Previous studies have concluded that bullying comes from the desire to be accepted, for entertainment value, differences (prejudices) and anger. (Compton, Campbell, & Margler (2014) and (Rigby 2012). Compton, Campbell and Margler created a qualitative exploratory study that was conducted in Australia; its focal point was to examine the viewpoint of parents, students and teachers perception of the possible motives behind cyber bullying. Using focus groups they developed questions to guide their discussions: understanding of cyberbullying, understanding of bullying, why in your opinion do students engage in bullying, and why in your opinion do students engage in cyberbullying. There were 35 participants from 2 independent schools in Australia;
…show more content…
According to their findings the key responses they obtained from parents, teachers and students are as follows: for retaliation/avoiding punishment, anonymity, power and status, differences (prejudices), anger/frustration from being a victim themselves, peer pressure and for entertainment. Rigby’s study critiques Tattum and Tattums (1992) proposed concept that bullying can be pinpointed as the desire to cause harm to others. Using content analysis Rigby examines a range of desires and reasons why school children engage in bullying. Rigby hypothesized that children engage in bullying because they want to fit in, for revenge, interpersonal dynamics, peer acceptance, and lack of empathy. The content that was provided suggested that children ages 8-18 mentioned that they engaged in bullying behaviors because someone annoyed them, they wanted to get even, they were doing it for fun, because others were doing it, the person was a wimp, they wanted to show how tough they are and to get things/money (Rigby and Griffiths 2011). Given the information that was obtained Rigby suggests programs that could be placed to address each of the considered motivational states (social and …show more content…
2007). Veenstra et al. conducted a study that focused on the dyadic nature of bullies and victims. It was hypothesized that the self-proclaimed bully is observant, and their objective is triggered by a person they can control, and who is discarded by their peers so that the chance of social disapproval is minimum. Veenstra et al. also hypothesized that self-proclaimed victims are vulnerable, and their objective is triggered by a person they are scared or fearful of. The main focus of this study was to examine if there is an association between bullies rejecting and isolating others, and if self-proclaimed victims have a typical kind of person who they claim bullies them. Data was collected from 918 children from 54 school classes and 13,606 dyadic relations, the points of view of both victim and bully were examined. This study was a part of the first assessment wave of Tracking Adolescents Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS) it ran from the years 2001-2002. Results presented that bullies have dominance over the individual that they target because they show more aggressive dominance than their counterparts; this has also been consistent with previous studies (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003). Veenstra et al. concluded from the bully’s perspective in the case of social approval, power advantage was not a status for power but rather to show the
According to their findings the key responses they obtained from parents, teachers and students are as follows: for retaliation/avoiding punishment, anonymity, power and status, differences (prejudices), anger/frustration from being a victim themselves, peer pressure and for entertainment. Rigby’s study critiques Tattum and Tattums (1992) proposed concept that bullying can be pinpointed as the desire to cause harm to others. Using content analysis Rigby examines a range of desires and reasons why school children engage in bullying. Rigby hypothesized that children engage in bullying because they want to fit in, for revenge, interpersonal dynamics, peer acceptance, and lack of empathy. The content that was provided suggested that children ages 8-18 mentioned that they engaged in bullying behaviors because someone annoyed them, they wanted to get even, they were doing it for fun, because others were doing it, the person was a wimp, they wanted to show how tough they are and to get things/money (Rigby and Griffiths 2011). Given the information that was obtained Rigby suggests programs that could be placed to address each of the considered motivational states (social and …show more content…
2007). Veenstra et al. conducted a study that focused on the dyadic nature of bullies and victims. It was hypothesized that the self-proclaimed bully is observant, and their objective is triggered by a person they can control, and who is discarded by their peers so that the chance of social disapproval is minimum. Veenstra et al. also hypothesized that self-proclaimed victims are vulnerable, and their objective is triggered by a person they are scared or fearful of. The main focus of this study was to examine if there is an association between bullies rejecting and isolating others, and if self-proclaimed victims have a typical kind of person who they claim bullies them. Data was collected from 918 children from 54 school classes and 13,606 dyadic relations, the points of view of both victim and bully were examined. This study was a part of the first assessment wave of Tracking Adolescents Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS) it ran from the years 2001-2002. Results presented that bullies have dominance over the individual that they target because they show more aggressive dominance than their counterparts; this has also been consistent with previous studies (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003). Veenstra et al. concluded from the bully’s perspective in the case of social approval, power advantage was not a status for power but rather to show the