Bullying in Different Contexts

11 An overview of bullying and abuse across settings

In editing this book, we have illustrated that bullying and abuse emerge over the lifespan of human beings. It is identified within each of the settings detailed in the book and has serious mental and physical consequences for those involved, as well as associated costs for families, schools, organisations and society. Our vision was to obtain subject matter experts’ perspectives on current research and practice within each of these different contexts, as well as debate possible avenues of research and practice that may cross settings. In creating this reference, our vision is that individuals interested in bullying and abuse in one specific context may learn from other contexts and consider adapting methodologies, models, interventions, and so forth to their own area of research or practice. Whilst we accept there will be contextual limitations and unique elements to different settings, we also argue that a greater appreciation of bullying and abuse more widely may enable us to develop common theoretical frameworks and interventions to better understand and reduce this phenomenon.

We are conscious that the book should not spread panic or present the idea that the human experience is plagued with abuse, bullying and neglect. Whilst this is theoretically possible, we cannot envisage the likelihood that the same individual will become a continual victim who is bullied or cyberbullied at school and at home by their siblings, is taken into care and bullied by other children, then, as they develop and start to form relationships, is abused by their partner. As a result of their background they become involved in crime, resulting in prison bullying and, after leaving prison and emerging into the world of work, they face further victimisation. Finally, as they become an older adult, exposure to abuse from family or from other caregivers starts to develop. The likelihood of this life history developing would be remote, and interventions outlined in the previous chapters would stop the potential for perpetual abuse at an earlier stage.

Further, we do not want parents, adolescents, employees or family members of older adults to become fearful of the social contexts they or their relatives will face throughout life. There is by no means an inevitability to the suffering of abuse in these contexts, because, as prevalence rates tend to illustrate, many individuals are not targets of severe levels of bullying and abuse.

However, this volume does indicate that some individuals encounter abusive behaviours and systematic and enduring bullying, at school, at home, at work or in other contexts. With this in mind, this final chapter synthesises and compares the research presented in Chapters 2 to 10. We draw conclusions regarding defining bullying, developmental changes, risk factors, measurement of bullying, individual and situational antecedents and interventions to reduce bullying across the different contexts. Further, we discuss the role of theory in furthering our understanding of the phenomenon.

The research life cycle

Systematic research into bullying and abuse in many of these different contexts is relatively new, with the majority of advances in research and practice emerging from the 1990s to the present day. It is evident, as Smith (Chapter 3) illustrates, that school bullying has led the way. Through the ‘phases of research’ identified by Smith, school bullying research has matured and developed into a large-scale international programme, with a vast amount of research evidence and what appears to be well-developed interventions showing some positive outcomes. However, as Smith recognises, there is still much work to be done in school bullying, especially with the advent of cyberbullying. Learning from successes and failures, as well as accounting for new types of bullying, means that there will always be a need to consider different approaches to measuring the behaviour; revise our conceptualisations of the behaviour; develop and test causal models of bullying; and evaluate and enhance intervention strategies to reduce the behaviour.

Using the analogy of a product life cycle, Smith’s waves of school research can be mapped on to each life-cycle phase. The first wave characterised by building awareness of the behaviour maps to the introduction phase of a product life cycle; the second wave of increasing knowledge across different countries represents the growth phase of a product; and the third wave of an established research programme equates to the maturity phase of a product. Arguably through the ‘development of new product features’ (e.g. cyberbullying), research on school bullying has not yet reached the final product life-cycle phase of decline. Taking this approach one step further, we propose a tentative

Figure 11.1 The research life cycle of bullying in different contexts (c. 2010)

classification of phases of the research life cycle for bullying research in other contexts (see Figure 11.1).

This classification highlights the progression from descriptive survey research identifying prevalence rates and risk factors (introduction); through identification of antecedents and use of multi-method approaches to data collection (early growth); towards the development of theory and identification of interventions (later growth); to the development and evaluation of interventions (maturity). Some research areas are developing fast, others are just starting out and some have a long history of investigation. We are conscious that some readers and experts in these fields may not agree entirely on this classifications and we also acknowledge that there are limitations to a simple classification such as this (for example, as Walsh and colleagues identify in Chapter 9, there is a 30-year history of studying older adult maltreatment even though research on elder abuse per se is more recent). However, researchers and practitioners working within one environment may be able to learn from the methods adopted, tools used, theories tested and interventions developed in the other environments. Having a sense of where their area and related areas of interest stand currently provides a research agenda for these individuals going forward.

Defining bullying

Terminology

It is naive to imagine ever achieving an agreed cross-context definition of ‘bullying’ covering the range of behaviours experienced and unique contextual elements. Whilst bullying is the preferred term used in some of the contexts (e.g. school, workplace, prison and cyber), in other areas broader concepts are considered (e.g. peer violence, elder abuse, peer victimisation, dating violence). Within school, cyber and work contexts, bullying tends to be examined as a specific phenomenon (mostly as a result of the criteria used to define the behaviour), whereas in these other areas it is seen within the wider context of abusive or violent behaviour. In the latter cases, the authors argue for contextual reasons for taking such an approach: Monks (Chapter 2) suggests young children have an over-inclusive definition of bullying; Barter (Chapter 4) argues that the peer culture in care homes needs to be accounted for; and both Ireland (Chapter 7) and Walsh et al. (Chapter 9) indicate that frequency, duration and intent as criteria for defining bullying may not always apply in prison or elder abuse contexts.

