CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Racial and Socioeconomic Implications of Bullying in School-Aged Children

A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Social Work

By Amanda Jacobs

May 2016

The graduate project for Amanda Jacobs is approved:

_______________________________ Dr. Allen Lipscomb

_______________ Date

_______________________________ Dr. Jodi Brown

________________ Date

_______________________________ Dr. Amy Levin, Chair

_________________ Date

California State University, Northridge

ii

Acknowledgements I send a sincere thank you to Dr. Jodi Brown for her support throughout the graduate project process, and the MSW journey as a whole. I also thank all of the California State University, Northridge MSW professors for their expertise, inspiration, and education throughout the MSW program. The biggest thank you of all goes to Dr. Allen Lipscomb, my Capstone advisor, who provided unwavering and saint-like support during the Capstone process. Without his patience, knowledge, and relentless availability, I am not sure I would have survived. Thank you for teaching me what it means to be a true advisor, in every sense of the word. Finally, I cannot thank my husband David enough for holding down the fort while I disappeared into my office at the most inopportune times, and for ensuring our son Gavin knew that Mommy was still alive (even though he barely saw her for 2 years).

iii

Table of Contents Signature Page

ii

Acknowledgements

iii

List of Tables

iv

List of Figures

v

Abstract

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

Self Esteem, Abuse, and Bullying

1

Racial and Ethnic Implications

2

Socioeconomic Ramifications

4

Study Hypotheses

5

Chapter 2: Method

7

Data Collection

7

Sample

8

Measures

9

Chapter 3: Results

11

Analysis

11

Findings

12

Chapter 4: Discussion

16

Study Limitations

18

Future Research

18

Conclusion

20

References

21

List of Tables Table 1

11

Table 2

13

Table 3

14

iv

List of Figures Figure 1

10

Figure 2

10

v

Abstract

Racial and Socioeconomic Implications of Bullying in School-Aged Children

By Amanda Jacobs Master of Social Work

This study explores the relationship between race and bullying in both the victim and perpetrator aspects among school-aged children; and the relationship between socioeconomic status and bullying in both victim and perpetrator aspects. The hypotheses proposed are that children of a minority ethnicity are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying; and children of a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying. The method of this study utilizes a secondary analysis of a comprehensive study that is a nationally representative survey of 9,227 students in grades six through ten during the 2005-2006 school year. Data was gathered from the Health and Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey. The measurements used for this study were chi-square analyses of different ethnicities versus bullying victimization and perpetration, and perceived socioeconomic status (as reported by the students) versus bullying victimization and perpetration. The results of this study reveal significant correlation between African American students and bullying victimization and perpetration, and White students and bullying perpetration.

vi

8.3% of students who report low socioeconomic status report being bullying victims several times a week, which is significantly higher than the other socioeconomic levels. These findings discuss the prevalence of bullying within specific ethnicities as well as socioeconomic levels.

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction Bullying may occur in up to 30% of school-age children, and children who are victims of bullying have lower self-esteem and are more likely to experience attendance and academic progression issues (Barboza, Schiamberg, Oehmke, Korzeniewski, Post, and Heraux, 2009; Peguero and Williams, 2013). There is also another facet of bullying present among racial and ethnic minority groups: children who do not conform to the racial and ethic stereotypes of their group are victimized (Peguero and Willams, 2013). A growing body of research evidence has convincingly shown that bullying is associated with negative outcomes and trajectories for both bullies and their victims (Merrell, Geuldner, Ross, and Isava, 2008; Barboza, et al., 2009; Fisher, Middleton, Ricks, Malone, Briggs, and Barnes, 2015). Furthermore, a socio-ecological systems perspective on bullying and victimization shows bullying is encouraged or inhibited by the complex relationships between the individual, family, peer group, school, community, and culture (Harel-Fisch, Walsh, Fogel-Grinvald, Amitai, Pickett, Molcho, Due, Gaspar de Matos, Craig, Members of the HBSC Violence and Injury Prevention Group, 2011). It is a perpetual issue within schools, and substantial research finds that bullying negatively affects students’ self-worth, self-esteem, psychological health, and academic achievement (Fisher, et al., 2015). This study aims to explore possible correlation between race and bullying, as well as socioeconomic status and bullying. Self-Esteem, Abuse, and Bullying It has been shown in a study of adolescents aged 11-14 (n = 9816), that bullying increases among children who lack teacher support, attend schools with negative or unfavorable environments, and who do not have high expectations placed on them by

