a) frequency of physical victimization experiences

score; (b) frequency of verbal victimization experiences score; and (c) frequency

139


of social victimization experiences score. As noted in the limitations, there is

the possibility that self-reporting of bullying and victimization was affected by

individual biases and inaccurate estimations by the student. Therefore, there may

be a discrepancy between an individual’s self-reporting of bullying and/or

victimization in the results obtained, and their actual involvement in bullying

and/or victimization. Future studies may benefit from teacher and peer ratings in

addition to self-ratings of frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences.

Additionally, some subjects may have interpreted bullying and/or

victimization items as being “playful” as opposed to bullying behavior. For

instance, items such as “I pushed or shoved a student” or “I made jokes about a

student” could have been interpreted by some subjects as playful behaviors, rather

than abusive and aggressive behaviors intended to harm. This type of

misinterpretation of the items could have affected the results. Future studies may

benefit from defining bullying behavior at the beginning of the instrument, and

indicating that all items are in relation to this definition.

Finally, because each subjects subscale scores for both the FFMQ and the

APRI were summated using a calculator, human error may have negatively

affected the results.

Relationship of the Results to the Statistical and Data Analysis Methods

140


Spearman rank order correlations (rho) were calculated among and

between the six variables from the FFMQ, the four variables from Section A of

the APRI, and the four variables from Section B of the APRI (see Variables

Chapter 1). In relation to the research question, the researcher was specifically

looking at 48 associations. Results are presented in Table 2. Associations were

flagged with one asterisk by the SPSS program as being statistically significant at

p < .05 (2-tailed) (see Table 2). Nine associations were found to be significant,

and 39 were found to be non-significant. Therefore, approximately 19% of the

FFMQ variables were found to be significantly negatively associated with the

APRI variables.

Significant negative associations found between the FFMQ scores and

APRI scores indicate that a negative relationship does exist between facets of

mindfulness and frequency of certain types bullying behaviors, and between

facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of victimization experiences.

First, acting with awareness was significantly negatively associating with social

bullying (r = -.284, p < .05), social victimization (r = -.258, p < .05), physical

victimization (r = -.258, p < .05), and overall victimization (r = -.281, p < .05).

Second, labeling and describing with words the internal world was significantly

negatively associated with physical victimization (r = -.284, p < .05). Third, non-

judging of experience was significantly negatively associated with physical

victimization (r = -.245, p < .05), verbal victimization (r = -.268, p < .05), and

overall victimization (r = -.314, p < .05). Finally, overall mindfulness was

141


significantly negatively associated with physical victimization (r = -.255, p

< .05). According to accepted strengths for correlations in educational research,

all of the above associations are considered weak (i.e. r < .34) (Gay & Airasian,

2003). Nonetheless, these data imply that there exists a negative relationship

between variables of the FFMQ and variables of the APRI.

The large proportion of non-significant associations may have been due to

the small sample size, which resulted in a small spread of scores and therefore

low variability. Therefore, future research should increase the sample size to

increase the power of the correlations.

Additionally, the spearman correlation coefficients revealed associations

that the researcher was not originally looking for. Weak, moderate, and strong

significant positive associations between were found between frequency of

bullying and victimization scores, suggesting that a direct relationship exists

between frequency of bullying behaviors and frequency of victimization

experiences. These findings support research into bully-victims, which shows that

children who bully are often bullied themselves.

Recommendations for Future Research

The widespread prevalence of bullying in schools coupled

with its negative effects on physical and psychosocial health,

have prompted researchers and health officials to urge the

international community to consider bullying a significant

international health issue (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). The literature

142


review presented in this thesis coupled with the significant

results of the present study, suggests that the use of

mindfulness as a means to reducing the frequency and negative

effects of bullying in schools deserves more attention from the

research community. In order to more fully explore the role that

mindfulness can play in reducing the frequency and negative

effects of bullying in schools, the present author recommends

that future research be conducted in three phases: (a) by

improving the present study; (b) by conducting randomized

controlled trials to see whether mindfulness-based skills

training can reduce the frequency of bullying behaviors and

victimization experiences; and (c) by testing for a mechanisms

by which mindfulness reduces the frequency of bullying

behaviors and victimization experiences.

