Running head: FEMALE BULLIES AND RISK FACTORS

Research Proposal: Risk Factors Associated with Female Bullies

Stephanie McShan, Ashlee Monk, Kimberly Raby, Pamela Simpson

University of Central Florida

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background………………………………………………………………………………..3

Problem…………………………….

Purpose…………………………….

Significance…………………………

Definitions

Research Question

Hypotheses

Literature Review

Methodology

Research Design

Sampling

Instrumentation

Procedure

Data Analysis

Threats and Controls

Limitations

Research Proposal: Risk Factors Associated with Female Bullies

Background

Girls are commonly overlooked when the subject of bullying is discussed.

In most discussions the general bias is that boys are more aggressive than girls. The

misconception is that boys tend to victimize and be victims more than girls. The

background of our research proposal is to determine the percentage of girls that have ever

played a role in bullying and to identify the risk factors of being or becoming a bully..

Relational Aggression is the more common term used to define bullying. It is

described as “behavior intended to harm someone by damaging or manipulating his or

her relationships with others”(Ophelia Project, www.opheliaproject.org ) . Examples of

relational aggression are teasing, harassing, internet bullying (cyber-bullying), starting or

spreading rumors, and fighting.

The goal of our research proposal is to determine what percentage of girls fall

victim to bullying as opposed to those that are the victimizer themselves. The focus of

our group was girls in of the elementary ages 7-12 within the Seminole County School

District. The research proposal goal is to determine how often girls in this age category

have fallen victims to bullying or have actually played the role of a bully themselves. As

well as to determine any risk factors that may place a child at risk for being or becoming

a bully.

The demographics that the research proposal has determined vital to find out this

information include, age, grade, race/ethnicity, SES level, GPA and/or FCAT score to

assess for academic achievement, family situation (single parent, both parents’,

grandparents, foster parents, guardians), number of siblings and birth order of child,

occupation of parents, and whether there is a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD.

In order to obtain the information needed in the research proposal, there will be

two instruments utilized. Those two instruments are a self-esteem questionnaire and a

parenting-style questionnaire. Each will give vital information as to how bullying can

become an intricate part of a young girls make up in relation to their self-esteem and

parenting styles of their parents.

Problem

As stated before the purpose for the research proposal is to determine the risk

factors associated with being or becoming a bully. The problem that may occur with this

research proposal is that their may not be ample participation on the part of parents

and/or students in order to have valid data results. If for example 25 of 100 parenting

style surveys are completed and return, this does not give a broad enough representation

to make a valid generalization.

Another problem that might occur with this research is that it may be biased to

sway more people to admit to bullying or vice versa. The questionnaires that are being

completed need to have questions that have a broad scope of questions that will allow for

and equal representation of both sides. Also so that it doesn’t represent that all parents

that believe in spanking or some type of punishment automatically makes their child a

bully or a target for a bully.

Overall when creating the research proposal, the problems that may provide a

distortion of the results are: to use an unbiased instrument that allows for an assorted

answer pool and make sure that the instrument used (i.e. survey) is completed and

returned so that there will be enough data to make a generalization about the results.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to identify the risk factors of bullying and to

understand the dynamics of bullying behavior among school-aged children in order for

communities to build safe and effective schools for our children. By studying these risk

factors, educators can more easily design programs that will enable all parties involved

(educators, parents, and students) to work together to ensure that schools are a safe place

for students.

Significance

There has been considerable interest in understanding divergent developmental

pathways leading to antisocial outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood, in both the

theoretical (e.g., Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989) and empirical

(e.g., Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Schaeffer, Petras, Ialongo, Poduska, & Kellam, 2003)

literatures. From this work, it is clear that a pattern of chronic aggressive behavior in

childhood is a significant risk factor for antisocial behavior in later life, at least for boys.

However, the empirical literature has focused primarily on the development of boys’

aggression and has given little attention to the role of early aggression and other

disruptive behaviors in the development of girls’ later antisocial behavior (Keenan &

Shaw, 1997; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).

A comprehensive theory of the development of antisocial behavior that is specific to girls

does not yet exist (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).

From the perspective of those who work with young children, however, this research

reflects an incomplete view of the understanding of both genders as they relate to

bullying and aggressive behavior.

The inference drawn from the research is that boys, in particular engage in bullying and

aggressive behavior, which leads to antisocial behavior later on in life, but that the

development of girls’ aggression has not been a primary focus. Recent research findings

suggest that early aggressive– disruptive behavior is a significant problem for some girls

and is a worthy target for early identification and intervention efforts. “Because of its

deleterious effects on children's development, childhood aggression has been one of the

most widely studied adjustment problems in the past several decades. Past work on

aggression has been limited in two important ways: (a) aggressive boys have received

most of the research attention, whereas aggressive girls have often been excluded from

relevant studies, and (b) forms of aggression that are salient to boys have been

emphasized, whereas forms that are salient to girls have largely been ignored (Bjorkqvist

& Niemela, 1992; Cowan & Underwood, in press; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Robins,

1986).