1

teachers or parents (Barboza, et al., 2009). While the research connecting self-esteem to bullying needs to be expanded, it has shown that the enhancement of self-esteem can be an important protective factor for bullying; and that both bullies and their victims are rejected by their peers (Barboza, et al., 2009). Research drawn from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (n = 12,790) has also shown that victims of bullying have lower self-esteem, which can translate into attendance issues and subpar academic progress (Peguero and Williams, 2013). A study has found a reciprocal relationship between bullying and the acceptance/rejection of peers and social adjustment, where a “vicious cycle” can lead to progressive peer rejection and bullying victimization (HarelFisch, et al., 2011). There are multiple theories that children exposed to multiple stressors (poverty, family violence, transitions, and normative stressors of childhood development) experience greater adjustment difficulties (Harel-Fisch, et al., 2011). These adjustment difficulties tend to perpetuate the bully victim/perpetrator cycle (Harel-Fisch, et al., 2011). Parental abuse (physical, emotional and sexual) has also been found to be associated with bullying and victimization behavior (Barboza, et al., 2009). However, unlike studies that preceded it, a study in Korea entitled, “Functions of Parental Involvement and Effects of School Climate on Bullying Behaviors Among South Korean Middle School Students” (2012) (n = 1,238) found no direct relationship between family interaction and bullying (Lee and Song, 2012). Instead, the previously mentioned study found that individual traits were the strongest factors for bullying behaviors (Lee and Song, 2012). The study also found that family experiences (e.g. witnessing domestic

2

violence, physical abuse) were mediated by individual traits the child possesses (Lee and Song, 2012). Racial and Ethnic Implications While an acceptable amount of research that has been done on racial and ethnic implications of bullying in schools, more research must be conducted to receive a wider scope of the true effect of race and bullying. In a nationwide study of children ages 6-17 (n = 2,999), it was found that African American children report significantly more bullying exposure than do children of other races or ethnicities (Turner, Finkelhor, Hamby, Shattuck, and Ormrod, 2011). Additionally, it has been found that bully-victim consequences are influenced by other peer group characteristics, such as the ethnicity of the peer group (Barboza, et al., 2009). Research at a diverse middle school revealed relatively smaller numbers of victims and larger numbers of bullies among African Americans (Barboza, et al., 2009). A self-report study collecting data from 10, 254 middle school students reveals that African American youth were more likely to be members of the bully-victim class than the low involvement class (Goldweber, Waasdorp, and Bradhsaw, 2013). The same study also shows that the more urban a community, the higher the likelihood of having been racially bullied (Goldweber, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw, 2013). It was also found that urban bully-victims were more likely to have been bullied about money than non-urban bully-victims (Goldweber, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw, 2013). A study utilizing the School Survey on Crime and Safety, which is a stratified random sample of public schools in the United States (n = 1,936), revealed schools that reported a greater frequency of racial tensions amongst students also reported higher rates

3

of violent crime (Maume, Kim-Goodwin, and Clements, 2010). Research also suggests the likelihood of bullying victimization is stratified by race and ethnicity, and especially in those students who do not fit into racial or ethnic stereotype norms (Peguero and Williams, 2013). Interestingly enough, it would appear that while race and ethnicity play a large role in bullying instances, the minority children who attend schools with large minority populations tend to feel safer at their schools; especially in regards to AfricanAmerican and Hispanic children (Hong and Eamon, 2012). In a study exploring the relationship between school diversity and bullying, African American and Caucasian middle school students (n = 4,581, 89.4% Caucasian, 10.6% African American) were surveyed and the findings suggest that Caucasian students experience more bullying than African American students; and three times the amount of race-based victimization than African American students in diverse schools (Fisher, et al, 2015). However, African American students experienced twice the amount of race-based victimization than Caucasian students in school settings with more students of color (Fisher, et al, 2015). Socioeconomic Ramifications Negative family reactions have a strong positive relationship with bullying behavior, such as authoritarian parenting, experiencing/witnessing domestic violence, and parental attitude toward bullying and education (Lee and Song, 2012). Domestic violence tends to occur in homes of lower socioeconomic status due to the added stresses of poverty and unemployment, as well as the prevalence of drug and alcohol addiction (Garbarino, 2009). Poverty has a direct affect on rates of domestic violence; and exposure to domestic violence has been directly linked to bullying and children victimizing other

