“Bullying” refers to a deliberate, aggressive act committed by one or more people repeatedly over a period of time against another individual (Olweus, 1999). Common types of bullying include physical, verbal, and indirect or irrational (Jimerson, Swearer & Espelage, 2010). The objective of this essay is to review the research studies of two journal articles on bullying namely, Yang & Salmivalli (2013) and Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994). For this purpose, I will summarize, compare and contrast, and state the implications of the findings of the two articles in this essay. I will also provide suggestions on curbing the problem of bullying. [Summary of Articles]
Yang & Salmivalli (2013) examined the commonness of bully-victims and the types of …show more content…
In Yang & Salmivalli (2013), participants nominated, from a list of classmates presented on the computer screen, an unlimited number of classmates who fitted the description provided in each item. Participants were then categorized into peer-reported bullies, victims, bully-victims and non-involved following Schwartz (2000). Similarly, in Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994), participants were provided with photographs of their classmates and were asked to nominate them into the different categories through various scales. Both Yang & Salmivalli (2013) and Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994) also found that bully-victims generally have poor interpersonal relationships and that they were rather more self-involved.
Differences between Yang & Salmivalli (2013) and Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994)
While Yang & Salmivalli (2013) is a correlational study suggesting that being a bully-victim previously makes one a bully, Bowers, Smith & Binney, (1994) is an experimental study suggesting that family relations and practices make one a bully. Yang & Salmivalli (2013) employed a sample of 19,869 participants, while Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994) used a sample of 193 participants. The study in Yang & Salmivalli (2013) employed two measures, while the study in Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994) utilized four measures.
Strengths of Yang & Salmivalli (2013) …show more content…
One of the methodological weaknesses of Yang & Salmivalli (2013) is that the types of bullying were assessed solely based on the self-revaluation rather than on both the self and peer evaluations that were collected. Information such as whether peers viewed and focused on bully-victims more as aggressors than as victims could not be collected due to this. Also, peer evaluations were only collected within a class instead of throughout the academic level. This is a weakness as it does not account for situations whereby students are bullied by, or bully students across different classes. The data was also not completely free of influence, even though they were collected individually. The findings of Yang & Salmivalli (2013) do not account for whether the high frequency of bullying by bully-victims is due to their victimization and whether their own violent tendencies is the reason for their frequent victimization. The disadvantage of using questionnaires in Yang & Salmivalli (2013) is that it resulted in missing
Yang & Salmivalli (2013) examined the commonness of bully-victims and the types of …show more content…
In Yang & Salmivalli (2013), participants nominated, from a list of classmates presented on the computer screen, an unlimited number of classmates who fitted the description provided in each item. Participants were then categorized into peer-reported bullies, victims, bully-victims and non-involved following Schwartz (2000). Similarly, in Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994), participants were provided with photographs of their classmates and were asked to nominate them into the different categories through various scales. Both Yang & Salmivalli (2013) and Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994) also found that bully-victims generally have poor interpersonal relationships and that they were rather more self-involved.
Differences between Yang & Salmivalli (2013) and Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994)
While Yang & Salmivalli (2013) is a correlational study suggesting that being a bully-victim previously makes one a bully, Bowers, Smith & Binney, (1994) is an experimental study suggesting that family relations and practices make one a bully. Yang & Salmivalli (2013) employed a sample of 19,869 participants, while Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994) used a sample of 193 participants. The study in Yang & Salmivalli (2013) employed two measures, while the study in Bowers, Smith & Binney (1994) utilized four measures.
Strengths of Yang & Salmivalli (2013) …show more content…
One of the methodological weaknesses of Yang & Salmivalli (2013) is that the types of bullying were assessed solely based on the self-revaluation rather than on both the self and peer evaluations that were collected. Information such as whether peers viewed and focused on bully-victims more as aggressors than as victims could not be collected due to this. Also, peer evaluations were only collected within a class instead of throughout the academic level. This is a weakness as it does not account for situations whereby students are bullied by, or bully students across different classes. The data was also not completely free of influence, even though they were collected individually. The findings of Yang & Salmivalli (2013) do not account for whether the high frequency of bullying by bully-victims is due to their victimization and whether their own violent tendencies is the reason for their frequent victimization. The disadvantage of using questionnaires in Yang & Salmivalli (2013) is that it resulted in missing