This begs the question of whether bullying comprises a set of unique behaviours which are context-specific (and hence can only be examined within that setting) or whether our traditional approach to defining ‘bullying’ is too restrictive and limits our ability to include other behaviours. Perhaps, as Ireland suggests, we should consider bullying an ‘umbrella term’, which allows researchers, practitioners and other relevant stakeholders to account for other abusive and violent behaviours that at present do not fit the traditional conceptualisation of bullying. Bullying as currently defined is distinct from other types of abusive behaviour, yet need this be the case?

Defining criteria

Building on this debate, let’s consider the defining features of ‘power imbalance’, ‘intent’ and ‘repetition’ attributed to traditional notions of bullying and how these are represented, if at all, across the different social contexts. First, across most of the environments discussed a power imbalance is represented. Whilst this imbalance tends to be more strongly characterised in definitions of school and workplace bullying, domestic violence and cyberbullying, it also emerges within elder abuse (specifically in relation to trust), peer violence (especially in the context of high-level behaviours), prison bullying and dating violence (in terms of dominance–submissiveness–control). However, Ireland questions the notion that inequalities in power should always be a defining feature of bullying, as ‘baroning’ in a prison context is not based on an overt imbalance of power. Further, Monks suggests there are fewer well-developed classroom hierarchies in preschool children and a more fluid nature to victim status. This implies that social hierarchy and the resulting dominance and power associated with this is not as strong a force in this environment as within other bullying contexts. Therefore, one could also question if bullying always requires a power imbalance. Indeed, as Coyne (Chapter 8) points out, power imbalance is nowadays not a main feature of practitioner or lay definitions of workplace bullying.

Second, intent is a controversial issue within bullying research and is not explicitly stated across all the settings discussed in this book. The premise is that, in order for bullying to occur, the perpetrator chooses to engage in abusive behaviour towards another individual and understands the impact of their actions (intends to harm). Clearly, predatory workplace bullying and the concept of social cognition in school/preschool bullying point to a planned, intentional nature to bullying. On the other hand, conflict-related bullying suggests an initial unplanned intention to bully, and the lack of empathy and poor social cognition in perpetrators of school bullying implies no intention to cause harm to another. Additionally, within elder abuse and prison bullying, respectively, unintentional abuse can develop. In elder abuse this is seen as a result of lack of experience, ability or ignorance on the part of the caregiver, whilst in prison bullying it manifests itself in prisoners engaging in behaviour without considering the consequences of their actions.

Third, frequent and enduring negative acts are seen as bullying. Therefore, one-off incidents, because of their lack of systematic targeting and escalation of conflict, cannot be deemed to be bullying. Whilst abusive behaviours in residential care homes, in domestic situations, in dating relationships, by prisoners, towards older adults and in cyberspace may include an element of repetition, they also allow for one-off incidents to be considered as abuse. For example, prison bullying need not always be repeated, as ‘the fear of being aggressed, rater than the actual incidence, [may be] considered of more importance in determining bullying’ (Ireland, this volume, p. 138). Further, in preschool bullying targets are not repeatedly victimised and victim status is less stable. Initially, the repetition criterion implies that traditional bullying is a very different concept from elder abuse, prison bullying, domestic abuse, and so on. Yet, as with other defining criteria, restricting ourselves to such a feature may cause criterion deficiency in our conceptualisation of bullying. There is not universal agreement on repetition even within the school and workplace bullying fields. For example, Smith (Chapter 3) pinpoints difficulties in extending the notion of repetition (and power imbalance) to school cyberbullying contexts as this may involve a single act by an aggressor that is ‘repeated’ by others. Therefore, researchers may need to consider what they actually mean by repetition and focus on other possible angles, such as fear of repetition or repetition by others.

Overall, the defining criteria of repetition, power imbalance and intention seen in traditional definitions of bullying feature to some extent in abusive behaviour in other contexts discussed in this book. However, experts within these areas propose different terms and definitions and even detail why their research areas cannot be viewed as bullying. This differentiation partly stems from the inappropriateness of traditional bullying definitions (mostly based in school and working contexts) in these other settings – whether because there is sometimes no repetition, no power inequity or no intent. Perhaps, rather than trying to espouse differences, what is needed is recognition of the similarities between these concepts and a re-analysis of our traditional approach to defining bullying. After all, even in these ‘traditional’ contexts there is no universal agreement on what constitutes bullying, and it is evident that such a view would face problems when applied to newer forms of bullying (e.g. cyberbullying). The discussion of related abusive behaviours in this book may have opened up our eyes to the possibility that ‘bullying’ is a wider concept than we initially envisaged.