4

children (Garbarino, 2009; Baldry, 2003). It has also been found that the parents of bullies typically lack involvement and warmth (Olweus, 1993). In contrast, there is also evidence that the families of bullying victims are occasionally characterized by “helicopter” (overly protective) mothers who may discourage healthy independence and self-confidence, as well as fathers who are distant and overly critical (Barboza, et al., 2009). It bears noting at this juncture that bullying-victimization behaviors in school are also related to holding a bully or victim role in a sibling relationship (Barboza, et al., 2009). Low socioeconomic schools typically have more funding available for programs that support the students, strengthen the home-school interface, and help ensure academic success (Garbarino, 2009; Hong & Eamon, 2012). In general, socioeconomic status has been a consistent predictor of behavioral issues and academic performance (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, and Collins, 2005). Students who are victims of bullying tend to see a drop in academic progression and experience attendance issues (Barboza, et al., 2009). One study (n = 13,176) consistently identified race/ethnicity as a key factor in the influence of parental involvement in education (Zhang, Hsu, Kwok, Benz, and BowmanPerrott, 2011). The same study also found parental involvement was a better predictor for Caucasian and Asian American groups than Hispanic and African-American groups (Zhang, et al., 2011). It has also been determined that parents in higher socioeconomic communities are more likely to be involved in their child’s school and help with homework, while parents in lower socioeconomic communities were less likely to be involved and help their child with homework less due to a lack of skills necessary to help (Zhang, et al., 2011). A child who is a bully victim in a lower socioeconomic community

5

may experience a drop in academic progression but not have the parental support as one might in a higher socioeconomic community to support them in returning to their previous academic status. Study Hypotheses This study poses two hypotheses. The first hypothesis predicts that children of a minority ethnicity (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander) are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying. The second hypothesis predicts that children of a perceived lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying.

6

Chapter 2: Method Data Collection The original data were collected from a response survey administered in a regular classroom setting to participating students by a school representative (e.g. teacher, guidance counselor, administrator, etc.) and took approximately 45 minutes to complete. The survey asked questions about nutrition, physical activity, violence, bullying, family and friend relationships, socioeconomic status, perceptions of school environment, and alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use. The school representative administering the survey read scripts that explained the survey procedures. Four versions of the self-report survey were administered: two for 6th grade students, one for students in 7th, 8th, and 9th grade, and one for students in 10th grade. The 10th grade survey contained the complete set of questions asked. An auxiliary questionnaire was sent to a school administrator in the responding schools to obtain school level information on health-related topics, with a special focus on nutrition, meal services, physical activity programs, and violence prevention and security practices employed by the school. The auxiliary questionnaire was designed to take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Some variables were modified or removed to protect the confidentiality of the students or the school. The two questions regarding birth month and year were removed, but an exact age variable was computed using the information along with the survey administration date, which was also removed. A second age variable was created which truncates the student’s exact age. Height and weight were top and bottom coded if the response was unreasonable based upon the student’s age. There were two separate

7

questions that asked whether or not the student had to move to a new home or school because of a hurricane, and these questions were combined into one variable. Sample This study conducted a secondary analysis of existing data from a comprehensive survey in 2005-2006 within the United States. The survey is entitled Health and Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey. It is a nationally representative survey of students in grades six through ten during the 2005-2006 school year. The sampling plan of the HBSC survey was designed to support three overlapping study probability sample designs and target populations, each with different sampling requirements. The age-based non-weighted sample for the U.S. data is embedded within a grade-based fully weighted sample design that was enlarged to include both the agebased sample plus supplemental nationally representative samples of minority students. Both the age-based and grade-based samples were designed to provide estimates of +/-3 percent at 95 percent confidence for student characteristics of either individual age groups (11.5, 13.5, and 15.5 years) or each individual grade (6-10). In the original sample frame, 529 schools were selected to participate in the HBSC survey. Of those 529 schools, 202 schools did not respond. Of the 327 schools that provided initial information, only 227 were found to be eligible. Within the 227 participating schools, there were 10,577 students selected for participation. The number of students who participated was 9,227, yielding a student response rate of 87.2 percent. These participation rates were deemed sufficient to achieve the targeted precision levels and confidence intervals for the sub-populations of interest.

