Development and validation of children's reactions scale to peer bullying
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate a scale for measuring children's reactions to peer bullying. The children's reactions scale to bullying(CRSB) consisted of 16 pictures and episodes, each of which described direct or relational bullying situations. Children were asked what they would do if they witnessed peer bullying situations and forced to choose one of four response options for each episode. Four subscale scores were computed by summing the number of each response, retaliating on perpetrators, advocating bullies, watching bullying and doing noting(bystanding), or helping victims. The CRSB and a series of questionnaires were administered to a sample of 266 grade 6 elementary school students to establish its psychometric properties. The results suggested that 4 subscales had good internal consistencies(Cronbach's alpha = .71～.86). Correlation and factor analysis were used to investigate construct validity. There were significant correlations between advocating behavior and bullying experience(r=.36, p<.01), bystanding behavior and prosocial behavior(r=-.30, p<.01), and helping behavior and prosocial behavior(r=.34, p<.01), and bullying experience(r=-.27, p<.01). A three-factor solution emerged, consisting of a bystanding/helping, retaliating, and advocating behavior factor. These factors accounted for 36.5%(bystanding), 24.30%(retaliating), and 21.07%(advocating) of the variance on the CRSB, respectively. When children were categorized as ‘bullies’, ‘bully/victims’, ‘pure victims’ or ‘not involved’ on the basis of Social Experience Questionnaire, bullies were less likely to help the victims and more likely to advocate the perpetrators than other children. Limitations of the current study and implications for future research were discussed.
- keywords
- children's reactions scale to bullying(CRSB), peer bullying, bystander, bystander's role, 괴롭힘에 대한 아동의 반응 척도, 또래 괴롭힘, 왕따, 방관자, 방관자의 역할
Reference
김수연 (1995). 통합된 놀이 프로그램이 장애아동에 대한 일반아동의 태도 변화에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 대학원 특수교육학과 석사학위논문.
뉴시스 (2009. 2. 17). 무서운 아이들.
안주연 (1999). 아동의 감정공명 및 대인문제해결력과 또래집단수용도와의 관계. 중앙대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
윤영미 (2007). 초·중·고등학생의 집단따돌림 경향분석. 한국보건간호학회지, 21, 230-240.
이규미 (1998). 상담사례를 통해서 본 왕따현상. 서울시 청소년 상담실 1주년 심포지엄자료집, 15-40.
이봉건, 남재봉, 이종연, 이상익, 황순택, 김수현, 이재신 (2001). 또래 아동의 비행 행동이 피해 아동의 삶의 질에 미치는 영향 및 그 개선 방안. 한국심리학회지: 임상, 20, 413-441.
이주일 (1988). 이분척도와 Likert형 척도의 신뢰도 타당도 반응양식비교. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
최윤희 (2001). 집단따돌림 가해-피해 집단 동조행동과 자아존중감에 관한 연구. 고려대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 66, 337-347.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Eisenberg, N. (1989). Empathy and sympathy. In W. Damon(Ed.), Child Development Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents' active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93-105.
Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. H. (2006). New Participant role scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 343-357.
Green, K. D., Forehand, R., Beck, S. J., & Vosk, B. (1980). An assessment of the relationship among measures of children's social competence and children's academic achievement. Child Development, 51, 1149-1156.
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen, & E. M. Hetherington(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, NY: Wiley.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the school: Bullies and whipping boys. washington, D. C: Hemisphere Press.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. ED384-437.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long term outcomes for victims and an effective school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190.
Pepler, W., & Craig, D. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian Journal of School. 13(2), 41-59.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaerter, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York; Academic Press.
Randoll, P. (1997). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33-42.
Roland, E. (1988). School Influences on Bullying. Durham: University of Durham.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112-120.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjoravist, K., Ostman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status with in the group. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97-111.
Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools; A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205-218.
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and Perspectives. London: Routledge. ED 387-223.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and theory of mind: A critique of the social skills deficit view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development, 8, 117-127.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations