I researched several empirical studies and found that parenting style has a cause and effect on how children are treated at school by their peers as well as poor outcomes later in life.  Here is my report. Very surprising…

          Bullying among school age children is a problem that affects the lives of thousands of children nation wide.  Victimized children bear the scares of their abuse for the remainder of their lives, (Vennstra, Lindenberg, Seigwart, De Winter, Oldenhinkel, Albertine, Verhulst, 2005).  The concern over school safety was of such concern that  National Education Panel vowed that by the year 2000 drugs and violence would be eradicated from the play grounds (Batsche, Knoff, 1994).  We know now that has not happened, that drug use and school violence has continued to accelerate.

 Children who are victimized and those that are bullies are at a higher risk for adjustment and behavior problems later on in life.  Both bullying and victimization are relationship problems that start early in childhood (Craig & Pepler, 2003).  These problems are many and include adjustment difficulties such as: “depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, loneliness, dislike and avoidance of school, poor academic performance, rejection by peers, and a lack of friends…(and even) suicide” (Hall, 2006).

Victimization at school leaves lasting scars on student’s personalities. Longitudinal studies have shown that as much as a decade later, victims have an increased negative self-concept than those who have not been bullied (Finnegan, Hodges, Perry 1998).  Covert and hard to document, bullying today is cited as the most common form of school violence and involves as many as 36% of all students (Hall, 2006).    

Impinging on other areas of society, bullying does not stop when children become adults, childhood bullies grow into adults that commit crime.  Earlier studies show that out of 60% of the boys identified as bullies 35 - 40% had three or more convictions by the time they reached the age of 24.   In comparison 10% of the control group grew up to become criminals.  Conversely, researchers have found that victims have a below average chance of having a criminal record later on in life (Batsche, Knoff, 1994).

Researchers now believe that abusive family relations, as well as school and classroom environments work together to form a backdrop for social outcome and are factors in whether or not a child is victimized at school by their peers.  Furthermore, there are studies that illustrate that when children are exposed to antagonistic, aggressive actions by peers they are more likely to join the hostile student(s) in the aggressive treatment of others.  Likewise, positive relationships with friends and family reduce the risk for peer victimization in the classroom and on the school grounds (Hoglund, Leadbeater, 2004).

            Today efforts are being made by the American School Counselor Association to understand bullying and its counterpart victimization.  Time and money constraints make this an overwhelming endeavor.  Traditionally, counselors have met with students on a one-on-one basis.  There are currently 478 students for every one counselor.  With such a high ratio, counselors are turning towards group counseling.  Recent studies on group work support a good outcome and show that group counseling is particularly affective with young adolescence (Akos, Hamm, Mack, Dunaway 2007).

The Department of Education, in a 25 school investigation, found that up to 75% of all the students have been bullied.  The same article reported that seven percent of the student body was involved with severe victimization and bullying.  The research group identified four groups of students: “1. Aggressive non-victims (bullies), 2. Aggressive victims (Bullies who are bullied), 3. Passive victims (bullied),  and 4. Normative contrast (those who are neither bully or are bullied (Glover, Gough, Johnson & Cartwright, 2000). 

In summary, the studies above do not answer the question; what are parents of children who are not involved with bullying or victims of bullying doing right?  The purpose of this study will be to show links between infant/child temperament and the responding behaviors of parents.  

Victims, Victimization, School, and Parents

Aggressive non-victims (bullies)

Bullying happens mainly at school, in under supervised areas.  However, bullying can occur at home, between sisters and brothers (Craig & Pepler, 2003).  Most researchers agree that bullying is defined by a reoccurring hostilely negative, physical, verbal, psychologically manipulative and recently, sexual assaults perpetrated upon another.  Perpetrators use of power over victims continues to escalate while their victim’s power and ability to defend themselves becomes progressively less (Batsche, Knoff, 1994).

Boys are twice as likely to report physical aggression as girls.  Research indicates that while bullies are engaged in the act of bullying, they report higher levels of aggression, an increase in externalizing problems, and higher rates of delinquency (Craig & Pepler, 2003).  Additionally, the more a person is involved in bullying and victimization the higher the risk of relationship problems in the future (Batsche, Knoff, 1994).     