Typologies of behaviour

As well as considering the definitions and terminology used across the contexts, types of behaviours experienced may also help to provide

Table 11.1 A typology of bullying and abuse across different social contexts

Notes: ¹ Emotional includes relational and indirect abuse (such as social exclusion and spreading rumours).

a = Only direct forms of emotional abuse appear in preschool victimisation.

b = Physical abuse tends not to be common through technology, but may occur as a consequence of cyberbullying. However, ‘happy slapping’ and physically attacking an avatar in online worlds (e.g. Second Life) could be perceived as physical bullying.

researchers and practitioners with a sense of the relatedness of bullying to other forms of violence and abuse. Table 11.1 provides an account of the different categories of bullying and abuse across the nine environments. Whilst specific incidences of behaviour differ in each context, there is concordance that physical, verbal and emotional behaviours underlie the concepts of bullying, abuse or violence proposed in each setting. Yes, there is disparity at actual specific behaviour level and, yes, there are different prevalence rates for categories across the contexts (e.g. physical bullying is more prevalent at preschool and school than at work). However, it is evident that whatever environment we are considering (school bullying, domestic violence, dating abuse or elder abuse), we are considering a behaviour that comprises the same elements of physical, verbal and emotional abuse and which suggests more of a convergence than divergence between settings.

Conversely, neglect is seen only within domestic abuse and elder abuse, whilst other types (e.g. theft-related, work-related and financial) appear to be unique to only one context. Sexual abuse is interesting, as this is clearly seen as a type of abuse within all environments with the exception of preschool and work. It is to be expected, given their age and developmental level, that preschool children are unlikely to engage in sexual forms of abuse and hence this would explain why this type is not considered within this context. However, within work contexts sexually abusive behaviours are conceptualised more within the notion of sexual harassment than bullying (partly because sexual harassment need only be a one-off incident and hence does not fit the criteria of persistency).

Perhaps akin to cross-cultural research, the conceptualisation of bullying and abuse can be visualised with etic (universal) and emic (culture- or context-specific) dimensions. Etic elements allow us to consider cross-context similarities and explanations. Emic dimensions highlight differences across settings. As suggested, bullying may or may not be the most appropriate term to use and current definitions may need to be revised. Developing a definition around a term which is culturally (and contextually) sensitive has resulted in a wide variety of related, yet different, concepts being proposed and researched. Perhaps it is time to consider a more etic-based higher-level conceptualisation of bullying which allows for cross-fertilisation of ideas, as well as to accept that such a conceptualisation will also have emic dimensions.

Overall, in terms of defining the concept of bullying/abuse across contexts, we are left with three options:

• acknowledge that we are essentially looking at the same concept and develop an all-encompassing term and defining criteria which cross the different contexts;

• recognise that the above is impossible and that the concepts are very different and unique to each context;

• identify core features which span all contexts and refine definitions to capture these. Additionally, highlight context specific elements which researchers and practitioners in these settings also need to consider.

Prevalence

Whilst in some cases victim prevalence rates across contexts are relatively small (e.g. 1–5 per cent), in other studies rates of 20, 53 and even 90 per cent have been reported. This is partly a result of the methodology used, as well as situational characteristics. Notably, rates of bullying may be especially high in the more constrained situations of the home, residential care settings and prisons. Given these issues, it is not practicable to provide a comparative account across the different contexts of the level of victim status, other than to acknowledge that in some cases a large proportion of the population being studied face some level of bullying and abuse. In a similar vein, perpetrator rates (although not reported routinely) show variability from a lower estimate of 2 per cent to a higher rate of 50 per cent. Even less considered, bully-victim rates are estimated at 14 per cent in preschool, 45 per cent in prisons and 66 per cent in domestic violence settings.

Prevalence rates suggest a developmental change in rates of physical bullying. Physical bullying appears to decline as individuals become older. This can in part be understood in terms of the developmental model of Björkqvist et al. (1992), and, in relation to adult bullying, it may be a function of the ‘effect–danger principle’, in that the risk of being caught physically bullying is higher and the penalty more severe than indirect forms of bullying (Ireland, Chapter 7). However, physical bullying rates are not a simple linear function of age. As Naylor et al. and Ireland and Walsh (this volume) all show, rates of physical bullying can be substantial in adult relationships. Further, physical bullying generally does not occur within cyber contexts, even though most cyberbullying research focuses on children and young people. Unfortunately, prevalence rates for the other forms of bullying are not provided across all environments, although within care home and domestic environments there are some differences in rates between types of abusive behaviour.

A fairly consistent finding is a lack of gender differences in overall victim rates. It appears that, in the main, both genders are equally likely to be targets of bullying and abuse. Within domestic and elder abuse contexts, some evidence points to a higher rate of victimisation for females – although in sibling abuse the opposite effect is seen. Another similarity is the result that, in most environments, perpetrators are more likely to be males than females, especially when it involves physical and sexual forms of bullying.

There are sex differences in the methods of bullying employed, particularly among children and adolescents. Within schools, residential homes and juvenile dating, female bullies tend to be more likely to use relational forms of attack (e.g. rumour-spreading and social exclusion), whereas male bullies are more likely to employ direct forms of bullying (e.g. physical and verbal bullying).

