Bullying Defiance Theory

Victims and Offenders, 3:289312, 2008Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564880802143397

289

UVAO1556-48861556-4991Victims and Offenders, Vol. 3, No. 2-3, April 2008: pp. 141Victims and OffendersBullying: Short-Term and Long-Term Effects, and the Importance of Defiance Theory in Explanation and PreventionBullyingM. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

Maria M. Ttofi and David P. Farrington

Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract: Bullying is often followed by short-term and long-term undesirable psycho-social consequences. Both victims and perpetrators of bullying tend to have high num-bers of physical and psychological symptoms. In order to prevent bullying and itsaversive results, it is important to formulate and test theories of bullying. This articleinvestigates the usefulness of defiance theory in the explanation of the bullying of sib-lings in families and peers in schools. Questionnaires were completed by 182 childrenaged 11 to 12 in ten primary schools in Nicosia, Cyprus. We followed a vignette-basedmethodology to investigate childrens defiant behavior. Children were given a hypo-thetical scenarioin which the perpetrator is sanctioned by the parentsand werethen asked questions that aimed to investigate defiant or compliant reactions to thesanctions imposed. The type of child in the vignette was experimentally manipulatedso that children could make inferences regarding his/her intentionality of wrongdoing.The results indicate that defiance theory is useful in explaining bullying behavior. Themain implication from our research is that defiance theory can assist teachers andpractitioners in implementing whole-school restorative justice approaches to reducebullying in schools.

Keywords: bullying, parental bonding, fairness, unacknowledged shame, defiance,anti-bullying programs

INTRODUCTION

Bullying affects about 1 in 5 school-aged children in many different countries(Glew, Rivara, & Feudtner, 2000). Involvement in bullying (as perpetrators orvictims) has negative effects on the physical and psychological health of

We would like to thank Mr. Lakis Koumi, a dedicated educator, for his assistance inorganizing visits to schools and data collection.Address correspondence to David P. Farrington, Institute of Criminology, SidgwickAvenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

290 M. M. Ttofi and D. P. Farrington

children and on their future psychosocial adjustment as adults. This articlehas two aims: to present an evidence-based review of the effects of bullyingand to describe an empirical test of the usefulness of defiance theory inexplaining bullying and promoting theoretically-grounded interventions toreduce bullying. In carrying out the literature review on the effects of bully-ing, we searched several databases (e.g. Google Scholar, PsycInfo, Embase)using key words including bullying combined with consequences, impact,effects, health, emotional impact, or victims.

The Impact of Being Involved in BullyingThere is a strong link between involvement in bullying and depressive

symptomatology (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Van der Wal, De Wit, &Hirasing, 2003). In their follow-up study, Kumpulainen, Rasanen, andHenttonen (1999) concluded that children involved in bullyingas bullies orvictimsshowed significantly more psychiatric symptoms than other chil-dren, and were psychologically disturbed according to the Childrens Depres-sion Inventory. Also, Sourander, Helstela, Helenious, and Piha (2000)reported that the identification of a child as either a bully or a victim was sig-nificantly correlated with referral for psychosocial services. In a study of thelink between bullying and psychosocial adjustment in primary school, Glew,Fan, Katon, Rivara, and Kernic (2005) found that bullies-only and victims-only were more likely than bystanders to feel sad most days. Moreover, theyreported that all three groups involved in bullying (bullies, victims, and bully-victims) were significantly more likely than bystanders to feel unsafe atschool.

In a school-based survey with 16,410 Finnish adolescents aged 14 to 16,Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela and Rantanen (1999)showed that adolescents who were being bullied and those who were bul-lies were at an increased risk of depression and severe suicidal ideation.Among girls, Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, and Rimpela (2000)found that eating disorders were associated with involvement in bullying.Also, in their study with 1718 Korean middle school students, Kim, Koh,and Leventhal (2005) concluded that, among female students, all three bul-lying groupsvictims, bullies, and bully-victimshad increased suicidalideation.

Turning to bullies specifically, Salmon (1998), in a sample of children aged12 to 17, found that those who bullied others tended to have higher scores ondepression. Similarly, Forero, McLellan, Rissel and Bauman (1999), in a sur-vey of 3918 Australian school children, concluded that bullies had high scoreson psychosomatic symptoms. Forero and colleagues also reported that bullieswere significantly more likely to dislike school and to think that school wasnot a nice place to be.