The results of the present study’s exploratory relationship research

revealed nine significant negative associations between various total and subscale

sores of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the Adolescent

Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) (see Results of the Spearman Rank Order

Correlations). These results suggest that a negative relationship does exist

between certain facets of mindfulness and frequency of certain types of bullying

143


behaviors and victimization experiences. Despite the results being significant

and meaningful for exploratory relationship research, the associations found were

weak, and thus should be interpreted with caution until further research is

conducted. The present author suggests that the same or similar studies be

conducted, but with the recommendations found below.

The present study’s design, data collection methods, tools, and statistical

analysis methods could be improved in the following ways: (a) by administering

the test to all classes on the same day; (b) by first calling, then visiting the house

of those students’ who agree to participate, and having the parental consent forms

signed in person; (c) by conducting the study in multiple cities, at

multiple high schools, and in neighborhoods of various socio-

economic statuses, and compare the scores across different

grade levels, gender, and socio-economic statuses; (d) by

increasing the sample size; (e) by incorporating teacher and parent

ratings of mindfulness in addition to self-ratings of mindfulness; (f) by adapting a

version of the FFMQ for use with adolescents; (g) by incorporating teacher and

peer ratings in addition to self-ratings of frequency of bullying behaviors and

victimization experiences; (h) by defining bullying behavior at the beginning of

the APRI, and indicating that all items are in relation to this definition; and (i) by

defining the observing facet of mindfulness to avoid confusion over its meaning.

For a detailed explanation of the above recommendations, please refer to:

Relationship of the Results to the Study Design and Data Collection Methods,

144


Relationship of the Results to the Tools, and Relationship of the Results to the

Statistical and Data

Analysis Methods. Furthermore, it is also recommended that future studies test

levels of mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences, using different tools that have proven validity and reliability. Each

student’s score should be compared between tools to ensure consistency. In

addition, future studies might also consider testing the same students at different

times during the school year, and comparing scores.

If after re-conducting the present study with the above recommendations,

statistically significant negative associations that are moderate to strong in

strength are found, research can move on to phase two – randomized controlled

trials testing whether mindfulness-based skills training can reduce the frequency

of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. If the results of such studies

revealed that mindfulness-based skills training can reduce the frequency of

bullying behaviors and/or victimization experiences, research can move on to

phase 3 – testing for a mechanism by which mindfulness reduces the frequency of


The present study’s conceptual framework and literature review suggests a

potential mechanism. Consider the following proposed mechanism by which

mindfulness may reduce the frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization

experiences. Mindfulness cultivates self-regulation of attention skills, self-

observation skills, and an orientation towards experience that is characterized by

145


acceptance, openness, and curiosity (Bishop et al., 2004). Mindfulness can

also be understood as cultivating the following characteristics: (a) being non-

judgmental

of one’s internal experience; (b) being non-reactive to one’s internal experience;

(c) acting with awareness; (d) being able to proficiently and habitually label and

describe one’s internal experience; and (e) being observant (Baer, Smith,

Hopkins, Krietemeyer, 2006). Cultivating these characteristics and

habitually employing these skills may result in reduced rumination, reduced affect

intolerance, and reduced patterns of cognitive and behavioral avoidance (Bishop

et al., 2004; Lykins & Baer, 2009). Ultimately, a reduction in these psychological

dispositions can result in reduced psychopathology (Baer, 2003; Grossman et al.,

2004; Baer et al., 2006), improved health (Davidson et al., 2003), improved

success at school (Napoli, 2005), improved character strengths (Siegel, 2007;

Baer et al., 2006), and increased relational satisfaction (Siegel, 2007). All of these

factors are likely to increase the quantity and quality of a student’s social network,

and, in terms of victimization, an increase the quantity and quality of a social

network are likely to reduce any perceived imbalance in power by potential

bullies. For instance, a student that shows no depressive symptoms is less likely to

be rejected by peers, to be socially isolated and marked as having low status, and

then to be target by bullies because of a perceived imbalance in power (Kochel,

Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012); a student that is healthier may be absent from school

less frequently, and therefore have more opportunities to socialize, forge new

146


relationships, strengthen existing relationships, and subsequently may reduce

the chance of becoming rejected by peers, socially isolated, and target by bullies;

a student that possesses character strengths that promote healthy relationships

with

others, such as emotional intelligence and empathy, may be more likely to have a

larger and healthier social network, and therefore a reduced chance of becoming

socially isolated and target by bullies. Furthermore, larger social networks should

provide “safety in numbers”.

