Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Students in general and special education experience bullying. However, few empirical investigations have examined involvement in bullying along the bully/victim continuum (i.e., as a bully, victim, or bully–victim) among students with disabilities. A total of 816 students, ages 9 to 16, participated in the present study. From this total sample 686 were not receiving special education services (categorized as “no disability”), and 130 were receiving special education services (categorized as “observable disability,” “non-observable disability,” and “behavioral disability”). Data on students’ involvement in bullying, office referrals, and prosocial behavior were collected. Results indicated that students with behavioral disorders and those with observable disabilities reported bullying others more and being victimized more than their general education counterparts. Students with behavioral disorders also had significantly more office referrals than students in general education. Seventh graders in general education reported more bullying behavior than sixth graders and ninth grades in general education. Fifth graders in general education reported more victimization than students in all other grades in general education. However, the grade differences were not significant for students in special education. No gender differences on bullying and victimization were found. Students with disabilities reported less engagement in prosocial behaviors than their general education peers. Implications for bullying prevention and intervention across both general and special education are discussed.

Introduction

Bullying is a major problem facing our nations’ schools and communities. Bullying behaviors consist of negative actions toward a student or a group of students perpetrated by one or more peers (Olweus, 1993a, Olweus, 1993b). Bullying can be physical (e.g., hitting, pushing, and kicking), verbal (e.g., threats, name calling, and teasing), or relational (e.g., excluding individuals from the group, spreading rumors, and saying mean things). Whether or not bullying consists of physical behaviors, verbal behaviors, or both, the common denominator is that the bullying behaviors involve aggressive acts; there is an imbalance of power between the bully and the person being bullied, and bullying behaviors are repeated over time (Espelage and Swearer, 2003, Olweus, 1993a, Olweus, 1993b, Smith et al., 2004). Bullying behaviors among school-aged youth can occur in the school building, on school grounds, going to and from school, and in cyberspace (i.e., cyber-bullying). Students may be involved in the bully/victim continuum as a bully, victim, bully-victim (i.e., both bullies others and is bullied by others), or a bystander (i.e., someone who observes bullying; Jimerson, Swearer, & Espelage, 2010).

Bullying is a common experience among school-aged youth. In the most comprehensive study conducted in the United States, Nansel et al. (2001) found that 29.9% of 15,686 sixth through tenth grade students surveyed reported regular involvement in bullying. Specifically, 13% reported bullying others, 10.6% reported being bullied, and 6.3% reported involvement as a bully–victim. Other studies with large sample sizes also suggest that about 20% to 30% of adolescents are involved in bullying (Carlyle and Steinman, 2007, Dinkes et al., 2006, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006; also see Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2010 for a review). Some studies with smaller sample sizes have found higher prevalence rate of bullying. For example, in one study of 250 middle and high school students, 75% reported being bullied (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1992). Of these students, 90% reported experiencing negative side effects as a result of being bullied, such as anxiety, low grades, and social rejection (Hazler et al., 1992). The wide range of estimates from different studies may be due to the different age groups studied, and various definitions of bullying, and assessment methods used. For example, some studies used a more lenient frequency cut-off point in their definition of bullying. Furthermore, some studies used students’ self-report, but other studies used teacher report or observation to measure bullying.

In spite of increased information and research on involvement in bullying, much less is known about this phenomenon among and toward students with disabilities (Morrison et al., 1994, Whitney et al., 1992). This state of affairs is somewhat surprising because many students with disabilities, particularly those with high-incidence disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral problems), display many of the characteristics attributed to bullies (i.e., impulsivity and aggression; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003), victims (i.e., emotional liability and anxiety, Grills & Ollendick, 2002), and bully–victims (i.e., low frustration tolerance, anger, and academic underachievement; Olweus, 1993a). In one of the first studies to examine the relation between bullying and disability status, Whitney, Smith, and Thompson (1994) found that students with disabilities were at greater risk for being victims and were more likely to be both bullies and bully–victims than their nondisabled peers.