8

Of the 1,350 who did not participate, there were 565 who declined to participate. An additional 785 students were absent on the day of the survey administration and did not complete a survey upon returning to school. However, an additional 216 students absent on the day of the survey administration did complete a survey upon returning to school. Auxiliary questionnaires for school administrators were sent to the 227 participating schools. School administrators completed 195 questionnaires for a response rate of 85.9 percent. Measures The dataset for the HBSC survey contained a total of 264 variables. The HBSC survey included fifteen variable groups that contain information (in part) of demographics and characteristics, family affluence, living arrangements, dieting and body image, physical and mental health, bullying/fighting/weapons, and substance use. Race was dichotomized as Hispanic/Latino, African-American, White, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. For the purpose of this study, the following dependent variables were used: How often are you bullied at school? And, How often have you bullied another student? The dependent variable for being bullied is dichotomized as: I haven’t been bullied at school the past couple months, it has only happened once or twice, 2 or 3 times a month, about once a week, and several times a week. The dependent variable for bullying another student is dichotomized as: I haven’t bullied another student(s) at school, it has only happened once or twice, 2 or 3 times a month, about once a week, and several times a week. One of the independent variables used in this study are perceived family affluence, which is dichotomized as: very well off, quite well off, average, not very well off, and not at all well off. The other

9

independent variable used in this study is race, of which the dichotomization is stated previously within this section. Figure  1.  Participant  characteristics  predicting  bully  victimization   Independent  Variables  

Dependent  Variables   I  haven't  been  bullied  at   school  the  past  couple   months   It  has  only  happened  once  or   twice  

Race,  Family  Affluence  

2  or  3  Emes  a  month  

About  once  a  week  

Several  Emes  a  week  

Figure  2.  Participant  characteristics  predicting  bully  perpetration  

                                     Independent  Variables                          Dependent  Variables                   I  haven't  bullied  another   student  at  school   It  has  only  happened  once   or  twice  

Race,  Family  Affluence  

2  or  3  Emes  a  month  

About  once  a  week  

Several  Emes  a  week  

10

Chapter 3: Results Analysis Table 1 displays the characteristics of the students. The 9,227 students in the sample ranged from 11 years of age to 17 years of age. Mean age of the students was M = 13.88, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.50. 51.4% (n = 4,742) of the students were female, and 48.3% (n = 4,456) of the students were male. 25.3% (n = 2,339) students identified as Hispanic or Latino. 21.9% (n = 2,017) students identified as African American. 51.0% (n = 4,703) students identified as White. 4.1% (n = 379) students identified as Asian. 5.7% (n = 528) students identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. 1.8% (n = 166) students identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 26.6% (n = 2,454) identified as Other in terms of race. Table  1.    Demographics  and  Characteristics  of  Students  (n  =  9,227)   Characteristics                                                       Gender     Male             Female           Age       11             12             13           14               15           16           17               Race     Hispanic/Latino           Black/African  American         White                                        Asian                                        American  Indian/Alaska  Native       Native  Hawaiian/Other  Pacific  Islander     Other           Grade  In  School     Grade  6             Grade  7          

 

 

                        N  

 

   

   

   

4,456     4,742    

48.3   51.0  

             

             

                   

989   2,005   1,899   1,660   1,543   950   55              

10.7   21.7   20.6   18.0   16.7   10.3   0.6  

                 

%  

                                                                                                                           

2,339       25.3   2,017                                     21.9   4,703     51.0   379                     4.1   528     5.7   166     1.8   2,454     26.6  

   

2,404     1,880    

11

   

   

26.1   20.4  

  Grade  8         Grade  9         Grade  10     Socioeconomic  Indications     Very  well  off       Quite  well  off       Average       Not  very  well  off     Not  at  all  well  off      

     

     

     

     

     

1,830     1,486     1,627    

19.8   16.1   17.6  

         

         

         

         

             

1,533                               2,338     4,187                           708     208    