Research suggests that bullying is correlated with student absenteeism, poor academic

achievement, social isolation, and internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety, and

poor self-esteem. “The harmful effects of bullying have been documented and include

feelings of loneliness, school maladjustment, drops in grades, chronic illness, and, in the

extreme, suicide (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Olweus, 1993; Ross, 1996;

Turkel & Eth, 1990). Researchers also feel that children can be harmed by occasional

incidents of bullying (Stephenson & Smith, 1989; Tattum, 1989). Another factor involves

a physical or psychological imbalance of power” (Ross, 1996). Additionally, at least one

study shows that, for both boys and girls, early and significant aggressive behavior puts

children at a higher risk for antisocial outcomes later in life.

“Over the past decade, growing interest in girls' aggression has generated much research

activity (Pepler, Madsen, Webster, & Levine, 2005; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004),

including a proliferation of studies on relational aggression and its victims. But the topic

is still in its infancy and many questions remain”.

Definitions

For the purposes of this study, bullying is defined as cruel or aggressive behavior

that occurs over time to a weaker individual, and may include relational aggression,

which Olweus (1997) describes ad a more covert and manipulative form of bullying,

which may include spreading rumors, telling lies about another person, socially excluding

an individual, or manipulating friendships. Bullies are those that perpetrate these acts of

cruelty or aggression.

For definitions of different parenting styles, we will be adopting definitions from

Baumrind (1966). Permissive parents are characterized as being non-controlling, non-

responsive to their children, and making few, if any, demands from their children.

Authoritarian parents are characterized as being less warm in their interactions with their

children and more controlling of their children. Authoritative parents are characterized as

controlling but also warm and receptive to their children.

Other terms that need to be defined include self-esteem, which is defined as a

confidence and satisfaction in oneself. An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a plan

for accommodations in the school system for children with disabilities.

Research Question

Hypotheses

There is no significant difference in the distribution of age between girls who are

identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

There is no significant difference in the distribution of grade levels between girls

who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

There is no significant difference in the ethnicities of girls who are identified as

bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

There is no significant difference in the socioeconomic status of girls who are

identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

Girls who are identified as bullies are less likely than girls who are not identified

as bullies to be living in a household with both biological parents.

There is no significant difference in the number of siblings in the households of

girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified

as bullies to be a middle child.

There is no significant difference in the occupations of parents of girls who are

identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified

as bullies to be on an Individualized Education Plan.

Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified

as bullies to have parents who are considered authoritarian or permissive.

Girls who are identified as bullies are less likely than girls who are not identified

as bullies to have parents who are considered authoritative.

Girls who are identified as bullies have significantly lower self-esteem than girls

who are not identified as bullies.

There is no significant difference in the FCAT scores of girls who are identified

as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.

Literature Review

Methodology

Research Design

For the purpose of this proposal, the design of this of this study would qualify as

correlational. The study will determine the correlation between the qualities of a bully

versus the parenting styles used on the bullies. It will also determine if the SES,

educational abilities also factor into who becomes a bully. The research proposal also

has a partial survey study designed into it as well. There are surveys that will be

completed by girls within the study and their parents. These surveys will gather

information to further give details about SES, education ability, parenting styles and other

vital information to determine if there is a direct correlation between these line items and

the characteristics of a bully.

Sampling

For this study, the target population includes all girls in grades 4-6 who engage in

bullying. The accessible population, however, includes all girls in grades 4-6 in the

Seminole County school district who engage in bullying. The target sample is 100

randomly selected girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school district who engage

in bullying and a control group of 100 girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school

district who have not been identified as bullies. The final sample will consist of the

number of the target sample who successfully complete the study.

In order to obtain the sample, the researchers intend to perform a two stage

random sampling of elementary schools in Seminole county, Florida. Seminole county

was chosen due to the demographic similarities to the overall population in the United

States (see Appendix A). Each elementary school in the district will be ordered

alphabetically and numbered sequentially starting at 1. Fifteen numbers from a table of

random numbers will then be selected and the corresponding schools will be selected to

participate in the study. The second part of this sampling method involves random

sampling of girls within these schools. From those schools, girls in grades 4-6 who have

been identified as engaging in bullying will be organized into an alphabetical list and

numbered sequentially starting at 1. One hundred numbers from a table of random

numbers will then be selected and the corresponding girls will be selected to participate

in the study. The same method will be used to randomly select 100 girls in grades 4-6

who have not been identified as engaging in bullying to serve as the control.

Instrumentation

Demographics questionnaire

This is a questionnaire about demographics that parents would complete,

including: age, grade, race/ethnicity, SES level, GPA and/or FCAT score to assess for

academic achievement, family situation (single parent, both parents’, grandparents, foster

parents, guardians), number of siblings and birth order of child, occupation of parents,

and whether there is a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD.

Self-Esteem

We will use the Culture Free Self Esteem Inventory, Third Edition (CFSEI-3), a

set of norm-referenced assessment inventories that measure self-reported self-esteem in

children and adolescents ages 6 years and 0 months to 18 years and 11 months. We will

use the Intermediate Form for children ages 9-12, a 67-item scale that focuses on:

Academic Self-Esteem, General Self-Esteem, Parent/Home Self-Esteem, and Social Self-

Esteem. Adequate assessments of both, reliability and validity are reported in the manual.