Data on age trends are more of a mixed bag. As already suggested, in general, adolescents and adults use more indirect forms of bullying, whereas young children are more likely to use direct and physical forms of bullying. In a school context, victim rates decline as children grow older, whereas perpetrator rates are unchanged. Smith suggests that pro-bullying attitudes increase up to about age 14 to 15, after which they decline. To some extent this is mirrored in cyberbullying, with a peak at around age 13 to 14 and a decline at 16 to 17 (Rivers et al., Chapter 10) and within dating violence, which decreases between ages 16 and 18 (Ortega and Sánchez, Chapter 6). In workplace bullying and elder abuse, the evidence so far points to older adults being more at risk, whereas in domestic abuse younger siblings and children aged 8 to 15 are more likely to be victims.

Methodological issues

Methodological problems in relation to identifying rates of bullying and abuse are prominent throughout the chapters in this book. Before discussing this further, it is worth praising the wide variety of methods used across the different settings. Methodological variability illustrates how researchers have attempted to understand the complex phenomenon of bullying and provides insight into the maturity of the research programme within each context. Different approaches to collecting data, which allow researchers to delve deeper into one perspective or collect information from different perspectives, have undoubtedly advanced our knowledge of bullying and abuse.

As is to be expected, initial investigations used a cross-sectional self-reported survey method as a means of describing the phenomenon of bullying and abuse. These have been the foundations of bullying research in the different settings, and, even though there are limitations on their usefulness (e.g. their reliance on one perspective, usually the victim), they are likely to continue to be used for investigating and describing bullying and abuse. As Smith argues, their use in identifying incidence rates helps to raise awareness of bullying and offers a form of publicity, which leads to interventions and action and helps to provide a baseline for monitoring the effectiveness of interventions. Across many settings, advances have been made from simple one-item methods (e.g. ‘have you been bullied?’) to the use of definitions followed by self-report items, and the development of more psychometrically sound scales of bullying behaviours. Additionally, some contexts have also adopted more longitudinal or two-wave designs to better test predictive models and the stability of bullying over time. However, such designs tend to be the exception rather than the norm.

Aside from the ubiquitous survey method, other approaches used include parent-reports, teacher-reports, peer-reports, observation methods, sociometry (peer nomination), contrived play settings, focus groups and interviews. Whilst a number of these have been developed to obtain data from particular groups (e.g. young children), it is evident that some cross settings. Knowledge of the different methodologies used within other contexts and consideration of the positives and negatives of such methods could help researchers in other domains evaluate how they collect data on bullying. For example, very little use of participant roles and peer nominations have been used in a working context, with some authors arguing that organisational politics and idiosyncratic biases undermine the nomination of individuals – especially if those potentially nominated are managers. Additionally, there is hardly any consideration of bully-victims as a group (and, as Ireland shows, these comprise the largest group in prison samples), let alone notions of ‘reinforcer’, ‘defender’ or ‘bystander’.

However, variations in approaches used or criteria adopted to identify victims and perpetrators have meant that, within a particular context, comparison across countries, regions, school types, organisational sectors, and so forth has become impossible. Specifically, common problems reported are variations in the duration level used, differences in the frequency level used and the variety of definitions adopted to capture the same concept. Other issues include the use of different measurement scales; a focus on restricted samples (e.g. clinical samples); non-random designs; and, in cyberbullying, the inclusion/exclusion of different media.

As a result, prevalence rates differ widely across studies and hence identification of victims, perpetrators, bully-victims, and so on is tinged with an element of unreliability. Clearly, this has knock-on effects when identifying risk factors, antecedents, theoretical models and interventions. To some extent this is a fundamental problem of research in the area of bullying and abuse, especially as many of the differences seen revolve around the definition of bullying and abuse. If frequency and duration are key components of a definition of bullying, why do researchers use such varied levels to capture these key aspects? Can we ever have an agreed duration and frequency rate which dictates the research agenda (for example, in workplace bullying, weekly for at least six months has often been used)? If not, why is this a fundamental part of a definition? We likely could never develop a repetition ‘rule’ or ‘law’ which should be used in all research designs, but we may be able to have more agreement on boundaries of acceptable criteria. This may detract from the notion of bullying being a separate concept from other related areas, and there is likely to be resistance to this. However, as it currently stands, the research area of bullying and abuse is always going to be open to methodological criticism.

To some extent, agreement on criteria is currently emerging within several contexts as research programmes mature. Part of the methodological criticism has related to historical research studies and this has promoted recent developments in methods to counteract some of the issues identified. For example in cyberbullying, as the technology has advanced, there has been a need to broaden definitions to include new technology. As a starting point, it would be a positive move for each area to have some consistency in criteria used in prevalence studies going forward which will enable more accurate assessment of differences across countries and groups and over time. Perhaps knowledge of approaches used in others areas could provide the impetus for a rethinking of the criteria used in prevalence studies.

Risk factors/antecedents

Gender and age as risk factors have already been detailed, as they are the most commonly considered factors across the different settings. Other risk factors outlined include job level, type of organisation, substance abuse, a history of bullying/abuse, socioeconomic status, educational level (of abuser), disability (victim) and mental illness. Nevertheless, such factors are not consistently seen in all studies, and demographic risk factors per se may not be directly related to bullying and abuse. Rather, they may interact with other antecedents in explaining how bullying and abuse emerge.