The present study found eight significant negative associations between

mindfulness and frequency of victimization experiences, and only one significant

negative association between mindfulness and frequency of bullying behaviors.

Future studies will reveal whether mindfulness is just as significantly negatively

associated with frequency of bullying behaviors as it is with frequency of

victimization experiences. Besides a general reduction in psychopathology,

improvements in health, increased success at school, improvements in character

strengths, and increases in relational satisfaction, the present study’s author is

hesitant to offer a specific mechanism for how mindfulness might reduce the

frequency of bullying behaviors because of the present study’s results.

Implications for Practice and Education

Formal mindfulness training is most widely conducted by the 8-week

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program. The MBSR program

employs breathing awareness, body scans, hatha yoga postures, and discussions,

147


with the objective of cultivating the following: (a) purposeful awareness of the

present moment; (b) non-deliberative awareness of physical sensations,

perceptions, affective states, thoughts, and imagery; (c) dispassionate, non-

evaluative, naturalistic observation; (d) focusing the breath, the mind, and

regulating the autonomic nervous system; (e) and increasing self-awareness

(Grossman et al., 2004). Bishop and others (2004) believe that mindfulness

training is, “a form of mental training to reduce cognitive vulnerability to reactive

modes of mind that might otherwise heighten stress and emotional distress, or that

may otherwise perpetuate psychopathology” (p.6). With further research,

mindfulness-based skills training may prove to be a viable prevention and

intervention strategy for reducing the frequency and harmful effects of bullying in

schools.

The MBSR course teaches mindfulness skills in a general context in order

to have widespread clinical effects. For instance, a typical MBSR course would be

offered in a hospital setting, and would consist of 20 to 25 patients with various

diverse medical conditions, such as chronic pain, fibromyalgia, cancer, anxiety

disorders, and depression. Furthermore, mindfulness-based courses taught to

children and adolescents in schools use a similar approach. Mindfulness,

however, is a multi-faceted construct (Baer et al., 2006), and some facets of

mindfulness may be more effective than others at treating specific medical

conditions. Based on the results of the present study, a mindfulness-based course

designed specifically for victims of bullying, and based on research such as the

148


present study, may be more effective at reducing the frequency and harmful

effects of victimization experiences than a typical MBSR course taught in a

general context. For instance, the present study found that acting with awareness,

labeling and describing with words the internal world, and being non-judgmental

of internal experience, were specific facets of mindfulness that were most strongly

negatively associated with physical victimization in particular. Further research

may strengthen these findings, or prove otherwise. Nevertheless, granular data on

mindfulness, bullying, and victimization, such as that found in the present study,

should be useful in tailoring a mindfulness-based skills training program

specifically to victims of bullying. For example, if future research strengthened

the findings of the present study, a mindfulness-based skills training program may

be designed to focus on activities that: (a) develop self-awareness of physical

victimization experiences, and its effects on internal experience; (b) cultivate

skills to proficiently and habitually label and describe physical victimization

experiences in order to most effectively respond to one’s internal experience; and

(c) develop strategies for becoming non-judgmental towards one’s cognitions,

emotions, feelings, and sensations in the context of physical victimization, in

order to reduce cognitive vulnerability to reactive modes of mind.

Finally, the present author believes that mindfulness-based skills training

would be most effectively taught by school psychologists or trained counselors.

Furthermore, teachers and parents might also benefit from participating in the

course.

149


References

Baer, R.A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual

and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2),

125-143.

Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using

self-repost assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness.

Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.

Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Walsh,

E., Duggan, D., & Williams, J.M. (2008). Construct validity of the five

facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples.

Assessment, 20, 1-14.

Barnes, V.A., Bauza, L.B., & Treiber, F.A. (2003). Impact of stress reduction on

negative school behavior in adolescents. Health and Quality of Life

Outcomes, 1(10), 1-7.

Bishop, S.R. (2002). What do we really know about mindfulness-based stress

reduction? Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 71-84.

Bishop, S.R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N.D., Carmody, J.,

Segal, Z.V., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A

150


proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and

Practice, 11, 230-41.

Bond, L., Wolfe, S., Tollit, M., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (2007). A comparison of

the Gatehouse Bullying Scale and the Peer Relations Questionnaire for

students in secondary school. Journal of School Health, 77, 75-79.

Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness

and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.

Carmody, J., & Baer, R.A. (2008). Relationship between mindfulness practice and

levels of mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well

being in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of

Behavioral Medicine, 31, 25-33.