Research on bullying among students with disabilities has suggested that students with disabilities are more likely to be involved in bullying than their general education peers (Rose, 2011, Rose et al., 2009). For example, using data from the National Survey of Children's Health, Van Cleave and Davis (2006), found that students with behavioral, emotional, or developmental problems were two times more likely to be a victim of bullying, three times more likely to bully others, and three times more likely to be a bully–victim than children without special health care needs. Although these findings are intriguing, they are based on parental report about their children's health. As such, parents (and not children) were asked if they were concerned about bullying and parents were not asked if their child had actually experienced bullying. Consistent with Van Cleave and Davis's finding, another study by Woods and Wolke (2004) including 1,016 elementary school students in the United Kingdom found that victims of physical bullying and relational bullying were more likely to be children who had clinically significant behavior problems, including conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, and peer problems than children without significant behavior problems. Children who engaged in relational bullying were more likely to have at least one emotional health problem compared to no emotional health problems. In this study, students’ behavior and emotional problems were based on parental report, not on special education verification. Students’ experiences of bullying and victimization were based on individual interviews.

Most of the research that has examined bullying among students in special education has focused on a specific verification (i.e., learning disabilities, language impairments, mental retardation, and autism spectrum) or has looked at factors associated with school placement and school climate. For example, students with learning disabilities have been found to bully others more than their non-verified peers (Kaukiainen et al., 2002, Whitney et al., 1994) as well as to be victimized more than their non-verified peers based on both self-reports (Martlew and Hodson, 1991, Norwich and Kelly, 2004, Sabornie, 1994, Savage, 2005) and peer nominations (Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993). Students with serious emotional disturbance were more likely to experience victimization during their high school years (Doren et al., 1996, Stoody, 2001). Elementary students with a specific language impairment endorsed being victims of bullying to a greater degree than their classmates in general education (36% compared to 12%), and this victimization experience did not differ across educational placement (i.e., regular school or a special school; Knox & Conti-Ramsden, 2003). Teachers of students on the autism spectrum reported higher levels of bullying than the students themselves, suggesting that students on the autism spectrum may not accurately interpret their social interactions with their peers (van Roekel, Scholte, & Didden, 2010).

The emerging body of research on bullying and students with special needs suggests that there are significant connections that deserve further attention. In the report, “Walk a mile in their shoes: Bullying and the child with special needs” (AbilityPath.org, 2011), the authors examined testimonials, signs, and issues facing parents of youth with special needs. Discussed in the report are factors such as disciplinary practices, social skills deficits, and demographic variables that are connected to the bullying and victimization of students in special education. Clearly, more work is needed to tease out the factors that are related to bullying toward students or bullying by students who are receiving special education services.

Behavior problems are, of course, characteristic of students with emotional behavioral disorders (EBD). These students specifically engage in behaviors that require teacher intervention, are overly dependent on teachers for direction, and may become upset under pressure (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Students with a specific learning disability (SLD) may also display classroom behavior problems (Bender and Smith, 1990, Vallance et al., 1998). Research has shown that students in special education received more discipline referrals than their non-verified counterparts (Patton, 2001). Although this issue continues to be examined, there is little doubt that students with high-incidence disabilities may also engage in disruptive classroom behaviors, such as bullying behavior, and may be referred for disciplinary referrals more than students in the general education population. Additionally,

students who engage in bullying behavior are likely to receive office referrals as a consequence for their behavior. In the schools where these data are collected, office referrals are the main “intervention” when teachers or staff observe bullying behaviors or when bullying behaviors are reported by students. Furthermore, some research has shown that students in special education receive more office referrals than their general education counterparts. One goal of this current study was to examine whether or not students with disabilities received more office referrals than their general education peers.

In addition to greater behavioral problems and discipline referrals, many students with disabilities (e.g., mild learning difficulties and behavior problems) are socially excluded or isolated in the school environment (de Monchy et al., 2004, Martlew and Hodson, 1991). The fact that many students with disabilities are in classrooms that are separate from their peers may serve to further enhance the feeling of being different. Research has found that students with a designation of “untestable,” mental retardation, autism, multiple disabilities, or deaf-blind who were in an inclusive setting displayed higher social competency scores than students in a self-contained setting (Cole and Meyer, 1991, Fisher and Meyer, 2002). Additionally, researchers have found that students with a specific language impairment receiving services in self-contained classrooms reported being bullied more than those who were in an inclusive setting, although the difference was not statistically significant (Knox & Conti-Ramsden, 2003).