Situational/environmental factors

Within some settings (e.g. workplace, prison and care homes) there has been more of a focus on explaining bullying and abuse from a situational perspective. Although not necessarily represented across all settings, situational antecedents seen in the previous chapters can be classified into five categories: family/home environment; peer-relations; dominance and leadership; culture and climate; and societal context.

As may be expected, family/home factors have been identified more within the child and young adult bullying contexts than the adult contexts. Specifically, evidence suggests that exposure to family conflict and aggression, insecure attachment to primary caregiver and an autocratic/punitive parenting style relate to aggressive behaviour in preschool, school, dating, domestic, care-home and elder abuse contexts. Parental neglect, over-protective families, exposure to violence in the home and insecure attachment have also been found to relate to victim status (however, in the latter case, this is not a universal finding). The home context the child grew up in or is currently still facing may cause stress and strain, which may then manifest itself in aggression and anger towards others. By contrast, the context may provide a model for what is perceived as acceptable or normal behaviour, which then guides the child’s behaviour in other social settings.

In terms of the peer context as an antecedent of bullying, Ortega and Sánchez (Chapter 6) suggest that violence against peers and witnessing violence in peer-groups predicts dating violence. More focus, though, has been on peer-rejection and its relationship to perpetrator and victim status. Rejection by peers may result in bully or victim status in preschool, school and working contexts. Social isolation as a result of peer-rejection has been mooted as an explanation of why an individual becomes a scapegoat for others’ aggression. Such an individual becomes the outsider, an easy target, an acceptable target, has few friends (hence a lack of social support), which creates a power imbalance between the perpetrator(s) and the individual. Nevertheless, this is not a consistent finding because, in preschool contexts, the unstable nature of victim status may mean that differences in sociometric status will not emerge and, in a working context, Coyne et al. (2003) found victims were generally rated as preferred people to work with and not outsiders.

Peer rejection also correlates with aggressive behaviour, but this seems to impact more in infant and junior school than secondary school. What is not so clear, partly thanks to the cross-sectional approach used in many studies, is whether peer-rejection causes an individual to behave aggressively or whether aggressive behaviour causes the individual to be rejected by peers. In preschool children, evidence points more towards the latter direction. However, laboratory studies on aggression show that manipulation of social exclusion caused participants to behave more aggressively towards another person (Twenge et al., 2001). Perhaps, as Dodge et al. (2003) propose, a more cyclical relationship exists whereby aggression predicts peer-rejection, which in turn increases aggressive behaviour. Possibly in an attempt to be more popular, or because their perception of what is acceptable behaviour is modelled on their home experiences, the aggressor behaves in an inappropriate manner, which is perceived negatively by peers, who then isolate this individual. As a result, the aggressor reacts in an even more aggressive manner and the cycle of rejection and aggression continues.

In a schooling context, bullies can sometimes have high status in peer-groups, whilst at work the perpetrator may be perceived as an effective and valued member of staff (with the victim seen as the troublemaker). Indeed, Monks (Chapter 2) suggests that some bullies who use aggression selectively and in a socially skilled manner are socially dominant and perceived as popular. Therefore, position in the social hierarchy may ‘moderate’ the relationship between aggression and peer perceptions, especially when the perpetrator uses a combination of aggressive and affiliative strategies.

Extending the idea of status and hierarchy, another category of antecedents revolves around power, dominance and leadership. Barter (Chapter 4) discusses peer-group hierarchies in relation to the inherent and accepted top-dog mentality within care homes. She explains that peer hierarchies enable young people to boost their reputations, boost, enhance or diminish those of others and have influence with staff. Perhaps of real concern was the acceptance of the inevitability of a hierarchy by victims of bullying and by staff. Barter’s work suggested staff used the hierarchy as a way of controlling young people in care homes.

Additionally, an individual becomes a target as a result of their vulnerability in relation to a perpetrator’s ability to wield a higher level of power. Across the different contexts, power imbalances may be due to organisational level (work); inequality in social and economic status (elder abuse); physical aspects, such as height (school); knowledge of technology (cyberbullying); age (domestic abuse and care-home contexts); and patriarchal perspectives (dating abuse). Overall, the need for power coupled with the acceptance or inherent nature of power hierarchies in the environment seems to promote bullying and aggression.

To some extent, leadership builds on the theme of power. In a working context, this often emerges in relation to an autocratic leadership style. A style focused on power, dominance and control creates an environment which accepts bullying and where victims are fearful of complaining or criticising (Hoel and Salin, 2003). Further, in care homes, the use of intimidation and control by staff promote more violence within the home, and in prisons, overt security measures (arguably a measure of dominance) increase hostile behaviour. However, poor leadership is not all about the use of too much power and control, as it can also relate to a lack of leadership or ineffective leadership. In particular, a laissez-faire leadership style (work), the encouragement of peer hierarchies (care home) and the predictability of staff supervision (prison) mean ‘leaders’ subconsciously give permission for bullying to persist through a perception that it is acceptable or that little punishment will follow for those engaging in it.