16.6   25.3   45.4   7.7   2.3  

Findings Chi-square tests of independence were conducted for categorical variables in order to identify any significant associations between the students’ ethnicity and bullying victimization and perpetration. Chi-square tests of independence were also conducted to identify any significant associations between the students’ self-perceived socioeconomic status and bullying victimization and perpetration. Of the ethnicities surveyed, significant relationships between ethnicity and bully victimization were found for Hispanic/Latino (X2 = 3.567, p = .468), African American (X2= 19.533, p = .001), American Indian/Alaska Native (X2= 20.702, p = .000), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (X2= 4.439, p = .350). In terms of bully perpetration, significant relationships with ethnicity were found for African American (X2= 46.329, p = .000) and White (X2= 19.187, p = .001). As shown in Table 2 cross-tabulation, students who reported their socioeconomic status as “not very well off” (n = 683) were bullied significantly more several times per week (8.3%) than students in other socioeconomic statuses. Students who reported being “not at all well off” (n = 204) also reported a higher percentage of being bullied several times a week (7.4%). Students who reported “average” socioeconomic status (n = 4,057) and “not very well off” socioeconomic status (n = 683) also had the highest percentages

12

being bullied once or twice (19.4% and 19.3%, respectively). Students in the “not very well off” and “not at all well off” categories also reported higher percentages of being bullied 2 or 3 times per month when compared to other socioeconomic statuses (6.1% and 5.4%, respectively), and being bullied about once a week also when compared to other socioeconomic statuses (4.0% and 4.4% respectively). Table  2.  Socioeconomic  Status  and  Bully  Victimization     HOW  OFTEN  ARE  YOU  BULLIED  AT  SCHOOL   I  haven't  been  

  FAMILY  

Very  well   Count  

WELL  

off  

OFF  

bullied  at  school  

It  has  only  

2  or  3  

About  

Several  

the  past  couple  of  

happened  

times  a  

once  a  

times  a  

months  

once  or  twice  

month  

week  

week   66  

Total  

1063  

247  

57  

38  

1471  

72.3%  

16.8%  

3.9%  

2.6%  

4.5%   100.0%  

12.2%  

2.8%  

0.7%  

0.4%  

0.8%  

16.9%  

1677  

385  

89  

50  

72  

2273  

73.8%  

16.9%  

3.9%  

2.2%  

3.2%   100.0%  

19.3%  

4.4%  

1.0%  

0.6%  

0.8%  

26.2%  

2805  

786  

193  

105  

168  

4057  

69.1%  

19.4%  

4.8%  

2.6%  

4.1%   100.0%  

32.3%  

9.0%  

2.2%  

1.2%  

1.9%  

46.7%  

425  

132  

42  

27  

57  

683  

62.2%  

19.3%  

6.1%  

4.0%  

8.3%   100.0%  

4.9%  

1.5%  

0.5%  

0.3%  

0.7%  

7.9%  

134  

35  

11  

9  

15  

204  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Quite  

Count  

well  off  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Average  

Count   %  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Not  very  

Count  

well  off  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Not  at  all   Count  

13

well  off  

%  within   FAMILY  

65.7%  

17.2%  

5.4%  

4.4%  

7.4%   100.0%  

%  of  Total  

1.5%  

0.4%  

0.1%  

0.1%  

0.2%  

2.3%  

Count  

6104  

1585  

392  

229  

378  

8688  

70.3%  

18.2%  

4.5%  

2.6%  

4.4%   100.0%  

70.3%  

18.2%  

4.5%  

2.6%  

4.4%   100.0%  

WELL  OFF  

Total  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

 

As shown in Table 3 cross-tabulation, students who reported “not at all well off” (n = 203) have a significantly higher percentage (10.8%) than other socioeconomic statuses when bullying other students several times per week. No other significant associations or differences were noted in the socioeconomic status percentages within bully perpetration. However, it bears noting that the higher percentages in all categories within bully perpetration are either in the “not very well off” or “not at all well off” categories. Table  3.  Socioeconomic  Statuses  and  Bully  Perpetration     HOW  OFTEN  HAVE  YOU  BULLIED  ANOTHER  STUDENT   I  haven't  bullied  