Bullying 291

Bullying others has also been identified as a risk factor for other types ofantisocial behavior (such as excessive drinking and substance use; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000) and later offending (Farrington, 1993; Sourander et al.,2006). For instance, in a survey of 4811 Dutch primary school children aged9 to 13, Van der Wal et al. (2003) found that bulliesirrespective of gendermuch more often reported delinquent behavior such as shoplifting. In follow-upstudies of bullies in Norway, Olweus (1997) discovered that, of those originallyidentified as bullies in the sixth through the ninth grades, 70% were convictedof at least one crime by age 24.

The Impact of Being BulliedExposure to bullying influences childrens physical and emotional health

in many ways. For example, children who are bullied tend to show more anxi-ety than others (Salmon, 1998). Similarly, Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, andPatton (2001), in a survey of 2680 secondary school students, found that vic-timization at age 13 significantly predicted self- reported symptoms of anxietyor depression at age 14. In a review of existing literature, Salmon, James,Cassidy and Javaloyes (2000) found that being bullied was frequently a factorinfluencing the referral of adolescents to psychiatric services, with depressionbeing diagnosed in over 70% of cases.

Children who are bullied show symptoms of depression and suicidal ide-ation. In a cross-sectional study of 2766 elementary school children aged 9 to 12years, Fekkes, Pijpers, and Verloove-Vanhorick (2004) showed that victims ofbullying, compared to bullies, bully-victims and children who were notinvolved, had significantly higher chances of depression and psychosomaticsymptoms (e.g. headaches, sleeping problems, abdominal pain, bed-wetting,feeling tired). Kaltiala-Heino et al. (1999) in Finland discovered that victimsof bullying had an increased risk of depression and/or suicide and that depres-sion was equally likely to occur among those who were bullied and those whowere bullies. For primary school children, Van der Wal et al. (2003) concludedthat depression and suicidal ideation were common outcomes of beingbulliedirrespective of genderand that these associations were stronger forindirect than for direct bullying.

Children who are bullied tend to show many psychosomatic symptoms. Ina large-scale international comparison (including 123,227 students aged11, 13 and 15 in 28 countries) on bullying and health among adolescents, Dueet al. (2005) discovered that those who were bullied showed more evidence of12 different physical and psychological symptoms (i.e. headache, stomach ache,backache, dizziness, bad temper, feeling nervous, feeling low, difficulties ingetting to sleep, morning tiredness, feeling left out, loneliness, helplessness).Similarly, in a study of a representative sample of 15,686 students in grades 6through 10 in public and private American schools (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla,


Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001), bullied students had poorer socialand emotional adjustment, greater difficulty in making friends, poorer rela-tionships with classmates, and greater loneliness. Also, in a study of 344 kin-dergarten children aged 5 to 7, Perren and Alsaker (2006) concluded thatvictims were more submissive, more withdrawn, more isolated, less coopera-tive, less sociable, had fewer leadership skills, and frequently had no play-mates.

Bullying has long-term detrimental effects on victims. Victimization atschool often results in long-term social, emotional and psychological effects(Duncan, 1999a; Parker & Asher, 1987; Sharp, 1995). In a study of 276 adultmembers of the British Stammering Association concerning school experi-ences related to bullying and its long-term effects, Hugh-Jones and Smith(1999) found that the majority of respondents had experienced bullying atschool. Of those who were bullied, the majority reported immediate negativeeffects and 46% reported undesirable long-term effects.

Jantzer, Hoover and Narloch (2006) collected data on 170 college studentsto assess retrospective perceptions of school-age bullying experiences. Theyconcluded that rates of reported victimization at school were positively corre-lated with adult levels of shyness. Also, they found a statistically significantnegative relationship between retrospectively reported victimization and cur-rent friendship quality and trust. Similarly, Gilmartin (1987) found that menwho had been victimized at school often reported difficulties in trust and inti-macy in opposite-sex relationships as adults, and Dietz (1994) replicated theseresults for both sexes.

Olweus (1993) discovered that boys who were victims of bullying at schoolbetween ages 13 and 16 were, at age 23, more likely to show depressive ten-dencies and continued to have poor self-esteem. Matsui, Tsuzuki, Kakuyanaand Onglateo (1996) also reported long-term effects of school bullying onJapanese students, but only for those who had low self-esteem and highdepression prior to victimization; apparently, victimization amplified theseeffects, which is why these authors characterized the whole process as avicious cycle.

