Sociation Today

Using Social Capital to Inform Policy Regarding Bullying Victimization

by

Kristen N. Sobba

Southeast Missouri State University

    According to the National Center of Education Statistics (2016), around one in five students are bullied in school each year. Bullying is commonly referred to as a form of aggression used to repeatedly intimidate or threaten others over time (Olweus 1992; 1993; 1994). These behaviors are often divided into overt and covert behaviors. Overt or traditional bullying refers to physical forms of aggression such as punching, kicking, and verbal abuse (Shariff 2005). In contrast, covert behaviors or non-traditional bullying refers to indirect forms of harassment, such as purposely ignoring or excluding someone and spreading rumors (Greeff and Grobler 2008). Both forms of bullying are associated with devastating outcomes.

    Research suggests that bullying victimization has severe repercussions such as loneliness, anxiety, depression, academic problems, personality disorders, and suicidal tendencies (Attwood and Croll 2006; Balfanz and Byrnes 2012; Egger, Costello, and Angold 2003; Hutzell and Payne 2012; Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham 2000; Kearney and Albano 2004; Kochenderfer and Ladd 1997; Snedker 2015; Wallace and May 2005). Students who suffer from peer abuse are significantly more likely to attempt suicide compared to those who are not frequently bullied (Gini and Espelage 2014; Reed, Nugent, and Cooper 2015). These studies suggest that there are serious negative consequences associated with bullying victimization, further suggesting a need for more focus on policies that address bullying.

    In the following sections I will first, review prior literature that explores the negative consequences associated with bullying. Secondly, I will address how certain factors place youths at higher risk for bully victimization. Next, I will introduce social capital as a theoretical perspective that may help us better understand how to prevent subsequent bullying through social bonds and social connectedness. I will conclude with implications for policy and directions for future research.

Negative Consequences of Bullying Victimization

There are a number of negative outcomes associated with bullying victimization. For example, victims of bullying tend to experience a range of emotional and psychological problems including depression (Egger, Costello, and Angold 2003; Kearney and Albano 2004; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, and Mickelson 2001), loneliness (Kochenderfer and Ladd 1996), low self-esteem (Olweus 1995), and fear of victimization (Snedker 2015). However, the most severe consequence of bullying is suicide (Attwood and Croll 2006; Hutzell and Payne 2012; Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham 2000; Reed, Nugent, and Cooper 2015; Townsend et al. 2008). For example, Gini and Espelage (2014) research on suicidal ideation found that students who were repeatedly bullied are over two times more likely to have suicidal thoughts and were more prone to attempt suicide than non-bullied students. As bullying may cause extreme bouts of anxiety and depression, it is likely that suicidal thoughts stem from these psychological issues.

External problems that occur due to bullying or fear of bullying include poor academic achievement, lack of concentration, minimal attendance, and school avoidance (Beran and Li 2008; Balfanz and Byrnes 2012; Hutzell and Payne 2012). In addition, individuals who suffer from bullying victimization may also experience negative physical effects such as lack of sleep, headaches, stomachaches, and other somatic problems (Baldry 2004; Williams, Chambers, Logan, and Robinson 1996). These problems may stem from stress and anxiety, or may be due to physical attacks at school. Considering bullying is associated with mental, emotional, and physical damage, I argue that it is important to understand how bully victims overcome these challenges in an effort to prevent subsequent victimization and combat the negative repercussions of bullying.

Characteristics associated with Bullying Victimization

Research consistently finds that several demographic characteristics are associated with bullying victimization. For example, compared to girls, boys are more likely to be the victims of traditional bullying, which is largely due to their roles as bullies (Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, and Gould 2007; Pepler, Jiang, Craig, and Connolly 2008; Scholte, Engels, Overbeek, Kemp, and Haselager 2007). Additionally, research finds that girls are more likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of cyberbullying compared to their male peers (Slonje and Smith 2008; Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, and Tippett 2008; Wang, Ianotti, and Nansel 2009).