Cohen, L., Lawrence, M., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in

Education, Sixth Edition. New York: Routledge.

Davidson, R.J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Miller, D.,

Santorelli, S.F., Urbanowski, F., Harrington, A., Bonus, K., & Sheridan,

J.F. (2003). Alerations in brain and immune function produced by

mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 564-570.

Didonna, F. (2008). Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness. New York: Springer.

151


Due, P., Holstein, B.E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S.N., Scheidt, P.,

Currie, C., & The Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Bullying

and Working Group. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged

children: International comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries.

European Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 128 – 132.

Farb, N.A., Segal, Z.V., Mayberg, H., Bean, J., McKeon, D., Fatima, Z., &

Anderson, A.K. (2007). Attending to the present: Mindfulness meditation

reveals distinct neural modes of self-reference. Social Cognitive and

Affective Neuroscience, 2, 313-322.

Farrington, D.P., & Ttofi, M.M. (2009). How to reduce school bullying. Victims

& Offenders, 4(4), 321-326. doi:10.1080/15564880903227255

Finger, L.R., Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., & Parada, R.H. (n.d.). Strengthening

anti-bullying research: An investigation into the misuse of dichotomous

variables. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from

http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/fin05326.pdf

Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for

Analysis and Applications, Seventh Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education.

Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic

problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059-1065.

152


Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness

based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Jounral of

Psychosomatic Research, 57, 35-43.

Hayes, S.C., Wilson, K.G., Gifford, E.V., Follette, V.M., & Strosahl, K. (1996).

Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional

approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 64(6), 1152-1168.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your mind

and body to Face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacorte.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present,

and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144-156.

Kochel, K.P., Ladd, G.W., & Rudolph, K.D. (2012). Longitudinal associations

among youth depressive symptoms, peer victimization, and low peer

acceptance: and interpersonal process perspective. Child Development,

83(2), 637-650.

Langer, E.J. (1998). The Power of Mindful Learning. New York: Perseus Books

Group.

Langer, E.J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of

Social Issues, 56(1), 1-9.

153


Lykins, L.B., & Baer, R.A. (2009). Psychological functioning in a sample of

long term practitioners of mindfulness meditation. Journal of Cognitive

Psychology: An International Quarterly, 23(3), 226 – 241.

Marini, Z.A., Dane, A.V., Bosacki, S.L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct and

indirect bully-victims: different psychosocial risk factors associated with

adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior,

32(6), 551-569.

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. The Journal of the American

Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

Napoli, M., Krech, P.R., & Holley, L.C. (2005). Mindfulness training for

elementary students: The attention academy. Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 21(1), 99-125.

North York General Hospital. (2009). Referral for Mindfulness-Based Stress

Reduction Group. Retrieved from

http://www.nygh.on.ca/downloads/Referral_MBSR_Aug.09.pdf

Parada, R. (2000). Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument: A theoretical and

empirical basis for the measurement of participant roles in bullying and

victimisation of adolescence: An interim test manual and a research

monograph: A test manual. Publication Unit, Self-concept Enhancement

154


and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, University of

Western Sydney.

Roberts, K.C., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2010). Mindfulness and health behaviors: Is

paying attention good for you? Journal of American College Health,

59(3), 165-173.

Shapiro, S.L., Carlson, L.E., Astin, J.A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of

Mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373-386.

Siegel, D.J., (2007). Mindfulness training and neural integration: differentiation of

distinct streams of awareness and the cultivation of well-being. Social

Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 259-263.

doi:10.1093/scan/nsm034

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

Australian primary school students. Personality and Individual

Differences, 18(1), 57-62.

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

Psychosocial correlates in bullying and victimization: The relationship

between depression, anxiety, and bully/victim status. Journal of Emotional

Abuse, 2, 95-121.

Hanh, T.N. (1997). Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing. New Delhi: Full

Circle.

155


Hanh, T.N. (2006). Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness. Berkely,

CA: Parallax Press.

Veehof, M.M., Klooster, P.M., Taal, E., Westerhof, G.J., & Bohlmeijer, E.T.

(2011) Psychometric properties of the Dutch Five Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire (FFMQ) in patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical

Rheumatology, 30(8), 1045 – 1054.

Wisner, B.L., Jones, B., & Gwin, D. (2010). School-based meditation practices

for adolescents: A resource for strengthening self-regulation, emotional

coping, and self-esteem. Children & Schools, 32(3), 150-159.