The Impact on Bully-VictimsNot surprisingly, those who are both bullies and victims tend to have poor

psychosocial adjustment. For instance, Troy and Sroufe (1987) showed thatpreschool children who displayed an anxious-avoidant pattern of attachmenttended to be at greater risk of being classified as bully-victims. Glew et al.(2005) found that victims and bully-victims were most likely to report feelingthat they did not belong at school. Nansel et al. (2001) discovered that bully-victims demonstrated poorer adjustment across both social/emotional dimen-sions and problem behaviors; the specific relationships between bullying/being

Bullying 293

bullied and psychosocial adjustment were similar across all age and sexgroups. Kumpulainen et al. (1999) found that, among 8-year old children, themost psychologically disturbed group were those who were both bullies andvictims.

Kaltiala-Heino et al. (1999) also concluded that depression was most com-mon among those students who were classified as bully-victims (comparedwith bullies-only and victims only). Similarly, Kim et al. (2005) showedthat, compared with students who were not involved with school bullying,bully-victims reported more suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and suicidalideation. Also, Kaltiala-Heino et al. (2000) found that anxiety, depression andpsychosomatic symptoms (i.e. neck and shoulder pain, low back pain, stomachache, feeling tensed or nervous, irritation or tantrums, difficulties to getasleep or waking up at night, headache and fatigue) were most frequentamong bully-victims.

As mentioned above, bully-victims tend to report psychosomatic symptoms.In a survey of 1639 primary school children, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, andKarstadt (2001) found that direct bully-victims (and direct victims) were mostlikely to have high psychosomatic health problems (e.g. poor appetite, worriesabout going to school) compared to other comparison groups of bullies andvictims. Kaltiala-Heino et al. (2000) reported that, among boys, eating disorderswere especially associated with bully-victims. Forero et al. (1999) found thatbully-victims were significantly more likely to be boys, experienced frequent andhigh scores on psychosomatic symptoms, reported being alone, and were currentsmokers. In this survey, bully-victims had the greatest number of psychologicaland psychosomatic symptoms compared to bullies-only and victims-only.

Existing work indicates that bully-victims also tend to have problembehaviors and attitudes in favor of aggression. For instance, Andreou (2004),in a study of 186 primary school children in central Greece, found that bully/victims (compared to bullies and victims) were worse on Lack of Faith inHuman Nature and overall Machiavellianism. Bully-victims were similar tovictims on Self-efficacy for Assertion and similar to bullies on Self-efficacy forAggression. In a study on the association between bullying and behavior prob-lems among primary school children, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, and Karstadt(2000) concluded that all children involved in direct bullying (either as bullies,victims or bully/victims) had significantly greater total behavior problems,hyperactivity, conduct problems, peer problem scores, and lower prosocialbehavior scores compared to those not involved in bullying. In all cases, fordirect bullying, the mean scores were highest for bully-victims.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

Because involvement in bullyingeither as a bully, victim or bully/victimisoften followed by negative life outcomes (Rigby, 2003), it is important to


develop and test theories of bullying, and this is the main aim of the presentresearch. Specifically, we focus on the extent to which defiance theory (Sherman,1993) might be useful in explaining bullying, and especially in explaining thelink between family factors and bullying. Both sibling bullying and peer bully-ing are studied; it is known that these two types of bullying are linked (Duncan,1999b; Wiesner, Capaldi & Patterson, 2003; Wolke & Samara, 2004). To thebest of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to apply defiance theoryto bullying. The theory has been tested on other topics such as self-reportedoffending (Freeman, Liosis & David, 2006), marital violence (Sherman, 1995),public responses to police requests (Mastrofski, Snipes & Supina, 1996), andgang membership (Brownfield, 2006).

Defiance TheoryShermans (1993) theory aims to explain the conditions under which pun-

ishment increases offending because of defiant reactions to the sanctionsimposed. The theory explains how the perception of punishment as fair canlead to compliance and conformity. Conversely, sanctions that are perceivedas unfair can lead to defiant reactions that increase future offending. Sher-man (1993, p. 459) differentiates between two types of defiance. Direct defi-ance is a crime against a sanctioning agency whereas indirect defiance isdefined as the displaced just deserts committed against a target vicariouslyrepresenting the sanctioning agent provoking the anger. The latter can beseen as a form of retaliation.