    Research is inconclusive regarding racial differences among bully victims. These inconsistencies may be due to sample sizes, specific types of ethnic groups, or regional and cultural differences. Some research shows that ethnic differences do not impact bullying victimization (Siann, Callaghan, Glissov, Lockhart, and Rawson 1994). However, other research finds that minority groups are more likely to be victimized compared to other racial groups (Verkuyten and Thijs 2002; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, and Karstadt 2001). Many studies reveal that non-whites are more likely to be victimized compared to other races (Larochette, Murphey, and Craig 2010; Peskin, Fleschler, and Markham 2006). Larochette and colleagues' (2010) research on racial bullying victimization found that students of color are significantly more likely to be victims of bullying compared to their white peers. In addition, these victimization experiences were not found to be associated with any school-related characteristics such as student and teacher diversity, school cohesion, and school safety. Therefore, race was the only contributing factor to the bullying victimization.

    Additional research finds that minority groups are less likely to be victimized than white students (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie 2007; Hanish and Guerra 2000, Graham and Juvonen 2002). For example, Hanish and Guerra's (2000) research on public elementary schools in a Midwestern city found that Hispanic students were found to have lower victimization rates compared to African American and White students. Furthermore, African Americans were less likely to be bullied over an extended period of time compared to both Hispanic and white students.

    Racial differences in victimization may be due to stereotypes associated with low socioeconomic status or cultural variations (Peguero and Williams 2013). For instance, stereotypes and prejudices tend to ostracize students from their peers due to misperceptions and lack of knowledge on cultural and racial differences. Therefore, these individuals may be viewed as "easier targets" if they are the minority and stereotypes affect other students' perceptions of them. However, friendships are found to counteract these victimization experiences (Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel 2009). Friendships are considered support systems for victims, which helps combat bullying victimization by acting as a protective barrier (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, and Maras 2005; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, and Bukowski 1999; Kochenderfer and Ladd 1997).

    Additional studies suggest that bully victims tend to exhibit depressive symptoms such as anxiety, loneliness, submissiveness, insecurity, low self-esteem and isolation (Byrne 1994; Rigby and Slee 1991; Perry, Kusel, and Perry 1988; Boulton and Underwood 1992) compared to non-bullied students. Bullying may exacerbate these symptoms due to fear of future victimization. Other studies find that parental characteristics influence victimization (Batshe and Knoff 1994; Finnegan, Hodges, and Perry 1998). For example, Finnegan et al. (1998) found that maternal overprotection was significantly correlated with higher rates of victimization for boys. In addition, maternal rejection increased rates of victimization for girls. Reasons associated with an increase of victimization due to maternal involvement or lack of may be due to how peers perceive their parental figures. For example, boys may want to seek independence earlier than girls; therefore, they may want to avoid their parents to reduce victimization. In addition, girls may be more attached to their mothers compared to boys who are closer to their fathers.

Bullying Victimization and Social Capital

Due to the many problems associated with bullying victimization, it is imperative that preventative measures are put in place to deter future bullies and reduce victimization. The concept of social capital is based in the idea of strong social networks (Coleman 1988). These strong social networks increase group cohesion and trust which creates social capital (Coleman 1988). In regard to bullying victimization, it is hypothesized that a high amount of social capital will reduce bullying victimization. Forms of social capital may include participation in school activities, friendships, athletic groups, or teacher-student bonds. It is expected that these bonds create an environment of trust and security which deters bullying victimization. The following sections will discuss the background of social capital in addition to describing the current research on social capital and bullying victimization. Furthermore, policy implications regarding social capital and bullying victimization is addressed in the concluding sections of this article.

Historical Roots: Social Capital

Social capital was first theorized with Hanifan's research (1916) on rural communities and Dewey's (1916) research on education. Later, social capital became more prominent through the works of Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), and Putnam (2000). Bourdieu's (1986) work focused on economic capital in which he argued that when power and class were more evenly distributed then benefits would be equal for all classes. Conversely, Coleman (1988) focused on the importance of social networks as a mechanism of developing social capital. These networks are based on obligations and expectations which build social capital among groups. Finally, Putnam's (2000) concept of social capital described community-level capital and civic engagement. He viewed social capital as a necessary resource to build communities and societies.

Coleman's (1988) Concept of Social Capital

    The foundation of social capital relies on how social networks impact community trust and cooperation (Coleman 1988; Putnam 1995). Research on community cohesion and trust in neighborhoods were often the focus of previous studies since neighborhoods can form a social network that binds a community together and creates a safe environment for the members of that community. "Social capital is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors whether persons or corporate actors-within the structure" (Coleman 1988:S98). In other words, social capital is a structure of social networks built to maintain group cohesion through trust and reciprocity. For social capital to exist a structure and action must exist for the "actors" or members to perform the tasks set forth by the group. Structures may be institutions such as families, community organizations, churches, and other social ties while an action refers to the duties and obligations set forth by the group (Coleman 1988). For example, a community organization may expect group members to attend regularly scheduled meetings, become involved in politics, and help the group with monetary needs.