  FAMILY  

Very  well   Count  

WELL  

off  

OFF  

another  

It  has  only  

2  or  3  

About  

Several  

student(s)  at  

happened  

times  a  

once  a  

times  a  

school  

once  or  twice  

month  

week  

week   44  

Total  

1024  

309  

58  

28  

1463  

70.0%  

21.1%  

4.0%  

1.9%  

3.0%   100.0%  

11.8%  

3.6%  

0.7%  

0.3%  

0.5%  

16.9%  

1472  

576  

116  

57  

44  

2265  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Quite  

Count  

14

well  off  

%  within   FAMILY  

65.0%  

25.4%  

5.1%  

2.5%  

1.9%   100.0%  

17.0%  

6.7%  

1.3%  

0.7%  

0.5%  

26.2%  

2526  

1067  

224  

104  

124  

4045  

62.4%  

26.4%  

5.5%  

2.6%  

3.1%   100.0%  

29.2%  

12.3%  

2.6%  

1.2%  

1.4%  

46.7%  

401  

184  

37  

32  

23  

677  

59.2%  

27.2%  

5.5%  

4.7%  

3.4%   100.0%  

4.6%  

2.1%  

0.4%  

0.4%  

0.3%  

7.8%  

111  

52  

9  

9  

22  

203  

54.7%  

25.6%  

4.4%  

4.4%  

%  of  Total  

1.3%  

0.6%  

0.1%  

0.1%  

0.3%  

2.3%  

Count  

5534  

2188  

444  

230  

257  

8653  

64.0%  

25.3%  

5.1%  

2.7%  

3.0%   100.0%  

64.0%  

25.3%  

5.1%  

2.7%  

3.0%   100.0%  

WELL  OFF   %  of  Total   Average  

Count   %  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Not  very  

Count  

well  off  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

Not  at  all   Count   well  off  

%  within   FAMILY  

10.8%   100.0%  

WELL  OFF  

Total  

%  within   FAMILY   WELL  OFF   %  of  Total  

15

Chapter 4: Discussion This study sought to examine two hypotheses. First, children of a minority ethnicity (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander) are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying. Second, children of a perceived lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying. Chi-square tests revealed significant relationships between ethnicity and bully victimization for Hispanic/Latino, African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. In terms of bully perpetration, significant relationships with ethnicity were found for African American and White. Previous research has found no racial differences in bullying victimization between African American and White youth (Estell, Farmer, and Cairns, 2007), while other research states that African American youth were less likely to be victimized than White and Hispanic youth (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie, 2007). Contrary to the latter research, this study found that African American and Hispanic/Latino youth had significant bully victimization experiences, while White youth did not. However, it is important to take into account the lack of information regarding the demographics of the schools surveyed, as a study has shown that students face more race-based victimization if their ethnic group is in the minority at their school (Fisher, et al., 2015). This study found that the African American and White youth surveyed identified as bully perpetrators in greater numbers than the other ethnicities. This can possibly be attributed to being the ethnic majority at the school they attend, as students in the ethnic minority are more susceptible to bully victimization as based on the imbalance of power

16

(Felix and You, 2011). It does bear noting that the amount of African American bully perpetration in this study has a much higher chi-square result than White bully perpetration (X2= 46.329, p = .000 vs. X2= 19.187, p = .001). Ultimately, the African American youth surveyed had the second-highest chi-square result in bully victimization and the highest result in bully perpetration. Research states that African Americans who do not embody the characteristics of their culture (e.g. act “White”) are often criticized and ridiculed by their peers (Fisher, et al., 2015; Peguero and Williams, 2013; Goldweber, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw, 2012). As bullying is prevalent in the youth of African Americans within this study, this study supports the previous research as well. The relationship between bullying and socioeconomic status was measured by students’ self-perceived socioeconomic status and how often they were either bully victims or perpetrators (see Tables 2 and 3). The hypothesis of this study is supported by the findings of the relationship between socioeconomic status and bullying. In terms of bully victimization, the “not very well off” students reported higher percentages than the other socioeconomic statuses in all areas except “I haven’t been bullied at school the past couple months”. Students who reported “not at all well off” also have a significantly higher percentage (10.8%) than other socioeconomic statuses when bullying other students several times per week. The higher percentages in all categories within bully perpetration are either in the “not very well off” or “not at all well off” categories. It would appear by these results that the youth who are being bullied are also the ones doing the bullying. Research has revealed that children cannot be classified solely as victims or perpetrators of bullying, as children will both be victimized and at other times bully other children (Woods and Wolke, 2003). The assumption could be made that the lower