Zvolensky, M.J., Solomon, S.E., McLeish, A.C., Cassidy, D., Bernstein, A.,

Bowman, C.J., & Yartz, A.R. (2006). Incremental validity of mindfulness

based attention in relation to the concurrent prediction of anxiety and

depressive symptomatology and perceptions of health. Cognitive

Behaviour Therapy, 35(3), 148-158.

156


Appendix A

Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

157


1Subject number_________ Date_________

Five-Facet Mindfulness QUESTIONNAIRE

Please rate each of the following statements using the scale provided. Write the number in the blank that best describes your own opinion of what is generally true for you.

1 2 3 4 5

Never or very rarely

true

RarelyTrue

SometimesTrue

OftenTrue

Very often or always

true

_____ 1. When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body

moving.

_____ 2. I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings.

_____ 3. I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions.

_____ 4. I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them.

_____ 5. When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted.

_____ 6. When I take a shower or bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on

my body.

158


_____ 7. I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words.

_____ 8. I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming,

worrying, or otherwise distracted.

_____ 9. I watch my feelings without getting lost in them.

_____ 10. I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling.

_____ 11. I notice how foods and drinks affect my thoughts, bodily sensations,

and emotions.

_____ 12. It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I’m thinking.

_____ 13. I am easily distracted.

_____ 14. I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t

think that way.

_____ 15. I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my

face.

_____ 16. I have trouble thinking of the right words to express how I feel about

things.

_____ 17. I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good or bad.

_____ 18. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.

_____ 19. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I “step back” and am

aware of the thought or image without getting taken over by it.

_____ 20. I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars

passing.

_____ 21. In difficult situations, I can pause without immediately reacting.

_____ 22. When I have a sensation in my body, it’s difficult for me to describe it

because I can’t find the right words.

_____ 23. It seems I am “running on automatic” without much awareness of what

1 2 3 4 5

Never or

very rarely

true

Rarely

True

Sometimes

True

Often

True

Very often

or always

true

159


I’m doing.

_____24. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after.

_____ 25. I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m thinking.

_____ 26. I notice the smells and aromas of things.

_____ 27. Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into

words.

_____ 28. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.

_____ 29. When I have distressing thoughts or images I am able just to notice

them without reacting.

_____ 30. I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t

feel them.

_____ 31. I notice visual elements in art or nature, such as colors, shapes,

textures, or patterns of light and shadow.

_____ 32. My natural tendency is to put my experiences into words.

_____ 33. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let

them go.

_____ 34. I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing.

_____ 35. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I judge myself as good or

bad, depending what the thought/image is about.

_____ 36. I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and behavior.

_____ 37. I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail.

_____ 38. I find myself doing things without paying attention.

_____ 39. I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas.

160


Appendix B

Scoring the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

161


Scoring the Five Facet Mindfulness QuestionnaireRuth Baer, University of KentuckyOctober 2005

Observe items:

1, 6, 11, 15, 20, 26, 31, 36

Describe items:

2, 7, 12R, 16R, 22R, 27, 32, 37

Act with Awareness items:

5R, 8R, 13R, 18R, 23R, 28R, 34R, 38R

Nonjudge items:

3R, 10R, 14R, 17R, 25R, 30R, 35R, 39R

Nonreact items:

162


4, 9, 19, 21, 24, 29, 33

Appendix C

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument

163



Adolescent Peer Relations InstrumentSection A

Since you have been at this school THIS YEAR how often HAVE YOU done any of the following things to a STUDENT (or students) at this school. WRITE THE NUMBER IN THE BLANK THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR ANSWER.

IN THE PAST YEAR AT THIS SCHOOL I…

1 2 3 4 5 6

Never Sometimes Once or twice a month

Once a week

Several times a week

Everyday

_____ 1. Tease them by saying things to them.

_____ 2. Pushed or shoved a student.

_____ 3. Made rude remarks at a student.

_____ 4. Got my friends to turn against a student.

_____ 5. Made jokes about a student.

_____ 6. Crashed into a student on purpose as they walked by.

164


_____ 7. Picked on a student by swearing at them.

_____ 8. Told my friends things about a student to get them into trouble.

_____ 9. Got into a physical fight with a student because I didn’t like them.

_____ 10. Said things about their looks they didn’t like.

_____ 11. Got other students to start a rumor about a student.

_____ 12. I slapped or punched a student.

_____ 13. Got other students to ignore a student.

_____ 14. Made fun of a student by calling them names.

_____ 15. Threw something at a student to hit them.

_____ 16. Threatened to physically hurt or harm a student.

_____ 17. Left them out of activities or games on purpose.

_____ 18. Kept a student away from me by giving them mean looks.

Section B

Please indicate how often a student (or students) at this school has done the following things TO YOU since you have been at this school this year. WRITE THE NUMBER IN THE BLANK THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR ANSWER.