    Coleman (1988) addressed three forms of micro-level social capital components, obligations and expectations, information channels, and social norms. First, obligations and expectations are dependent on two elements: "trustworthiness of the social environment and actual extent of obligations held" (Coleman 1988:S102). A high degree of trustworthiness among group members must be maintained for this form of social capital to be upheld. For example, if members of a group loan money to member A, it is expected that each of the group members will be repaid. In addition, this action may be reciprocated in the future by member A by loaning money to other group members. As long as the obligations and expectations are being met, then the group remains united. The second form of social capital is information channels, which refers to the capability of the group to collect information through relationships. For instance, an individual who wants to learn a specific skill may seek advice from friends or colleagues who are more proficient in that area. These relationships encourage trust through the information provided by other members. Lastly, social norms consist of effective sanctions and customs set forth by the group. These norms may be in the form of rules or standards in a given society. For example, norms allow individuals to feel safe walking in their neighborhoods at night. This lack of fear is due to the effective norms in that community that inhibit crime (Coleman 1988).

    The primary idea was that social capital was generated through trust and participation in certain social networks such as community organizations, school activities, or churches. Similar to collective efficacy, which refers to social cohesion among community members and their willingness to intervene on the behalf of the "common good" (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997), social capital at the school-level describes how an increase in social networks results in higher levels of social control (Battistich and Hom 1997; Kirk 2009). For instance, positive school relationships with peers and teachers encourage trust and cohesion among school students.

    Previous research revealed correlations between social capital and delinquency and school victimization (Battistich and Hom 1997; Bryk and Driscoll 1988; Carney, Jacob, and Hazler 2011; Elgar, Craig, Boyce, Morgan, and Vella-Zarb 2009; Kirk 2009; Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). Earlier research on social capital and delinquency revealed that students with a strong sense of community had significantly lower rates of juvenile misbehavior and delinquency (Battistich and Hom 1997; Kirk 2009). In Kirk's (2009) research, reports from teachers were analyzed to understand the influence of collective efficacy and teacher-parent trust in addition to student-teacher trust. Results indicated higher levels of collective efficacy and trust were negatively related to juvenile suspensions and arrests. Furthermore, higher levels of neighborhood collective efficacy negatively affected school-related delinquency. These results indicated that strong social ties significantly reduce delinquent behavior and prevent future problem behavior. In relation to victimization, Gottfredson and DePietro's (2011) research on public, private, and Catholic schools found that social capital, measured as student consensus on norms and beliefs, partially mediated student victimization. Social capital may be stronger in private schools due to uniformity in regard to religion or income found in private institutions. As a result, homogeneity may increase social capital among students and decrease bullying victimization. Furthermore, variations in beliefs and norms may spark controversy among students who have different ideologies. Therefore, these differences may influence bullying tendencies, and exacerbate violent incidents or avoidant behaviors.

Application of Social Capital: Fear and Victimization

Fear of victimization literature has addressed social capital in terms of perceived neighborhood safety (DeLone, 2008; De Donder, De Witte, Buffel, Dury, and Verté 2012; Ferguson and Mindel 2007; Gainey, Alper, and Chappel 2011; Inkpen and Tsang 2005; Ziersch, Baum, MacDougall, and Putland 2005; Wood, Shannon, Burlsara, Pikora, McCormack, and Giles-Cori 2008). The notion that higher levels of trust among group members lead to lower levels of fear has been consistently illustrated in prior research (DeLone 2008; Ferguson and Mindel 2007; Gainey et al. 2011). Ferguson and Mindel's (2007) study on Dallas neighborhoods found that some forms of social capital decreased fear of victimization. For instance, social support networks and neighborhood satisfaction were two significant types of social capital that significantly reduced fear of victimization due to the trust and social cohesion among the members in these neighborhoods. DeLone's (2008) research on public housing also found a negative relationship between social capital, measured as social integration, and level of fear. As social capital increased, fear of victimization significantly declined due to a high level of support and cohesion among individuals within these locations.