Two kinds of reliability measures were developed, that of internal consistency,

suggesting that the instrument is consistent across categories and test-retest reliability,

which suggests that there were average correlations between test scores across all age

groups and all categories. Content items and subscales used in the CFSEI-3 were

developed through literature reviews, reviews of related tools, and factor analytic

methods; therefore, it demonstrates adequate assessments of both construct and

concurrent validity. This inventory also demonstrates that it is culturally appropriate.

Parenting Styles

We will use the Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire, a 32-item scale

that measures parenting style by determining parent reactions to child behavior. The

purpose of this measurement is to measure parenting styles along the continuum of

Baumrind’s (1989) typologies of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. This

questionnaire can be completed by both mothers and fathers of school-age children. Each

parent rates themselves and the parenting style of their spouse, if applicable. The scoring

key of the PSDQ will be used to classify parents into one of three parenting styles. The

scoring key will yield an overall mean score in each category of parenting style, and

based on this score will determine the parents’ particular style. For the authoritarian

parenting style there are fifteen items that yield a mean of seventy-five. The authoritative

style includes twelve items with means ranging from twelve to sixty. The permissive

style includes five items with a range of means of five to twenty-five. The parenting style

with the highest mean determines a particular parents’ style (Robinson et al., 1995).

Procedure

Data Analysis

Before data analysis begins, the data will be thoroughly processed. The code sheet

(see attached appendix, still incomplete until range of scores for all instruments obtained)

will be used to guide data entry, which will be manually input into NotePad. The data

will then be cleaned by a manual data entry check.

The data obtained is separated into categorical and quantitative data. The

variables treated as categorical include age, grade, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family

situation, number of siblings, birth order, parents occupation, and presence of diagnosis

for which an IEP is developed. For each of these variables, frequency of each value will

be determined for both the group of identified bullies and the control group. The

frequency of these values in each group will then be compared and displayed via a bar

graph. Discriminant Analysis will be used to determine which attributes are more likely

to be attributed to a bully.

The quantitative variables include scores on the aggressiveness scale of the

CBCL, scores on the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive scales of the parenting

inventory, scores on the culture-free self esteem inventory, and scores on the FCAT.

Scores from each of the groups will be displayed and compared via frequency polygons.

For each of the quantitative variables, SEM will be calculated for each group, and then

used to determine the Confidence Interval (CI). Additionally, the t-test for means will be

used to determine levels of statistical significance (.05), which will be used to support

hypotheses. Levels below statistical significance will be used to support null hypotheses.

The scores from the aggressiveness scale of the CBCL from both groups will then

be combined to determine a correlation exists to each of the other quantitative variables.

Regression Analysis will be employed using the Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient

and results will be displayed via scatterplots.

Threats and Controls

Potential Threats to our Research:

1. Mortation threat – if we send surveys home, we will not receive them all backa. Possible control – large target populationb. Have questionnaires and surveys done in the classroom or school setting

2. Gathering adult information from students, such as income and parenting stylesa. Possible control – Getting involved directly with parents, ie through

conferences or telephone calls

3. Lack of privacy affecting children filling out self-esteem assessmentsa. Possible control – Children filling it out one at a time alone

4. Parents being untruthful on assessments a. Possible CBCL could help with this in that parents are not asked directly

about their parenting, only child’s behavi

5. Defining students who are “bullies”a. Possible control – assess students for bullying behaviorsb. Use assessments and surveys such as CBCL

6. Data collector biasa. Possible control – standardize procedures

7. Location threat a possibility

Additonal general control for threats – keep procedures standardized and consistent

Limitations

Appendix A

People QuickFacts Seminole County USAPersons under 5 years old, percent, 2006 6.00% 6.8%Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006 23.4% 24.6%Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006 11.0% 12.4%Female persons, percent, 2006 50.7% 50.7%White persons, percent, 2006 (a) 83.4% 80.1%Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) 11.2% 12.8%American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.4% 1.0%Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) 3.5% 4.4%Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) 0.1% 0.2%Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 1.5% 1.6%Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) 14.5% 14.8%White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 70.1% 66.4%Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 46.9% 54.1%Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 9.1% 11.1%Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 15.6% 17.9%High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 88.7% 80.4%Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 31.0% 24.4%Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 27 25.5

Homeownership rate, 2000 69.5% 66.2%Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 25.5% 26.4%Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $119,900 $119,600

Persons per household, 2000 2.59 2.59Median household income, 2004 $50,842 $44,334Per capita money income, 1999 $24,591 $21,587Persons below poverty, percent, 2004 8.5% 12.7%

Business QuickFacts Seminole County USABlack-owned firms, percent, 2002 3.7% 5.2%American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 S 0.9%Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 4.1% 4.8%Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F 0.1%Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 7.9% 6.8%Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 24.1% 28.2%

Retail sales per capita, 2002 $13,339 $10,615

(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.NA: Not availableD: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential informationX: Not applicableS: Suppressed; does not meet publication standardsZ: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown

F: Fewer than 100 firms

References

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child

Development, 37(4), 887-907.

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.