Crick (1996) suggested that it is important to consider both prosocial behavior and aggressive behavior in predicting students’ social adjustment. Prosocial behavior can be a buffer and a support for those youth involved in bullying. Some evidence has suggested that prosocial behavior is positively associated with social adjustment (Crick, 1996, Crick and Bigbee, 1998) and school success (Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Trembaly, 2005) for typically developing students. Students who engaged in prosocial behavior were more likely to be accepted and less likely to be rejected by peers 6 months later after controlling for aggressive behavior (Crick, 1996). Kindergarteners with higher level of prosocial behavior based on teacher report were more likely to graduate from high school by age 20 (Vitaro et al., 2005). One study on bullying behavior among elementary school children showed that students involved in direct bullying had significantly lower prosocial behavior scores compared with students who did not involve in bullying (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). In a recent study, researchers found that students who were perceived as more prosocial by peers were less likely to be disciplined compared with peers who were not prosocial. Furthermore, prosocial behavior moderated the relation between overt aggression and disciplinary action. For students with high prosocial behavior, as their overt aggression increased, their odds of being disciplined decreased, which suggests that prosocial behavior might serve a compensatory function (Horner, Fireman, & Wang, 2010). Moreover, research has suggested that having a supportive friend was associated with a lower probability of being bullied (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997). In addition to serving a protective function, these interactions may provide sources of self-esteem, emotional and cognitive support, and opportunities to practice social skills (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999). Despite advancements in this area of research, engagement in prosocial behavior has yet to be studied among students with disabilities who report involvement in bullying. When students with disabilities engage in more prosocial behavior, they are perhaps less likely to engage in bullying behavior.

Previous studies have suggested that the prevalence of bullying increases during middle school years and then declines in high school (Olweus, 1993b, Pellegrini, 2002, Pepler et al., 2006, Rigby, 1996). Gender difference in the prevalence of bullying and victimization depends on how bullying is defined and measured. Evidence that boys are more likely than girls to engage in bullying behavior has been widely documented in the literature, especially for physical and verbal forms of bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). However, when relational aggression is assessed in mixed-gender samples, the gender differences are less clear. Some studies have found that girls engage in relational aggression more than boys, whereas other studies have not found this gender difference (Paquette and Underwood, 1999, Prinstein et al., 2001, Rys and Bear, 1997). Previous research has suggested that girls are more likely to experience relational victimization than boys, and boys are more likely to experience physical victimization than girls (e.g., Crick and Bigbee, 1998, Martin and Huebner, 2007, Putallaz et al., 2007). However, in other studies, the absence of gender differences in relational victimization has also been documented (Storch et al., 2003, Storch et al., 2005). In additional to the inconsistency in differences across gender, few studies have examined grade and gender differences in bullying among students in special education compared to students who are not in special education.

In general, the literature on the connection between bullying and disabilities has been tantalizing, but, at best, extrapolative. Although the aforementioned research has aided our understanding of the bullying experiences among students in special education, it also raises several questions about the nature of students’ involvement in the bullying dynamic. Are students with disabilities more or less likely to be involved in bullying as bullies, victims, or bully–victims? Does type of disability affect involvement in bullying? Are there gender and grade differences in these experiences? Does engaging in prosocial behavior influence this relation? These questions are largely unanswered because few empirical studies have examined the complexity of the bullying dynamic across disability verification, including, gender and age differences (Morrison et al., 1994).

Clearly, more definitive data are needed in this area before any solid conclusions can be reached. Whereas the assertion that students in special education may be at risk for involvement along the bully/victim continuum (Mishna, 2003, Pivik et al., 2002) is intuitively appealing, to date, no research has examined this relation with a large sample of students, including a comparison sample. Consequently, the purpose of this study was an initial step to remedy this situation. Four research questions guided the present investigation:

  • 1.

    Are students with disabilities more likely to be involved in the bully/victim continuum than their non-verified peers (i.e., as a bully, victim, or bully–victim)?

  • 1a.

    Are different special education categories associated with different types of involvement along the bully/victim continuum?

  • 2.

    Do students with disabilities receive more office referrals than their general education peers?

  • 3.

    Are there grade and gender differences in bullying among students in special and general education?

  • 4.

    Do students with disabilities report engaging in fewer prosocial behaviors than their general education peers and does prosocial behavior mediate the relation between involvement in special education and bullying?

The specific hypotheses are as follows:

  • 1.

    Students with disabilities are more likely to be involved in the bully/victim continuum than their non-verified peers (i.e., as a bully, victim, or bully–victim). Specifically, students with behavioral disabilities are more likely to bully others and be victimized compared with students in general education. Students with observable disabilities are more likely to be victimized compared with students in general education. There will be no differences between students with non-observable disabilities and their general education peers along the bully/victim continuum.