Additional research found that social capital can serve as a mediator between victimization and fear (Gainey et al. 2011; Ross and Jang 2000). Gainey and colleagues (2011) conducted research on prior victimization, disorder, and fear through a telephone survey administered in a larger southeastern city. Disorder and prior victimization were significantly related to fear of crime. In addition, the findings revealed that social capital and perceived risk mediated the relationship between victimization and neighborhood disorder on fear of victimization. Ross and Jang (2000) conducted research with the Community, Crime and Health Survey (1995) which consisted of telephone interviews of Illinois households. The purpose of their research was to understand the association between social capital, fear, and mistrust. The results showed similar findings to Gainey and colleagues' (2011) research revealing that fear was significantly influenced by perceived disorder. However, informal social ties significantly reduced fear of victimization due to trust formed between neighbors. This relationship may have resulted from social capital serving as a buffer to fear of victimization. Social capital increases trust among neighbors which, in turn, would decrease fear of victimization. In addition to neighborhood safety, other measures of social capital have been geared around group cohesion and trust such as: parental involvement, participation in activities, collective values, reciprocity, and safety (Rosenfeld, Baumer and Messner 2001; Forrest and Kearns 2001; McNulty and Bellair 2003).

Policy Implications: Social Capital and Bullying

The available research on victimization and social capital revealed a strong association between the two variables. Prior research indicates that social capital can serve as preventative strategy to bullying victimization. If students gain strong social ties through different avenues such as participation in school activities, trust in teachers and peers, or group norms, it is presumed that bullying victimization will significantly decrease. Since prior research reveals that social capital is correlated to victimization and fear of victimization (Bryk and Driscoll 1988; Battistich and Hom 1997; Carney, Jacob, and Hazler 2011; DeLone 2008; Elgar et al. 2009; Ferguson and Mindel 2007; Gainey et al. 2011; Kirk 2009; Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003), it is expected that the same effect would be present in schools.

Future researchers should attempt to further address this topic by testing different forms of social capital to understand which outcomes are the most beneficial. Additional forms could include specific types of adult support such as teachers, parents, school administrators, and other significant adults in a child's life. By uncovering the most influential forms of social capital, policymakers can implement more evidence-based approaches to reduce bullying. In conclusion, as more research is developed in this area, better strategies and policy implications can be established to prevent this form of abuse from occurring in the future.

References

Attwood, G., and Croll, P. (2006). Truancy in secondary school pupils: prevalence, trajectories and pupil perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 467-484.

Baldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 343-355.

Balfanz, R., and Byrnes, V. (2012). The importance of being in school: A report on absenteeism in the nation's public schools. The Education Digest, 78(2), 4-9.

Batsche, G. M., and Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-165.

Battistich, V., and Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students' sense of their school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 87(12), 1997-2001.

Beran, T., and Li, Q. (2008). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. The Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 16-33.

Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., and Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701-712.

Boulton, M. J., and Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(1), 73-87.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Edited by: Richardson J.

Bryk, A. S., and Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The High School as Community: Contextual Influences and Consequences for Students and Teachers.

Byrne, B. (1994). Coping with Bullying in Schools. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Carney, J. V., Jacob, C. J., and Hazler, R. J. (2011). Exposure to school bullying and the social capital of sixth-grade students. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50(2), 238-253.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

De Donder, L., De Witte, N., Buffel, T., Dury, S., and Verté, D. (2012). Social capital and feelings of unsafety in later life: A study on the influence of social networks, place attachment, and civic participation on perceived safety in Belgium. Research on Aging, 34(4), 425-448.

DeLone, G. J. (2008). Public housing and the fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 115-125.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

Egger, H. L., Costello, J. E., and Angold, A. (2003). School refusal and psychiatric disorders: A community study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(7), 797-807.

Elgar, F. J., Craig, W., Boyce, W., Morgan, A., and Vella-Zarb, R. (2009). Income inequality and school bullying: multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 351-359.

Ferguson, K. M., and Mindel, C. H. (2007). Modeling fear of crime in Dallas neighborhoods a test of social capital theory. Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 322-349.

Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V., and Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with children's reports of mother–child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 1076-1086.

Forrest, R., and Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.

Gainey, R., Alper, M., and Chappell, A. T. (2011). Fear of crime revisited: Examining the direct and indirect effects of disorder, risk perception, and social capital. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 120-137.

Gini, G., and Espelage, D. L. (2014). Peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide risk in children and adolescents. Jama, 312(5), 545-546.

Gottfredson, D. C., and DiPietro, S. M. (2011). School size, social capital, and student victimization. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 69-89.