The focal point of defiance theory is the impact that sanctions can have onfuture defiance of the law and future deterrence of lawbreaking. The theory isbased on the notion that punishment does not necessarily control offending.Similar criminal sanctions can have different effects on different offenders(Sherman, 1993, p. 449). Given the widely varying results across a range ofsanction studies, we should try to understand the conditions under which eachtype of criminal sanction reduces, increases, or has no effect on future crimes(Sherman, 1993, p. 445). In doing so, we should not only pay attention to thesanction per se (e.g. severity, length etc.), but also to the way in which it isdelivered. The sanctioning style is linked to the legitimacy of the authority fig-ure and, sequentially, to possible defiance of the law. Sherman (2000, p. 7)indicates how different types of sanctioning can interact with different kindsof citizen personalities in ways that predict different rates of repeat offending.

Based on defiance theory, sanctions can lead to defiant reactions underfour conditions (Sherman, 1993, p. 460):

1. The offender defines the criminal sanction as unfair,

2. The offender is poorly bonded to or alienated from the sanctioning agentor the community the agent represents,

Bullying 295

3. The offender defines the sanction as stigmatizing and rejecting a person,not a lawbreaking act, and

4. The offender denies or refuses to acknowledge the shame the sanction hasactually caused him to suffer.

Applicability to BullyingSherman (1993, p. 466) considered that defiance theory could be applied

much more widely than to explain the effect of criminal sanctions on offend-ing. This is reasonable given that the individual learns what it means to besanctioned for wrongdoing in the early years of life. Parents and teachersmight be the first persons to be perceived as sanctioning agents by children. Infact, it could be argued that the quality of sanctioning they offer is a crucialelement of each persons socialization process.

The present article aims to assess the usefulness of defiance theory inexplaining bullying, both of siblings in families and of peers in schools. Pastresearch has reported a link between bullying and defiance, especially in dis-cussing Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). This link is understandable,since ODD is a pattern of negative (e.g. deliberately doing things that annoyother people, blaming others for own mistakes), disobedient (defying or notcomplying with grownups rules or requests) and hostile behaviors (e.g. losingtemper) (McMahon & Frick, 2005, p. 478). The Kokkinos and Panayiotou(2004, p. 528) survey supports the link between ODD and bullying: they foundthat high ODD students tended to be bullies.

Figure 1 offers a schematic presentation of defiance theory as applied tobullying behavior. In line with defiance theory, the following hypotheses aretested:

Figure 1: Applying Defiance Theory to Sibling and Peer Bullying; Hypothesized Model.

Unacknowledged ShameSibling

Bullying

Mother/Father BondingDefiance to the

sanctionimposed

Perceptions of FairnessPeer

Bullying

Type of child

Note: The dashed lines indicate interrelationships of constructs that are not directly proposed in defiance theory.


1. Unacknowledged shame, parental bonding, perceived fairness and thetype of the child (good or bad; see later) will be directly related to defiance.

2. Defiance will be directly related to sibling and peer bullying.

3. The type of the child will be directly related to perceptions of fairness.

Building upon previous research, it is hypothesized that parental bonding will bepositively related to perceptions of fairness (Kochanska and Murray, 2000) andnegatively related to unacknowledged shame (Ahmed and Braithwaite, 2004).

METHOD

Sample and ProcedureQuestionnaires were given to 182 male and female primary school

students aged 11 to 12 attending the sixth grade in Nicosia primary schools.Ten schools were randomly selected based on the registers of primary schoolsoffered online by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic ofCyprus. The survey received ethical approval from the Ministry. The studentscompleted the questionnaire after the researchers obtained consent from boththe children and their parents. No parents denied permission for their chil-dren to participate in the survey and no child refused to participate. The ques-tionnaire was self-completed during one teaching period. The researcherworked beforehand with the children in another teaching period and helpedthem practice completing measurement scales based on exercises written onthe blackboard. This was important in producing valid responses.

Measuring BullyingSeveral surveys, mainly based on Family Systems Theory (Minuchin,

1974), indicate that there is a strong link between intra-familial and extra-familial peer relationships (Duncan, 1999a; Garcia, Shaw, Winslow & Yaggi,2000; Wolke & Samara, 2004). Building upon previous research, the question-naire included items concerning bullying of both siblings and peers. The itemsreferred to bullying in a physical/direct and a psychological/indirect way. Thisis the only part of the questionnaire in which items from a previous instru-ment were used (the Negative Family Interactions Scale; Simonelli, Mullis& Rohde, 2005). The previous instrument concerned familial victimizationand the relevant items referred to psychological, physical and sexual aggres-sion experienced by the respondent. Only items from the first two types ofaggression were included in the present survey and were changed to ask aboutbullying rather than being victimized. The prevalence of bullying was definedaccording to committing the act three or more times in the previous sevenmonths, because bullying by definition involves repeated acts. The -value for

Bullying 297

the overall sibling bullying scale was .89 and for the overall peer bullyingscale was .90.