We have already touched on culture and climate as antecedents of bullying in respect of peer hierarchies and leadership style. However, here we focus more on the social environment in terms of competition, stress and strain, conflict and change as possible antecedents to bullying and abuse. While specific cultural factors may differ across contexts, it is evident that culture provides the enabling, motivating and precipitating processes for bullying to occur (Salin, 2003). Competitive, non-supportive, stressful and strained environments promote bullying and abusive behaviours. These environments provide a sense of justification for the behaviour; create frustration and inappropriate aggressive responses to the frustration; or become perceived as risk-reduced places to engage in such behaviours. Even though in this volume the contexts discussed vary widely, the role that culture plays in promoting bullying is a strong feature throughout.

The final antecedent of social/community context goes one step beyond the more proximal measure of environmental culture. A culture of violence and/or acceptance of violence in the local community or wider society will promote engagement in bullying as this is the behavioural model children, adolescents and adults will have assimilated into their own approach to life. Akin to environmental culture, social norms endorse the perception that bullying and abuse is an acceptable behaviour in society. Portrayals of violence in the media, in films, in computer games and by famous individuals in society may create the impression that it is acceptable to bully someone. Although authors in each setting did not explicitly cite social context as an antecedent, societal norms will impact on each and every setting outlined in this volume. Cyberbullying is interesting as this can cross society and cultural contexts. However, even here online communication and gaming has its own ‘society norms’ (Kayany, 1998).

An excellent example of the role of societal norms in promoting bullying and abuse comes from the elder abuse context (Walsh et al., Chapter 9). Here, ageism and political economy theory indicate how society can create negative attitudes towards and stereotypes of the older adult (which in turn justifies aggression), or how they create a forced dependency and marginalisation on the part of the older adult towards others (which in turn reduces their power and increases their vulnerability). Perhaps we all need to consider the society context more fully in relation to bullying and abuse. One wonders if institution-level interventions will ever be truly successful if, at the society level, there is an implicit or explicit acceptance of bullying and abuse.

Situational factors are a key element of bullying and abuse across the different contexts, and they range from the more proximal, dyadic/family contexts to the more distal society contexts. However, situational factors are only one element in explaining bullying and abuse. We now turn to discussing individual components of the victim and perpetrator as antecedents to bullying.

Victim characteristics

Before synthesising the research on victim characteristics, we have to touch on the issue of victim-blaming. Some authors reject the notion that individual differences may explain why someone is a victim and claim that those who subscribe to this view are blaming the victim for their situation. However, not everyone reacts in the same way given the same situational/environmental context and not everyone becomes a victim or a perpetrator. Further, research has shown that if we can identify possible individual factors which may make someone more vulnerable to bullying, we are able to provide targeted interventions towards these ‘at-risk’ groups. Whilst bullying may be ‘caused’ by environmental factors, there still needs to be someone or some group who are the focus of the behaviour and we as researchers and practitioners should understand why these individuals or groups are targeted.

Evidence illustrates that dispositional elements to victimisation include depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor social skills, conflict avoidance and low ability levels. Further, within school, child abuse and elder abuse contexts, disability or cognitive/physical impairment has been shown to relate to victim status. Two theoretical arguments are often proposed to account for these findings. The first suggests that some individuals are targeted because they are vulnerable, unable to defend themselves and hence are easy targets (submissive victim). The perpetrator preys on this vulnerability or the vulnerability allows the perpetrator the freedom to engage in bullying without fear of retribution or punishment. The second argument suggests that victim disposition or behaviour may provoke anger and aggression in others as a result of envy, annoyance or from clashing with social norms guiding appropriate behaviour (provocative victim). This may result in the victim being viewed as a justified target.

Although there is increasing evidence suggesting a victim component to bullying and abuse, one of the main criticisms is the lack of longitudinal or two-wave designs which actually examine the directional hypothesis. Given the difficulties in running such studies and possible ethical issues of allowing bullying to continue, cross-sectional studies have been the norm. This approach does not fully answer the question of whether disposition explains why someone is a victim or whether being a victim results in changes to disposition.

Perpetrator characteristics

Defender characteristics

An interesting aside is the notion of defender characteristics (Smith, Chapter 3). Smith suggests defenders have high levels of empathy coupled with high sociometric status and a feeling of being empowered to defend the victim. Given that defenders are neither victims nor perpetrators, perhaps we could focus on examining more closely the individual elements of this role in relation to other contexts. Intervention-wise, it may be possible to ‘train’ individuals to become defenders of the victim rather than victims or perpetrators, and knowledge of individual characteristics which underlie this role would be an advantage.

The notion of an individual component to victim/perpetrator status is controversial and, as discussed, there are methodological problems with the research. However, across most of the contexts there is a consideration of the role the individual plays in bullying and abuse and, whilst situational components may explain the emergence of bullying and abuse, individual differences could explain who the likely ‘players’ will be in the situation. Further, as the dyadic model of Aquino and Lamertz (2004) proposes, the interaction between victims and perpetrators in relation to individual differences may predict the types of bullying enacted, which could result in different methods of coping, different outcomes for both parties and different interventions. It would be interesting to see if this model can transfer to other contexts.