  • 2.

    Students with behavioral disabilities will receive more office referrals than their general education peers.

  • 3.

    Male students and older students will be involved in bullying more than female students and younger students.

  • 4.

    Students with disabilities will report fewer prosocial behaviors than their general education peers. Prosocial behavior will mediate the relation between involvement in special education and bullying.

Section snippets

Participants and Settings

Data for this study are part of a larger international longitudinal investigation involving researchers from the United States, Japan, Korea, Australia, and Canada (Konishi et al., 2009) and have not been reported elsewhere. The original participant sample from the United States included 1,173 students (grades fifth through ninth) from nine Midwestern elementary and middle schools from one school district. In this school district, students receiving special education services are mainstreamed

Rates of Bullying and Victimization

The prevalence rates of bullying and victimization varied depending on whether results from the single bullying/victimization item or the PRB Bullying score/ PRB Victimization score (the average of the five specific items) were analyzed. When asked about taking part in mean or negative behavior toward others (although not referred to as bullying) in the general question, 323 (39.6%) students reported they have taken part in such behavior toward others, and 493 (60.4%) students reported no such

Discussion

It is imperative that educators consider the potential risk of bullying for both students with and without disabilities. Bullying has been shown to decrease learning outcomes for the students who are being bullied (Orpinas, Horne, & Staniszewski, 2003). This finding is particularly detrimental to students with special needs who may already have a difficult learning history and prognosis. Results from the current study suggest that students who receive special education services are at increased

References (76)

  • N.R. Crick

    The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future social adjustment

    Child Development

    (1996)
  • N.R. Crick et al.

    Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi- informant approach

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1998)
  • N.R. Crick et al.

    Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment

    Child Development

    (1995)
  • N.R. Crick et al.

    Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression

    Development and Psychopathology

    (1996)
  • M. de Monchy et al.

    Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behavior problems

    European Journal of Special Needs Education

    (2004)
  • R. Dinkes et al.

    Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006

    (2006)
  • B. Doren et al.

    Predictors of victimization experiences of adolescents with disabilities in transition

    Exceptional Children

    (1996)
  • D.L. Espelage et al.

    Gender differences in bullying: Moving beyond mean level differences

  • D.L. Espelage et al.

    Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here?

    School Psychology Review

    (2003)
  • P. Fenning et al.

    Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy

    Urban Education

    (2007)
  • M. Fisher et al.

    Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs

    Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

    (2002)
  • Givens, J. (2010). Does theory of mind mediate aggression and bullying in middle school males and females? (Doctoral...
  • A.E. Grills et al.

    Peer victimization, global self-worth, and anxiety in middle school children

    Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology

    (2002)
  • R.J. Hazler et al.

    What kids say about bullying

    Executive Educator

    (1992)
  • E.V.E. Hodges et al.

    The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization

    Developmental Psychology

    (1999)
  • S.R. Jimerson et al.

    Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective

    (2010)
  • A. Kaukiainen et al.

    Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems

    Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

    (2002)
  • E. Knox et al.

    Bullying risks of 11-year-old children with specific language impairment (SLI): Does school placement matter?

    International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

    (2003)
  • B. Kochenderfer et al.

    Victimized children's responses to peers' aggression: behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization

    Development and Psychopathology

    (1997)
  • C. Konishi et al.

    Investigating the comparability of a self-report measure of childhood bullying across countries

    Canadian Journal of School Psychology

    (2009)
  • K.M. Martin et al.

    Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional well-being of middle school students

    Psychology in the Schools

    (2007)
  • M. Martlew et al.

    Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in a special school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers’ attitudes

    British Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1991)
  • J.H. McDonald
  • F. Mishna

    Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy

    Journal of Learning Disabilities

    (2003)
  • G.M. Morrison et al.

    Factors associated with the experience of school violence among general education, leadership class, opportunity class, and special day class pupils

    Education and Treatment of Children

    (1994)
  • D. Nabuzoka et al.

    Sociometric status and social behaviour of children with and without learning difficulties

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

    (1993)
  • T.R. Nansel et al.

    Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychological adjustment

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (2001)
  • National Center for Education Statistics

    Indicators of school crime and safety--Indicator 6, Bullying at school

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text