As in many non-English speaking cultures, capturing terms like bullyingand bully in the Greek language is very difficult. Yet, the terminology used in aquestionnaire can affect the results of the survey. Smith, Cowie, Olafsson & Lie-fooghe, (2002, p. 1121) give a nice example on how similar terms (e.g. bullying,teasing, harassment, abuse) are associated with different connotations and con-texts and may be understood differently by persons answering questionnaires.An alternative to using global terms such as bullying in questionnaire surveys isto ask for information on particular acts (Smith et al., 2002, p. 1131) and this iswhat we have done. Other researchers have also commented on how difficult it isto render the term bullying in the Greek language as well as on the negativeconsequences (with regard to admission rates) that could follow from this diffi-culty (Kalliotis, 2000, p. 49; Pateraki & Houndoumadi, 2001, p. 174).

Measuring Parental BondingWithin this survey, a parental bonding instrument was constructed. Since

we did not use an existing instrument, exploratory factor analyses were per-formed on the data from the 182 students. In all cases, principal componentanalyses with varimax rotation and eigenvalues greater than 1 were used,and a loading of 0.4 was taken as the criterion for deciding whether an itemwould be retained in the construction of the scale. Cronbach suggested that, ifseveral factors exist, the -value should be calculated separately for itemsrelating to different factors (Field, 2005, p. 668), and therefore was calcu-lated separately for each subscale of the questionnaire.

In the questionnaire, 50 questions were used to assess bonding, but only42 questions were retained after the factor analyses. For both mother andfather scores, the four factors were labelled as:

1. childs perceptions of maternal/paternal effort;

2. communication;

3. psychological autonomy; and

4. emotional support.

Cronbachs for the total bonding score was .86 and .88 for mother and fatherbonding respectively.

Measuring Fairness and DefianceA vignette-based methodology was used to measure defiant and compliant

reactions to the sanctions imposed. The questionnaire included a vignette inwhich the transgressor (a child) causes harm to a sibling. In order to avoid any


gender bias, female students were given stories in which both the transgres-sor and the victim were female and similarly for male students. The incidentdescribed in the vignette was ambiguous; the transgressors responsibility forthe wrongdoing was not clearly defined. Several surveys indicate that violentchildren are more likely than non-violent ones to attribute negative intentionsto others in ambiguous situations (Astor, 1994, p. 1055).

Sherman (1993, pp. 460461) offered some conditions under which sanc-tions could be perceived as unfair. Following one of the theory stipulationsthat the sanction must be excessivethe parents in the vignette insulted thechild in the presence of the childs friends. Children were asked to indicatehow fair they thought the parents behavior was.

After these questions, children were asked to imagine that this incident hap-pened to them, and they were asked to indicate what they would have done.Children could choose one of four types of response towards the sanctioningagents decision. In line with defiance theory, two types of response specifieddirect defiance (I would start yelling at my parents to defend myself) and indi-rect defiance (I would do what my parents say but later on I would teach mybrother/sister a good lesson when my parents are not watching). However, giventhe young age of the children, it seemed plausible to anticipate thatat least insome caseschildren would not defy their parents mainly because they per-ceived themselves as less powerful and not because they agreed with the sanc-tions imposed. Therefore, we examined two other forms of reaction towards thesanctions imposed, namely committed compliance (I would do what my parentssay and feel that they are right) and situational compliance (I would do whatmy parents say even though they are not right). The two types of compliancewere defined according to Kochanska, Aksan and Koenig (1995, p. 1753) who dis-tinguished between internally driven, self-regulated committed complianceand situational compliance when the child, though essentially cooperative, nev-ertheless lacks sincere commitment and requires parental sustained control.

Apart from the above four options, children were asked the extent to whichthey would feel like giving their sibling a good lesson (indirect defiance) andthe extent to which they would feel like yelling at the parents to defend them-selves (direct defiance). Given the sensitivity of the topic, it seemed reasonableto worry about the possibility of some children indicating what they would havedone based not on their real emotions but on what they assumed they should do(social desirability bias). In order to avoid this problem, we included the abovetwo questions to detect childrens preference for direct and indirect defiance.These last two items were used in the path analysis (see later).