Theoretical explanations

Whilst so far situational and individual antecedents have been discovered separately, many acknowledge that these explanations alone are too simplistic to capture the phenomenon of bullying and abuse. To that end, a number of theoretical models have been proposed to explain bullying and abuse which try to capture all or separate elements of the bullying process. It must be said that, although models have been suggested, this is perhaps one aspect where systematic research is lacking and often theories are proposed without any empirical evidence to support them. Across the contexts we see two approaches: the application of general psychological models to bullying and abuse and the development of specific contextual models explaining bullying. The following discussion focuses on assimilating the various models proposed into broader theoretical approaches and concentrates on those that emerge across a number of settings.

Attachment theory/parental style

Attachment theory hypothesises that attachment to parents/caregivers provides a child with an internal working model (IWM) which guides their relationships with others throughout their life (Main et al., 1985). Insecure attachment may result in an individual responding to others with hostility and aggression. Whilst this model tends to be related to child and adolescent bullying, as the theory promotes the relative continuity of the IWM over time (Goldberg, 2000), it could also explain adult forms of bullying and abuse. For example, perhaps the way a manager relates to their employees at work may be influenced by their insecure attachment to their parents when young? Linked to attachment, parental styles (especially harsh/autocratic styles) may cause an individual to behave in an aggressive manner. Similar to attachment theory, this provides the child with a working model of what is acceptable behaviour when dealing with others. Taking a work context again, although parental style is not considered, researchers do look at leadership and especially autocratic leadership style. If one can envision the organisation as ‘the parent’ when an individual is at work, then we would expect autocratic and harsh management styles to predict bullying behaviour at work. Whilst attachment theory may explain who will likely become a victim and who a perpetrator (although evidence is limited on its ability to distinguish between them), there is not enough evidence as yet to assess its effectiveness across different contexts.

Evolutionary theory

An evolutionary approach to bullying and abuse has been suggested across a number of contexts. Bullying and abuse can be seen as having costs and benefits and being adaptive for an individual doing the bullying. For example, Ireland (Chapter 7) shows how bullying behaviour may operate as a survival mechanism in a prison setting, and Einarsen and Mikkelsen (2003) discuss from an evolutionary perspective how fear of ostracism and its associated anxiety causes negative outcomes for the victim of workplace bullying. Further, Naylor et al., Ortega and Sánchez and Walsh et al. (this volume) propose a feminist/patriarchal approach to understanding sex differences in aggression. The gendered imbalance of power and rigid/sexist attitudes about male and female roles could explain domestic violence, dating violence or elder abuse towards women. However, this latter notion does not explain violence towards males in these contexts. Bullying as a survival mechanism is an interesting and worrying notion, as it suggests that it is inherent within human social situations. However, in contrast, prevalence rates suggest bullying is not always a common occurrence and that for many people a ‘need to survive’ does not always manifest itself in aggression and violence. Additionally, the sexual selection notion of evolutionary theory does not always apply, as gender differences in victim rates especially are not universally seen.

Social learning theory

We have already touched on social learning theory (SLT) when discussing antecedents of bullying and abuse. SLT may explain why parental style relates to aggressive or non-aggressive behaviour. Through observation, role modelling and reinforcement, a child learns how to act in social situations. As a result of rewarding or ignoring a child for engaging in aggressive acts or by engaging in harsh/assertive parenting, a child starts to view aggression as the model behaviour and then uses this in their relationships with others. The impact of family background characteristics (from an SLT perspective) especially relate to involvement in bullying at preschool and school, sibling abuse, bullying within care homes and dating violence, but it may also be applied to adult bullying. Modelling of behaviour is not just restricted to family background, as it can also include peer-relationships, the work environment (e.g. a culture of acceptance of bullying) and the wider community/society (the acceptance of aggression in the local community or wider society). Even within a cyber context the notion of a ‘hacker norm’ (Kayany, 1998) exists, which provides a model for behaviour online. Given this, SLT is perhaps one theoretical model which has the capacity to cross all the different contexts, and more consideration of this approach in these different settings is needed.

Socio-cultural theories

Moving away from the more individual factors, socio-cultural theory focuses on understanding the importance of situational factors in behaviour. Here, bullying is embedded within the culture of the organisation where it is taking place and is a function of the system rather than individuals within it. This approach is particularly promoted within care homes, prisons and workplaces, with bullying seen to be prevalent when the culture within the organisation is non-democratic, hierarchical, supportive of bullying, competitive, strained and stressful. Within a working environment, these characteristics are hypothesised to cause bullying either through a stressor perspective (in particular, the frustration–aggression model) or through a conflict escalation perspective. Interestingly, these two approaches have also been seen in other contexts. Walsh et al. (Chapter 9) suggest the stress experienced by a caregiver may cause them to react aggressively, and Ortega and Sánchez (Chapter 6) suggest conflict theory as an explanation for dating violence.