IN THE PAST YEAR AT THIS SCHOOL…

1 2 3 4 5 6

Never Sometimes Once or twice a month

Once a week

Several times a week

Everyday

_____ 1. I was teased by students saying things to me.

_____ 2. I was pushed or shoved.

_____ 3. A student wouldn’t be friends with me because other people didn’t like

me.

_____ 4. A student made rude remarks at me.

_____ 5. I was hit or kicked hard.

_____ 6. A student ignored me when they were with their friends.

_____ 7. Jokes were made up about me.

165


_____ 8. Students crashed into me on purpose as they walked by.

_____ 9. A student got their friends to turn against me.

_____ 10. My property was damaged on purpose.

_____ 11. Things were said about my looks I didn’t like.

_____ 12. I wasn’t invited to a student’s place because other people didn’t like

me.

_____ 13. I was ridiculed by students saying things to me.

_____ 14. A student got students to start a rumor about me.

_____ 15. Something was thrown at me to hit me.

_____ 16. I was threatened to be physically hurt or harmed.

_____ 17. I was left out of activities, games on purpose.

_____ 18. I was called names I didn’t like.

Appendix D

Scoring the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument

166


Scoring the Adolescent Peer Relations InstrumentRoberto Parada, University of Western Sydney2000

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Section A contains the bullying items. Subscale scores are computed as follows:

Verbal bullying items:

1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14

Social bullying items:

4, 8, 11, 13, 17, and 18

Physical bullying items:

2, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 16

Section B contains the victim items. Subscale scores are computed as follows:

Verbal victimization items:

1, 4, 7, 11, 13, and 18

Social victimization items:

167


3, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 17

Physical victimization items:

2, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 16

Scoring is achieved by adding the items up for each individual total score (bullying and victimization) or for each subscale score (verbal, social, and physical). Any student who scores 18 for either the bullying or victimization total score has never been bullied or has never bullied others. There are no cut off scores for this instrument. For the subscales, a score of 6 means the respondent has never been bullied or has never bullied others in that particular way.

Appendix E

IRB Application

168


169


170


171


Appendix F

Letter to Principal

172


Dear Principal,

I am writing to request your permission to conduct a study in your school. I am conducting a study entitled A correlational analysis of the relationship between mindfulness and bullying, to determine whether higher levels of mindfulness are associated with a lower frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences.

Attached to this letter are an explanation of the purpose of the study, the methodology, the steps that will be taken to protect human rights, the assessments used in the study, a sample of the consent letters to be sent to the parents, and assent forms for students. The study is currently being assessed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of D’Youville College, and must first receive a formal letter of approval before data collection can begin. You will be notified as soon as I receive approval.

The study will involve the administration of two questionnaires, and will take approximately 30 minutes per class. I hope to be able to conduct the study with as many students as possible. I plan to conduct the study as soon as I receive permission from the IRB. If you decide to participate, I would be willing to conduct the study at your convenience, any time before the end of the school year.

Please review the attached documents. If you agree to participate in the study, a letter of approval from you would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (416)-666-5508, or committee member Dr. David Gorlewski at (716)-829-8169.

I thank you in advance for me giving me this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Zachary Garofolo

173


Appendix G

Parental Consent Form

174


Dear Parents,

The purpose of this form is to assure that you are given sufficient information to make an informed decision as to whether you will agree to allow your child to be a subject in a study involving research.

Zachary Garofolo, hereafter referred to as researcher, is conducting a study entitled A correlational analysis of the relationship between mindfulness and bullying to determine whether higher levels of mindfulness are associated with a lower frequency of bullying behaviors and victimization experiences. Your child’s participation will involve one session for approximately 30 minutes. As a subject, your child will be asked to complete two questionnaires. The first questionnaire –the Five-Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire – assesses the level of mindfulness in a subject by asking 39 questions that assess aspects of everyday awareness and self-observation. The second questionnaire – the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument – measures how often a subject is involved in physical, verbal, and social bullying behaviors, both as a perpetrator and as a victim. This questionnaire consists of 36 questions.