The Experimental Manipulation of Type of ChildThe wrongdoer of the story was presented to the students (in a short

story along with relevant cartoons) before the actual vignette. In half of the

Bullying 299

cases, the hero/heroine was described in a way that indicates intentionality ofwrongdoing (bad child), while in the other half the hero/heroine was pre-sented in positive terms so that intentionality of wrongdoing could not beinferred (good child). Students were asked to put themselves in the place ofthe child, so that they would have different ideas about the childs intentional-ity in regard to the wrongdoing. According to Sherman (1993, pp. 460461)sanctions that appear to be undeserved are related to perceptions of fairness.Therefore, it follows that the sanctioning of the good child should be rated asmore unfair than the sanctioning of the bad child.

Other researchers (Martin & Ross, 1996) found that, although parentsconsidered that sibling physical aggression was a serious transgression, theybelieved that mitigated aggression (including provocation or reciprocity orlack of aggressive intent) was more excusable. Therefore, they intervened lessoften to prohibit mitigated than non-mitigated aggression, even when theaggression was severe. Moreover, these researchers found that children alsobelieved that mitigated aggression deserved less punishment. Within thepresent survey, it seemed interesting to investigate whether defiance levelswould vary according to the type of the offender and his/her intentionality inregard to the wrong-doing.

Special attention was paid to the administration of the two types of ques-tionnaire. The questionnaires were separated in two piles, one for boys andone for girls. Within each pile, the two types of questionnaire (one with thegood child and one with the bad child) were placed alternately. In this way,we could ensure that, within each school, half of the students (chosen at ran-dom) would receive one type of questionnaire and the other half would receivethe other type of questionnaire. This alternate allocation was equivalent tothe random assignment of students to experimental conditions.

Measuring Unacknowledged ShameFollowing defiance theory, the questionnaire included items on shame

management. Children were asked questions about whether they would beashamed of themselves if they committed the act described in the vignette.The questions were relevant to the possibility of a child not acknowledgingshame and, instead, engaging in neutralization techniques in order to displaceshame and to justify his/her wrongdoing. Questions on neutralization tech-niques were constructed based on the work of Sykes and Matza (2003). Thefactor analysis of the relevant scores yielded two sub-scales (denial of respon-sibility and condemnation of the condemners) with eigenvalues greaterthan 1 and loadings greater than 0.4. Example items were So what! He/shealways cries like that, but its not as if he/she really means it (denial ofresponsibility) and My parents always take it out on me (condemnation ofthe condemners). The Cronbachs for the total scale was .86.


RESULTS

Prevalence of BullyingTable 1 shows the bullying items, the prevalence of different types of sib-

ling and peer bullying, and the significance of gender differences in the totalbullying scores. The mean scores were derived by scoring each item 1 (never),2 (once or twice), 3 (three to six times), or 4 (seven times or more in the previ-ous seven months) and adding up over all the items. The physical and psycho-logical scores for sibling bullying (r=.75, p < .001) and peer bullying (r = .73,p < .001) were highly correlated, justifying the use of total bullying scores insubsequent analyses.

On the total sibling bullying score, boys scored higher than girls, and thisdifference was statistically significant [t(172) = 2.15, p = .033]. Similarly, onthe total peer bullying score, boys scored higher than girls, and this difference

Table 1: Prevalence of sibling and peer bullying.

Items on Bullying

% Sibling Bullying

%Peer Bullying

Boys Girls Boys Girls

PhysicalPushed, shoved or pulled him/her 30.8 16.5 30.8 9.9Scratched and/or pinched him/her, but not for a joke 29.7 13.2 16.5 4.4Hit him/her on the face 14.5 7.7 18.7 5.5Threatened him/her with, or used, a knife or any

other sharp object6.6 1.1 4.4 1.1

Threw things on him/her (e.g. shoe, pen, rubber) 30.0 20.0 25.3 13.2Pulled his/her hair 30.0 19.8 15.4 8.8

Mean Physical Bullying 11.2 9.4 10.2 7.9p-value ** ***PsychologicalMade fun of him/her in a hurtful way 49.5 49.5 28.9 18.7Screamed at him/her 59.4 62.7 42.2 27.0Treated him/her like he/she was stupid 40.7 20.9 24.5 17.6Turned other kids against him/her NA NA 19.8 9.9Called him/her names or cursed at him/her 40.7 31.9 40.0 23.3Excluded him/her from games (did not let him/her play) 26.4 14.3 18.7 5.5Mean Psychological Bullying 11.8 11.1 11.9 10.3p-value ns **Mean Total Bullying 22.9 20.5 22.1 18.1p-value * ***

Notes: ns = nonsignificant; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001Prevalence=% committing the act against the same person three or more times in the previ-ous seven months.NA = not applicable; in the sibling bullying scale, the wording of this item was turned othersiblings against him/her. Because some children came from families of only one or two sib-lings, this item was omitted from the sibling bullying scale.