Graham, S., and Juvonen, J. (2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 22(2), 173-199.

Greeff, P., and Grobler, A. A. (2008). Bullying during the intermediate school phase: A South African study. Childhood, 15(1), 127-144.

Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67(1), 130-138.

Hanish, L. D., and Guerra, N. G. (2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in predicting children's victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(2), 201-223.

Hodges, E. V., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., and Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 94-101.

Hutzell, K. L., and Payne, A. A. (2012). The impact of bullying victimization on school avoidance. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(4), 370-385.

Inkpen, A. C., and Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., and Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 349-359.

Kearney, C. A., and Albano, A. M. (2004). The functional profiles of school refusal behavior: Diagnostic aspects. Behavior Modification, 28(1), 147-161.

Kirk, D. S. (2009). Unraveling the contextual effects on student suspension and juvenile arrest: The independent and interdependent influences of school, neighborhood, and family social controls. Criminology, 47(2), 479-520.

Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., and Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 40-49.

Kochenderfer, B. J., and Ladd, G. W. (1997). Victimized children's responses to peers' aggression: Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(1), 59-73.

McNulty, T. L., and Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social capital. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 1-31.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective schoolbased intervention program. In R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: current perspectives (pp. 97–130). New York: Plenum Press.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon, and V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and Violence Throughout the Life Span (pp. 100–125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., and Gottfredson, G. D. (2003). Schools as communities: The relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disorder. Criminology, 41(3), 749-778.

Peguero, A. A., and Williams, L. M. (2013). Racial and ethnic stereotypes and bullying victimization. Youth and Society, 45(4), 545-564.

Pepler, D., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., and Charach, A. (1993). A school-based anti-bullying intervention: Preliminary evaluation. Understanding and Managing Bullying, 76-91.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., and Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 807-814.

Peskin, M. F., Tortolero, S. R., and Markham, C. M. (2006). Bullying and victimization among Black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence, 41(163), 467-484.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. In Culture and politics (pp. 223-234). Palgrave Macmillan US.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Reed, K. P., Nugent, W., and Cooper, R. L. (2015). Testing a path model of relationships between gender, age, and bullying victimization and violent behavior, substance abuse, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts in adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 128-137.

Rigby, K., and Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 615-627.

Rosenfeld, R., Baumer, E. P., and Messner, S. F. (2001). Social capital and homicide. Social Forces, 80(1), 283-310.

Ross, C. E., and Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 401-420.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., and Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.

Scholte, R. H., Engels, R. C., Overbeek, G., De Kemp, R. A., and Haselager, G. J. (2007). Stability in bullying and victimization and its association with social adjustment in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2), 217-228.

Shariff, S. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: School obligations to provide student safety in a virtual school environment. McGill Journal of Education, 40(3), 467.

Siann, G., Callaghan, M., Glissov, P., Lockhart, R., and Rawson, L. (1994), 'Who gets bullied? The effect of school, gender and ethnic group', Educational Research, 36(2), 123–34.

Slonje, R., and Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., and Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.

Snedker, K. A. (2015). Neighborhood conditions and fear of crime a reconsideration of sex differences. Crime and Delinquency, 61(1), 45-70.

Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., and Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283-293.

Swearer, S. M., Song, S. Y., Cary, P. T., Eagle, J. W., and Mickelson, W. T. (2001). Psychosocial correlates in bullying and victimization: The relationship between depression, anxiety, and bully/victim status. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 95-121.

The National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs15.pdf.

Townsend, L., Flisher, A. J., Chikobvu, P., Lombard, C., and King, G. (2008). The relationship between bullying behaviours and high school dropout in Cape Town, South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 38(1), 21-32.

Verkuyten, M., and Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in the Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(2), 310-331.

Wallace, L. H., and May, D. C. (2005). The impact of parental attachment and feelings of isolation on adolescent fear of crime at school. Family Therapy, 32(3), 157.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., and Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375.

Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., and Robinson, D. (1996). Association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children, BMJ, 313(7048), 17-19.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., and Karstadt, L. (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 85(3), 197-201.

Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., and Giles-Corti, B. (2008). The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: an exploratory study of the built environment, social capital and residents' perceptions of safety, Health and Place, 14(1), 15-31.

Ziersch, A. M., Baum, F. E., MacDougall, C., and Putland, C. (2005). Neighbourhood life and social capital: the implications for health. Social Science and Medicine, 60(1), 71-86.

Return to Home Page