SALLY BLACK, AMANDA LEE TSAFOS & ERICKA WASHINGTON THE ORIGINAL FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT WAS PROVIDED BY PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY (PCCD) AND SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY ACT (TITLE 4). SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED WITH SUPPORT FROM SAINT JOSEPH’S UNIVERSITY SUMMER SCHOLARS PROGRAM. WE ARE ALSO GRATEFUL TO PSR FOR THEIR MANAGEMENT OF DATA COLLECTION An Examination of the Characteristics of Passive and Provocative Victims of Bullying

Presenter Disclosures The following personal financial relationships with commercial interests relevant to this presentation existed during the past 12 months: I have no disclosures to make. Sally Black

Definition and Prevalence of Bullying The definition of bullying is when someone repeatedly and on purpose says or does mean or hurtful things to another person who has less social, physical, intellectual or political power. Prevalence rates of bullying victimization vary from 10.6% to 14.0% nationwide, to 38.9% of children locally.

Effects of Bullying Bullying victimization and perpetration have profound health, academic, and social effects on individuals and society. Victims may suffer from: anxiety, depression, suicide, eating disorders, problems with interpersonal relationships, and lower self-worth. Bullies fail to learn social norms and are at greater risk of antisocial behaviors, like criminality. Provocative victims may suffer from both the victims’ and bullies’ risk factors

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the distinct characteristics of:  Passive Victims  Provocative Victims (bully/victim)  Bullies  Bystanders In order to tailor interventions to the unique needs of each group.

Hypotheses 1) Provocative victims will report significantly more poly- victimization than passive victims; 2) Provocative victims will report significantly more dislike for school in comparison to passive victims, bullies, and bystanders; 3) Bullies will report significantly more friends in comparison to passive victims and provocative victims; and 4) Bullies will report significantly less empathy in comparison to provocative victims, passive victims, and bystanders.

Materials and Methods This was a secondary data analysis taken from baseline data collected during the first year of a bullying prevention program ( ).

Participants Participants consisted of n=9,653 students Large northeastern American urban school distinct Children in grades third to eighth Ethnicity was not reported, yet the participating schools were comprised of predominantly low income, minority populations.

Instrument The Bully Victim Questionnaire (BVQ) was developed to investigate bullying patterns within a school cite. A pre-existing instrument of 39 closed ended questions identifying types of bullying victimization and perpetration, places where bullying occurred, and reactions of onlookers Tested in previous studies for reliability and validity

Operational Definitions Bullies were defined as students who self-reported at least one form of aggression against others and did not report any forms of victimization Passive victims were defined as students who self- reported at least one form of victimization and did not report any forms of aggression Provocative victims were defined as students who self- reported at least one form of victimization and one form of aggression Bystanders were defined as students who reported neither aggression nor victimization. Polyvictimization was defined as experiencing four or more different types of victimization.

Results: Across Grade and Gender Across grade bullies and bystanders increased (7.5% to 16.2%, 37.2% to 54.7%, respectively) while passive victims and provocative victims decreased (34.3% to 16.2%, 21.0% to 12.9%, respectively). Males were slightly more likely to be provocative victims and bullies than females (55.6% and 54.5%), while passive victims were fairly equal (51.4% female and 47.8% male). Females were more commonly bystanders (54.2%) compared to males (44.6%).

Results Research Hypothesis 1: Thirty-six percent of provocative victims and 25.7% of passive victims reported poly-victimization, four or more types of bullying victimization (x 2 (8)=78.7, p<.001). There was no significant difference in length of victimization. Both provocative victims (17.6%) and passive victims (17.1%) reported victimization of a year or more (x 2 (6)=12.2, n.s.) (Item 17). Passive victims (42.0%) were more likely to report fear of being bullied ‘sometimes’ or more often than provocative victims (39.2% )(x 2 (7)=17.3, p<.05) and also more than bystanders (15.5%) and bullies (13.1%) (x 2 (21)=1001.1, p<.001).

Research Hypothesis 2: Provocative victims demonstrated a greater like of school than bullies. Twenty-two percent of bullies, 19.6% of provocative victims, 17.1% of passive victims, and 14.0% of bystanders reported disliking school (x 2 (18)=266.6, p<.001)(Item 1).

Results Research Hypothesis 3:. Ninety percent of bullies and 91.3% of bystanders reported two or more friends, demonstrating significantly higher results than passive victims (83.2%) and provocative victims (82.7%) (x 2 (15)=235.3, p<.001) (Item 3). Six percent of passive victims and 6.3% of provocative victims reported no friends in comparison to 3.9% of bullies and 3.0% of bystanders reported no friends.

Research Hypothesis 4: Seventy-three percent of bullies and 74.9% of bystanders reported that victims probably deserved to be bullied, demonstrating significantly less empathy than passive victims (35.0%) and provocative victims (32.0%) (x 2 (15)=1795.9, p<.001) (Item 23). As expected, more passive victims (29.9%) and provocative victims (25.1%) would try to help a victim in comparison to bystanders (22.4%) and bullies (18.5%) (x 2 (21)=744.5, p<.001) (Item 37).

Table of Results

Conclusions  Tailor interventions: Connect passive and provocative victims to caring bystanders. Teach bystanders to recognize and respond to bullying Increase empathy among children who bully and bystanders Role model caring, inclusive behavior in the classroom Promote a community that respects rather than rejects differences

Conclusions  Public Health Practice: Universal (primary) prevention - build a pro-social environment that maintains a clear understanding of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors Selected (secondary) prevention - protecting high risk kids Indicated (tertiary) prevention - bullies/ provocative victims