Ecological/interactional models

Across many contexts a more unified approach to understanding bullying behaviour emerges, which takes account of the interaction between individual, organisational, interpersonal and societal factors. This model offers a more complex approach to understanding bullying and abuse, and suggests a dynamic and process component to such behaviour. Individual factors explain why a person reacts in the way they do or why they become a target/perpetrator; organisational factors provide the setting for bullying-type behaviours to emerge (e.g. hierarchical structure, change, stress, etc.); interpersonal factors explain the dynamic interplay between dyads or groups which causes conflict to escalate; and societal factors provide a ‘model’ of what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable behaviour in society. Whilst specific models vary, most tend to include these components in their design and propose that the interplay between these factors causes bullying and abuse (although society factors are not universally included). This theoretical stance is promising as it suggests a multi-dimensional approach directed at various levels: the individual (bully, bullied and onlookers); the immediate peer-group, family or workforce; the culture or climate of the setting; and, beyond, the general societal context. Variations are seen across the different settings outlined in this book, and perhaps a more unified interaction theory could be developed synthesising these contextual-dependent interactional models. This will be difficult because, in many of the settings discussed, such models have not yet been fully tested. To try to then test across contexts may be one step too far at the current stage. However, further research focused on developing this approach and clarifying the interactions between each factor across different settings may help to develop a more integrated theory of bullying and abuse across contexts.

In the current debate, we have not discussed each theory proposed in detail (such as social cognition, social identity theory, political economy theory, etc.), but have, rather, synthesised them into a number of broader approaches. Some are more general psychological approaches focused on the individual (e.g. attachment theory), and others focus on the situational component which includes more general psychological theories (such as stressor or conflict models). We propose that the final interactional model is a more fruitful avenue of research to follow and one which researchers in the different settings should start to explore further. Theoretical developments in most settings discussed in this book are in their infancy, so now is perhaps the best time to start thinking about this from a wider perspective.

Interventions

Early intervention is paramount in helping to reduce bullying and abuse in all settings, but it is unlikely that such behaviour will ever be eliminated. Given its complex nature and interplay of various antecedents, a full-scale intervention approach that captures all these aspects and is adopted and recognised by all parties is a nirvana. Indeed, as Smith (Chapter 3) illustrates, school-based interventions, whilst showing positive results, are modest at best. The commitment towards, the length of and the ownership of the intervention, as well as the community context, are all factors which moderate the effectiveness of the intervention. Acknowledging the fact that we may never eradicate bullying is an important step for researchers, practitioners and other relevant stakeholders to take. Attention should be focused on ways to reduce bullying and the impact of such behaviour on individuals, organisations and wider society. People will still be bullied and bully, but we need to find solutions which reduce their chances of being victims or perpetrators and which provide better help, support and rehabilitation for all those involved.

Peer support extends beyond just mentoring and can include challenging bully behaviour, peer counselling, listener schemes and group interventions. Peer-group pressure can prove to be a strong influence on individual behaviour. Taking the notion of social identity theory, an individual breaking peer in-group norms of acceptable behaviour would be seen as part of an out-group and may be ostracised. Given this, peer-group methods may even have more of an effect on individual behaviour than organisational policies.

Mediation and conflict resolution

Approaches adopted here revolve around providing an environment which allows all parties to come together to try to understand each other’s position and to resolve conflict. In a workplace context, a number of organisations have created dignity at work advisers who provide this informal contact mechanism and who can work with victims and perpetrators to try to find solutions to problems. Within a residential home environment, a restorative justice approach has been used. As Barter (Chapter 4) summarises, this approach allows all parties to have their say and to be involved in resolving the conflict. However, although evidence supporting its use for resolving conflict is favourable, this approach does incur some problems in trying to resolve actual bullying. Further, Ortega and Sánchez (Chapter 6) show how conflict resolution strategies are fundamental components of juvenile dating intervention programmes.

Mediation is a useful technique for resolving conflict, although its impact is limited when conflict has escalated too far. Fisher and Keashley (1990) argue that if conflict has reached a destructive or segregation phase, mediation is unlikely to work. Here, a more direct and strong approach is required to stop further escalation and to motivate the parties to want to work together.

Counselling and rehabilitation

Such interventions are aimed at trying to help victims and perpetrators to recover from the impact of bullying and rehabilitate back into their particular setting. In effect, this can be seen as the end stage of intervention as it assumes that preventative and supportive mechanisms have failed or were not in place. A variety of therapeutic techniques could be used (e.g. cognitive behaviourial therapy) to try to reduce the ongoing impact of bullying on a victim or to try to resolve underlying problems within a perpetrator. Whilst such approaches do not stop initial bullying and abuse, they may be able to reduce further cases of abuse and reduce the trauma suffered by individuals as a result of exposure to bullying and abuse.

As well as interventions proposed here, in many cases there is a legal aspect to bullying and abuse. A fuller discussion of the legal side of bullying and abuse is beyond the scope of this book as many different laws operate given the different settings and different countries. Further, in elder and domestic abuse contexts we see the notions of surveillance, adult and child protection and the inclusion of other services (e.g. police, social support, etc.). These are clearly important interventions, but our focus was more on those aspects which operate at the micro-level and which have the capacity to cross the different contexts. Given this, we have also neglected to discuss interventions at society or community level, even though changing perspectives of society may actually reduce bullying and abuse. To make an impact at this level is challenging and requires the support of a wide range of people, including politicians, professional bodies, the media, religious groups, charities, and others.