SRCD Biennial Meeting April 2003: The stability of victimisation behaviour

1. SRCD Biennial Meeting April 2003: The stability of victimisation behaviour Sarah Woods, Dieter Wolke and Muthanna Samara University of Hertfordshire, U.K. VICTEC: Virtual ict with empathic Characters University of Bristol, U.K.

2. Background • Well documented evidence that social, cognitive, behavioural and family factors are concurrently related to bullying behaviour (e.g. Wolke et al., 2001). • Few studies have considered the stability of victim roles and have instead focused on the stability of bully roles. • Paucity of evidence concerning the risk factors associated with remaining, escaping or becoming involved in victimisation.

3. Background • Studies have tended to focus on secondary school samples rather than primary school. • Little is known about the stability of relational victimisation in comparison to direct victimisation. • Reliance on peer nominations (by class) does not allow for comparison of bullying frequency across schools.

4. Research Questions • What is the stability of direct and relational victimisation behaviour among primary school children in the U.K. over 2-4 years? 2) What combination of factors predicts: • Remaining involved in victimisation? • Escaping victimisation? • Becoming involved in victimisation? for both direct and relational victimisation.

5. Study Design • Longitudinal Investigation involving 17 primary schools in Hertfordshire & London, U.K. • Baseline Assessment: Carried out 1996-1998 with children aged 6-9 (years 2 & 4) • Follow-up Assessment: Carried out when children were aged 10-11 (year 6) 2 or 4 years after the baseline assessment.

6. Sample Data N: 666 potential children from 17 schools Time 1 N: 634 Assessed at baseline N: 202 original drop-out (3% non consent, 12% absent, 85% moved school Time 2 N: 432 Longitudinally Assessed

7. Instruments: Baseline & follow-up • Standard Individual Bullying Interview or Q’aire (Olweus, 1991): TYPE • Direct Bullying (e.g. hit/beaten). • Relational Bullying (e.g. exclusion by friends). FREQUENCY • Never bullied: rarely/hardly ever bullied • frequently bullied: about once week/few times a week.

8. Instruments: BaselineBehaviour Problems • Strengths & Difficulties Q’aire (Goodman, 1997) 1.Emotional Symptoms Total Difficulties 2.Hyperactivity SDQ score 3.Conduct Problems 4.Peer Problems 5.Prosocial Behaviour

9. Instruments: BaselineHEALTH • Health Questionnaire (Wolke et al. 2001): 2 sections: 7 items about physical health problems (PHP) e.g. headache, tummy ache, sickness 7 items about emotional health problems (EHP) e.g. bed wetting, nightmares 7- point scale (0-6 or more times over past 6 mths) 5 – point scale (never to most days over past 6 mths)

10. Instruments: Baseline • Other variables measured: • Special Educational Needs (SEN) • No. friends/best friends • No. rejected children • Information about siblings • Child’s home situation (biological parents, single parent, etc).

11. Bullying Classifications • Children were classified for direct (physical & verbal) bullying and relational bullying as: • ‘pure’ bully • ‘pure’ victim • Bully/victim • Neutral

12. RESULTS • Drop-out analysis and relational bullying. • Stability of direct and relational victimisation. • Risk factors predicting remaining,escaping or becoming involved in victimisation.

13. Relational Bullying status and drop-out rate P < .01

14. Other factors associated with drop-out rates • Children who had fewer friends within their class. • Drop-outs rejected fewer children than those who remained in the study.

15. Risk Analysis Risk factor Outcome Yes (a + c) Yes (a + b) a c b No (b + d) No (c + d) d

16. Relative risk and stability of victimisation • Children classified as direct victims at baseline had a two fold increased risk of remaining a direct victim at follow-up compared to non-victims at baseline becoming victims at follow-up. • No long-term risk for children classified as relational victims at baseline to remain a relational victim at follow-up.

17. Relative risk & stability of direct victimisation Baseline Time 1 Follow-up Time 2 N: 37 (38.1%) Victim N: 104 Victim N: 97 N: 60 (61.9%) N: 67 (20.0%) Not victim N: 335 Not victim N: 328 N: 268 (80.0%) RR = 1.91; 95% CI 1.37 – 2.66, chi-square = 13.52, p < 0.001

18. Factors predicting remaining vs escaping direct victimisation Model chi-square = 30.83; df = 11; p < 0.001, N: 52

19. Factors predicting remaining vs escaping relational victimisation Model chi-square = 16.61; df = 6; p < 0.011, N: 44

20. Factors predicting becoming involved in victimisation or remaining a non-victim

21. Summary of findings: Drop-outs • Relational Drop-outs: • Have fewer friends. • Are more frequently relational victims or bully/victims • Reject many children.

22. Summary: Stability of direct vs relational victimisation • Direct victimisation is a stable behaviour among primary school children over 2 yrs. In contrast relational victimisation is not: • Relational bullying becomes more prominent over time. • Falling out with friends is frequent at primary school. • The most affected victims had left the school (selective drop-out).

23. Summary: Risk Factors • Health problems served as a risk factor for prolonged victimisation: • More days absent from school. • Appear weaker to peers and easy target. • Friendships are a protective factor: • Allow children to develop adaptive & successful coping mechanisms. • Being female: • Females may not have other female or male peers to help protect against direct victimisation.

24. Conclusions • Direct victimisation is a stable phenomenon already among primary school children. • Relational victimisation is a less stable behaviour among primary school children. • A lack of friendships, physical and emotional health problems and being female all serve as risk factors for remaining involved or becoming involved in victimisation.

25. Future Directions • Important implications for early recognition of victimisation among primary school children. • Befriending or peer network schemes. • Early intervention strategies that allow learning and adaptive coping.

26. A New Intervention: Victec Victec (Virtual ict with Empathic Characters) is a European funded project which aims to develop a new and innovative approach to aid the reduction of bullying problems in schools through the use of synthetic characters and drama in a virtual learning environment.

27. Scenarios for VICTEC • Our role is to help design scenarios for the VLE about bullying, victimisation and friendship for children aged 8-12 years old.

28. Victimisation Scenarios • Work has commenced towards developing scenarios comprised of several episodes to depict bullying behaviour. • There will be a maximum of 3 – 4 characters per episode (e.g. bully, victim and bystander). • The environment to be modelled will focus on the school context.

29. Real vs Cartoon schools REAL CARTOON

30. Victimisation Scenarios • The scenario will begin with an introduction to the main character (e.g. victim). • A tour of the school and classroom will then be given highlighting some of the schooling history and the other characters. • The first victimisation event will then occur. The victim will ask the user what he/she should do?

31. Victimisation Scenarios • Several subsequent episodes will follow depicting similar incidents of direct victimisation but maybe in different locations. • Users will be given the opportunity to try out different coping responses after each episode. • Justification questions are to be used throughout the VL interaction (e.g. Why did you choose to tell the teacher?)

32. Victimisation Scenarios • Theory of Mind (ToM) questions are to be asked at some point during the VL interaction to determine whether there are individual differences between b, v, b/v. • Possible endings for the scenarios might be to give the child a summary story that has been generated during the VL interaction.

33. The VLE Demonstrator