Bullying 301

was statistically significant [t(167) = 3.76, p < .0001]. Regarding differenttypes of bullying within the family, boys scored higher than girls in both phys-ical and psychological bullying, but the gender difference was significant onlyfor physical bullying. Regarding different types of bullying within the school,boys scored higher than girls in both physical and psychological bullying, andboth differences were statistically significant.

Path Analysis ModelThis survey was theory-oriented: our aim was to test the theoretical con-

structs of defiance theory and the interrelationships among these constructsas proposed by the theory. This is why we conducted path analysis usingAMOS 5.0.1 structural equation modelling software, which is a useful tool fortheory testing. Maximum likelihood estimation was used for the estimation ofthe model.

As a first step in this analysis, a hypothesized model was developed in linewith the basic postulates of defiance theory (Figure 1). Figure 2 represents thefinal path model that the sample data fitted best. In Figure 2, all paths from

Figure 2: Applying Defiance Theory to Sibling and Peer Bullying; Final Model.


father bonding to other variables are omitted. Bonding towards the sanction-ing agent (in this case, the parents) is an important theoretical construct ofthe theory. Yet, the path coefficients from father bonding to other observedvariables were very small and not statistically significant, indicating that thecontribution of this factor to the model was negligible. Thus, father bondingwas omitted from the model. This did not affect the goodness-of-fit indices.Moreover, we omitted all the path coefficients from mother bonding to othervariables when these estimates were small and not statistically significant.According to Schumacker and Lomax (2004, p. 71) the statistical significanceof a path coefficient is an intuitive indicator that should guide the researcher toomit some paths from the model. At the same time, however, we acknowledgethat the statistical significance of the estimates is dependent on sample size.

Where paths were not clearly specified by defiance theory, we chose themaccording to the best-fitting model. For example, it was not clear a prioriwhether unacknowledged shame led to fairness, whether fairness led to unac-knowledged shame, or whether there was no path between the two constructs(see Figure 1). The assumption that unacknowledged shame led to fairnessproduced the best-fitting model (see Figure 2).

The first step in evaluating the results of the path analysis was the examina-tion of the fit criteria, to determine whether the hypothesized model fitted thesample data. Nine fit indices were taken into consideration. For the total sample,the chi-square (x2 = 22.73), which is a global fit measure, was not statistically sig-nificant (p = .16), indicating that the data were not significantly different from themodel. The x2/df. ratio indicated a good fit as well, since its value of 1.33 was lessthan 2.5. The RMSEA was .04; according to Hu and Bentler (1999), its valueshould be equal or less than .06. The NFI, the IFI, the TLI, the CFI and the GFIall indicated a very good fit of the model (.94; .99; .97; .99; .94 respectively).

When constructing structural equation models, 100 to 150 subjects is con-sidered to be the minimum satisfactory sample size (Schumacker and Lomax,2004, p. 49). Moreover, both in SEM and path analysis, the statistical signifi-cance of the path coefficients is dependent on sample size. However, it wasconsidered useful to examine the model for boys and girls separately (91 indi-viduals each). Table 2 shows the path coefficients, and generally suggests thatdirect defiance had greater effects on bullying for boys. Because of the smallsample size for each gender separately, the results for boys and girls should beregarded as tentative. The main finding is that the data fitted the model(shown in figure 2) very well. The path coefficients will be discussed below.

Type of Child, Perceptions of Fairness, Unacknowledged Shame, and DefianceBased on the survey design, the type of the child should affect perceptions

of fairness which, in turn, should influence defiant or compliant reactions.

Bullying 303

Table 3 presents the interrelationships of constructs for each gender sepa-rately and for the total sample. When the perpetrator of the vignette wasgood (thus implying no intentionality of wrongdoing) the majority of bothboys (68.4%) and girls (64.6%) perceived the sanctioning agents behavior asunfair. The association between the type of the child and fairness was sta-tistically significant for boys, girls and the total sample. Based on the pathanalysis, the type of child had a direct effect on fairness for boys ( = .29) andthe total sample ( = .22), but not for girls. Based on the way the values werecoded, sanctioning of the bad child was considered more fair than sanction-ing of the good child.