The questionnaires to be used in this study are not considered experimental. There are no more risks or discomforts associated with the procedures involved in this study than those ordinarily encountered in daily school life. Besides an increased awareness of bullying behaviors and personal awareness, there may be no direct benefits to your child for participating in this research. Furthermore, your child’s participation could be helpful in developing an intervention for bullying in schools that employs mindfulness techniques.

Any information that your child provides during the course of the study will be recorded in such a way that his or her identity will remain confidential. This means that number codes will be used to record your child’s information. The researcher will be the only to have access to the information, and it will be securely stored. A list with the children’s names and numbers will be used to make sure that only the children who have permission to participate in the study receive the questionnaires. This list will be destroyed after the data is gathered. Your child’s identity will never be revealed and information about the study will be reported in group-format only.

Your child’s participation in this study is completely voluntary. Even if you chose to allow for your child to participate, you may change your mind prior to the collection of data by contacting me at 416-666-5508. There is no penalty or loss of benefits to which your child is otherwise entitled if you decide to withdraw your child from the study, or if you choose not have your child participate.

If during the course of the study you have questions about the research, tasks or activities your child will be asked to complete, or your child’s rights as a research subject, you may contact my thesis director, Dr. Helen Kress at (716) 930-4447, and your questions will be answered.

175


You are receiving two copies of this form. Return the signed copy to your child’s teacher in a sealed envelope, with my name, Zachary Garofolo on it. Please return it as soon as possible and keep the other copy for future reference. If you would like to receive a summary of the results of the study upon its completion, write your full address on the reverse side of this form.

My signature below indicates that I understand the procedures to be employed in this study, all my questions concerning the study have been answered to my satisfaction, and that I agree to let my child be a subject in this study. I also agree to allow the researcher to present his findings publicly or privately, orally or in written form.

Name of Child

Parent’s (or) Legal Guardian’s Signature Date

176


Appendix H

Subject Assent Form

177


My name is Zachary Garofolo. I am conducting a research study about mindfulness and bullying in high school students.

I am getting people like yourself to volunteer to answer questions from two questionnaires to find out how mindful you are throughout the day, and how you behave towards other students and how they behave towards you. Your participation will be for one session for 30 minutes. I will ask you to circle your answer to the questions in the booklet, like in a multiple-choice test.

You may choose to be in the study or not, and you may choose to do, or stop doing the questionnaires any time you want to. All you have to do is let me know when you want to stop. No matter what you choose, it will not interfere with any other activities you are doing in school.

If you would like to help me with my study, you will need to circle YES on this assent form. This form will say that you are willing to take part in my study. If you don’t want to participate, you can hand in a blank form and you will receive a different questionnaire that will help you reflect on your own strengths and weaknesses.

Do you want to be in the study?

Circle “Yes” or “No”

Yes No

178


Appendix I

Instructions for Students

179


Hi, my name is Zachary Garofolo and I am a graduate student in education at D’Youville College in Buffalo, N.Y. I am doing a study about how students think about themselves and also about how they interact with other students at school.

I will be giving some of you a booklet. In it are questions from two questionnaires: the Five-Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI). The first questionnaire (i.e.: FFMQ) will be used to find out how mindful you are throughout the day. The second questionnaire (i.e.: APRI) has two parts. Section A will be used to find out how you behave toward other students at school. Section B will be used to find out how other students behave toward you at school.

Do not put your name on the booklet. There are numbers on them instead. Those of you who do not wish to participate will also receive a booklet, but with a different questionnaire that will help you reflect on your own strengths and interests. When you are done with your booklet I will collect it from you. Thank you for your help.

180


Appendix J

Alternative Activity

181



Strength and Interest Survey PART 1

People are all different. Isn’t that wonderful? What a boring world this would be if we were all the same. The survey below helps you reflect on your own strengths and interests. There are no right or wrong answers. Be honest with yourself and you may learn something new about YOU!

Give yourself a score from 0-10 for each of the statements below. A 10 means the statement describes you perfectly. A 0 means the statement is not like you at all.

_____ 1. I enjoy playing with words (writing, telling jokes, & talking about

language).