17

socioeconomic homes are in a community of higher poverty and violence, and neighborhoods that have high rates of community crime can also result in higher rates of school disorder (crime and bullying) (Maume, Kim-Goodwin, and Clements, 2010). In light of this research, this study’s findings that both bully victims and perpetrators come from a lower socioeconomic status are expected. The youth with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be exposed to community violence, as well as domestic violence (Baldry, 2003). Study Limitations This study is not without limitations. This study relied on existing data, which is efficient and cost-effective, but presents concerns. The author had no control over the data collection process, and no input on the variables used. The data was cohesive and complete, but it was not collected for the purpose of this research study and therefore was missing some key elements. The demographics of the individual schools used in the survey would have provided this study with valuable information in terms of the prevailing ethnic minorities and majorities within each school. Also, the specific locations of the schools were not given for anonymity purposes. Due to that lack of information, it was impossible to determine the influence the surrounding communities had on the students. For the purpose of this study, knowing the poverty and violence levels of the communities would have helped determine if the amount of bullying at school was due to an exposure to violence in the community. Future Research Future research should explore the relationship between socioeconomic status and bullying, taking into account current research regarding risk factors of homes struggling

18

with poverty. Research also needs to continue to be conducted on the connection between race and bullying. The current research contradicts itself; especially when focusing on African Americans and bullying, and continued research will help reveal a true trend if one exists.

19

Conclusion The present study examined the relationship between race and bullying victimization and perpetration, as well as the relationship between socioeconomic status and bullying victimization and perpetration. As it pertains to social work, more research is needed to explore the relationship between socioeconomic statuses and bullying, taking into account the risk factors surrounding poverty. Children facing poverty already experience many factors that can affect their trajectories in life. If research can prove bullying to be a legitimate risk factor for children experiencing poverty, then social workers can adjust their interventions appropriately.

20

References Baldry, A. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713-732. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00114-5 Barboza, G., Schiamberg, L., Oehmke, J., Korseniewski, S., Post, L., and Heraux, C., (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 101121. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1 Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., and Cairns, B. D. (2007). Bullies and victims in rural African American youth: Behavioral characteristics and social network placement. Aggressive Behavior, 33(2), 145–159. doi:10.1002/ab.20176. Felix, E., and You, S. (2011). Peer victimization within the ethnic context of high school. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(7), 860–875. doi:10.1002/jcop.20465. Fisher, S., Middleton, K, Ricks, E., Malone, C., Briggs, C., and Barnes, J. (2015). Not just black and white: Peer victimization and the intersectionality of school diversity and race. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1241-1250. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0243-3 Garbarino, J. (2009). Children and families in the social environment (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Goldweber, A., Waasdrop, T.E., and Bradshaw, C. (2013). Examining associations between race, urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 206-219. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9843-y

21

Harel-Fisch, Y., Walsh, S., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Amitai, G., Pickett, W., Molcho, M., Gaspar de Matos, M., Craig, W., and Members of the HBSC Violence and Injury Prevention Focus Group (2011). Negative school perceptions and involvement in school bullying: A universal relationship across 40 countries. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 639-652. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.008 Hong, J., and Eamon, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of unsafe schools: An ecological systems analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 428-438. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9494-8 Lee, C-H., and Song, J. (2012). Functions of parental involvement and effects of school climate on bullying behaviors among South Korean middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(12), 2437-2464. doi: 10.1177/0886260511433508 Maume, M., Kim-Godwin, Y., and Clements, C. (2010). Racial tensions and school crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3), 339-358. doi: 10.1177/1043986210369283 Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S., and Isava, D. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26-42. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26 Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Peguero, A. and Williams, L. (2013). Racial and ethnic stereotypes and bullying

22

victimization. Youth and Society, 45(4), 545-564. doi: 10.1177/0044118X11424757 Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., and Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009 Sroufe, L., Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Collins, W. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: The Guilford Press Turner, H., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S., Shattuck, A., & Ormrod, R. (2011). Specifying type and location of peer victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1052-1067. doi: 10.1007/s10964-0119639-5 Woods, S., and Wolke, D. (2003). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2004), 135-155. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.002 Zhang, D., Hsu, H-Y., Kwok, O-M., Benz, M., & Bowman-Perrott, L. (2011). The impact of basic-level parent engagements on student achievement: Patterns associated with race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(1), 28-39. doi: 10.1177/1044207310394447

23