Another variable that affected the perceptions of fairness was unacknowl-edged shame. Table 3 shows that there was an association between percep-tions of unfairness and unacknowledged shame. In the path analysis, theparameter estimates from unacknowledged shame to fairness were statisti-cally significant for girls ( = .26) and the total sample ( = .17), but not forboys ( =.07).

The association between the type of child and defiance (dichotomized intocompliance versus defiance) was not statistically significant for the total sam-ple or for boys and girls separately (Table 3). Looking at Table 2, the type ofchild influenced direct defiance only for girls (= -.20). Based on the path anal-ysis, the type of child significantly influenced indirect defiance for the wholesample (= -.14).

Fairness was significantly related to defiance (Table 3). The majority ofboys (62.8%) and girls (54.0%) who perceived the sanctioners behavior asunfair responded with defiance. In the path analysis, fairness influenced

Table 2: Standardized path coefficients.

Variable Relationships Boys Girls Total

Direct Defiance Sibling Bullying .26* .06 .15*Indirect Defiance Sibling Bullying .11 .23* .20*Unacknowledged Shame Sibling Bullying .27** .26* .25***Direct Defiance Peer Bullying .38*** .05 .20*Indirect Defiance Peer Bullying .23* .23* .28***Unacknowledged Shame Peer Bullying .04 .17 .07Type of Child Direct Defiance .02 .20* .10Fairness Direct Defiance .37*** .23* .31***Unacknowledged Shame Direct Defiance .29** .23* .26***Type of Child Indirect Defiance .11 .17 .14*Fairness Indirect Defiance .29** .19* .23***Unacknowledged Shame Indirect Defiance .40*** .36*** .37***Mother Bonding Fairness .26* .04 .14*Type of Child Fairness .29** .16 .22**Unacknowledged Shame Fairness .07 .26* .17*Mother Bonding Unacknowledged Shame .32** .40*** .36***

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

304

Tab

le 3

:In

ter-

rela

tion

ship

s o

f co

nst

ruc

ts.

Boys

Girl

sTo

tal

With

in th

e ty

pe

of c

hild

Go

od

Chi

ldBa

d C

hild

Go

od

Chi

ldBa

d C

hild

Go

od

Chi

ldBa

d C

hild

% U

nfa

ir68

.434

.064

.644

.266

.338

.7p

-va

lue

***

***

% D

efia

nc

e48

.846

.938

.335

.743

.241

.8p

-va

lue

ns

ns

ns

With

in p

erc

ep

tions

of f

airn

ess

Fair

Unf

air

Fair

Unf

air

Fair

Unf

air

% D

efia

nc

e34

.162

.815

.454

.025

.358

.1p

-va

lue

****

***

*M

ea

n M

oth

er B

on

din

g83

.574

.984

.081

.183

.778

.3p

-va

lue

**n

s**

Me

an

Fa

the

r Bo

nd

ing

70.4

65.1

68.1

64.6

69.3

64.8

p-v

alu

en

sn

s*

Me

an

of

Un

-ac

kno

wle

dg

ed

Sh

am

e21

.324

.421

.124

.921

.224

.7p

-va

lue

**

**

With

in th

e ty

pe

of r

esp

ons

eC

om

plia

nce

De

fianc

eC

om

plia

nce

De

fianc

eC

om

plia

nce

De

fianc

e

Me

an

Mo

the

r Bo

nd

ing

82.6

75.4

82.8

81.8

82.7

78.2

p-v

alu

e**

ns

*M

ea

n F

ath

er B

on

din

g69

.565

.268

.262

.968

.864

.2p

-va

lue

ns

**

Me

an

of

Un

-ac

kno

wle

dg

ed

Sh

am

e19

.026

.920

.126

.520

.126

.7p

-va

lue

***

****

*M

ea

n S

iblin

g B

ully

ing

19.3

27.1

18.4

24.1

18.8

25.8

p-v

alu

e**

***

***

*M

ea

n P

ee

r Bu

llyin

g18

.326

.317

.519

.517

.923

.4p

-va

lue

***

ns

***

No

te: n

s =

no

nsig

nifi

ca

nt;

*p

< .0

5; *

*p

Documents

Bullying Defiance Theory