_____ 2. Working with modeling clay or play dough is fun form me.

_____ 3. I love to solve mathematical puzzles.

_____ 4. I enjoy dancing.

_____ 5. I often sit alone and ponder (think about) things.

_____ 6. Being a member of a team is important to me.

_____ 7. I find myself humming or tapping on things.

_____ 8. I wonder about the world around me and like to look up the answers to

my questions or find them by experimenting.

_____ 9. I feel I am a good leader in groups.

_____ 10. I am a talented storyteller.

_____ 11. I have a special interest and participate in one or more sports.

_____ 12. I know myself well and can identify my feelings easily.

_____ 13. I find myself doodling or drawing often.

_____ 14. I enjoy singing.

_____ 15. I can put myself in another’s place and tell how they feel.

_____ 16. I enjoy discussing topics of interests with others._____ 17. I look at things (like clouds) and see pictures in them.

_____ 18. I like to make decisions and plan things.

182


_____ 19. I evaluate myself often and try to change things that I don’t like.

_____ 20. I listen to music everyday for personal pleasure.

_____ 21. I like to communicate with my body (acting, role playing, charades).

_____ 22. I am told that I have a good sense oh humor.

_____ 23. I am a good friend.

_____ 24. I play one or more instruments.

_____ 25. I like to gather facts and organize them.

_____ 26. I enjoy daydreaming.

_____ 27. I know myself well (how I learn best, my strengths, my weaknesses)

_____ 28. I learn new sports/dances easily.

_____ 29. I am good at finding my way using a map.

_____ 30. I feel competent at making a speech or giving a report.

_____ 31. I often figure out if I’ve received the correct change at the store.

_____ 32. I exercise regularly though physical activity.

_____ 33. I am able to hum a tune that I just heard.

_____ 34. I usually give encouragement and positive support to others._____ 35. I like to explore my values and think about what I feel is right or wrong.

183



Strength and Interest Survey PART 2

People are all different. Isn’t that wonderful? What a boring world this would be if we were all the same. The survey below helps you reflect on your own strengths and interests. There are no right or wrong answers. Be honest with yourself and you may learn something new about YOU!

Give yourself a score from 0-10 for each of the statements below. A 10 means the statement describes you perfectly. A 0 means the statement is not like you at all.

_____ 1. I can easily add, subtract, and multiply numbers in my head.

_____ 2. I know about my feelings, strengths and weaknesses.

_____ 3. I enjoy spending time in nature.

_____ 4. I prefer team sports.

_____ 5. I get uncomfortable when I sit too long.

_____ 6. I enjoy solving mysteries.

_____ 7. I like to learn about myself.

_____ 8. I like working in groups.

_____ 9. I like to put things into categories.

_____ 10. I like to do things in class that I can get out of my seat to do.

_____ 11. Ideas put into a graph or charts are easier for me to follow.

_____ 12. I enjoy being alone sometimes.

_____ 13. I’m comfortable in a crowd.

_____ 14. I am happiest outdoors.

_____ 15. I am always curious about how things work and sometimes like to take

things apart to find out.

_____ 16. I am good at estimation._____ 17. I like to work alone.

_____ 18. I can figure out what people are thinking.

_____ 19. I like taking care of animals and plants.

184


_____ 20. I would rather show someone how to do something, than explain it

in words.

_____ 21. I solve math problems easily.

_____ 22. I am curious and ask a lot of questions.

_____ 23. I would rather spend my spare time with my friends, than alone.

_____ 24. I learn best by going on field trips.

_____ 25. I learn by doing rather than watching.

_____ 26. I enjoy math and computers.

_____ 27. I keep a personal journal or diary to record my thoughts.

_____ 28. I have a collection of rocks and/or shells.

_____ 29. I use my hands when speaking.

_____ 30. I wonder how things work.

_____ 31. When I have a personal problem, I like to figure out how to solve it on

my own.

_____ 32. I enjoy helping others.

_____ 33. I enjoy talking to people.

_____ 34. I care about the environment, so I am involved in conservation._____ 35. I think of myself as well coordinated.

_____ 36. I think in pictures.

_____ 37. I like color and interesting designs. _____ 38. I can easily find myself around unfamiliar places.

_____ 39. When I read, I can see the story happening in my head._____ 40. I enjoy solving jigsaw puzzles and mazes.

185


Appendix K

D’Youville College IRB Letter of Full Approval

186


187


188

mindfulness: a solution to bullying

Documents