Children react differently to bullying, according to the peer group status held by the bully.  If the bully is well liked by peers, the bullying is supported and even encouraged.  To make matters worse treatment of bullies is exacerbated by the consistently negative reaction from adults (Rodkin, Hodges, 2003).

Aggressive victims (Bullies who are bullied)           

Bullying is an attempt to show strength, thus living up to peer expectations.  An amazing 58% of bullies are also victimized.  This group shows the most significant overall lack of ability to adjust in the social setting, later in life.  Aggressive victims are four times more likely to have low self-esteem.  For the bully/victim, insecurities about being at school are triple that of the average student.  One reason for this unexpected outcome, is the need the pupils have to enact revenge once they have been victimized.  These groups of students feel that peers who are victimized deserved what they got and that they the aggressive victims did nothing wrong (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000).           Passive victims (bullied) 

            Children who are targeted for victimization are those that are passive, submissive, and introverted with an internalized nature.  Research has shown that such children reward their abusers with their response.  A victim’s response of distress and submission while not reporting the abuse, increases the likelihood of continued mistreatment (Lad & Ladd, 1998).   Moreover, evidence exists that over protective mothers create the passivity in boys that leads to victimization (Lad & Ladd, 1998).

 Gender differences

            Girls are found to be less physically violent and at a decreased risk for involvement in criminal behavior.  Boys are three times more likely to bully than girls.  Boy’s aggression tends to be more physical while girl’s aggression is verbal.  Physical aggression in children generally declines with age, starting in preschool as children learn to communicate verbally.  Conversely, also with age, verbal and other more indirect forms of aggression increase (Craig & Pepler, 2003).   

Shared Family Characteristics

            Parents that respond to their children quickly and consistently with interest and involvement, in affect teach their children about relationships and communication, modeling for them an understanding and a mastery of interpersonal relationships.  On the other hand, demanding, emotionally controlling, interfering parents who over protect their sons illicit passivity.  Passivity translates into victimization when boys inter school.  Evidence shows that overprotective parenting can cause withdrawn children with lack of autonomy (Lad & Ladd, 1998).  Mothers that are hostile and cold with their daughters, create in them the increased ability to become non-physically abusive toward peers (Schwartz, Pettit, Dodge, Bates, 2000).  

Shared School Characteristics:

          Teachers play a roll in pupil antisocial behavior.  Some teachers reported being afraid of aggressive children, while others were not aware antisocial behavior had occurred.  Teachers and school staff’s support of new students is adequate as reported offences are quickly squashed.  Children reported that almost half of the teachers supported the in-groups of the athletic departments, high levels of social status and children who have a good sense of humor.  Children also reported that these teachers even laugh when children reported ill-treatment, making the abusive situation even worse.  However, students reported that teachers react 90% of the time to physical aggression. (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000) 

            A study done by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Prevention Group in 2000, showed that friendlessness was correlated with aggressiveness and victimization. Friendship at school seems to be a moderating factor for overcoming harsh environments at home for both girls and boys (Schwartz, Pettit, Dodge, Bates,200).

Literary Review

In a literature review done in 2003, at the University of Illinois, researchers studied bullies and their victims, Ernest Hodges and Philip Rodkin, refer to a “peer ecology” wherein lies a distinct social structure of children socializing and influencing each other.   When all goes well children find their niche at school and receive the peer and staff support they need.  As in any social structure there are those that have more power than others.  Children seem to unknowingly accept this social structure and are divided into clusters according to multilevel ranks of gender, ethnicity, and behaviors (Rodkin, Hodges, 2003). 

Rodkin and Hodges, relate that victimization and bullying are tied largely to the child’s inability to form good relationships in school.  They also report that so far there has been only one study that has focused on this aspect.  The study was done by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group in 2000, wherein researcher found correlations between a harsh environment such as conflict in the home regarding parenting styles, physical and mental abuse and conflict between parents, and a child’s ability to form solid friendships.  One question this study did not attempt to answer is whether the bullying child’s personality contributed to the way parents parented. 

Behavioral problems at school amongst students are a rapidly growing problem that needs to be studied further.  Family influences affecting this social outcome need to be documented and mapped. (Rodkin, Hodges, 2003)

A study was done by researchers: Vennstra, Lindenberg, Seigwart, De Winter, Oldenhinkel, Albertine, Verhulst, in 2005, the group compiled a sample size of 2,230 boys and girls was gathered from 122 schools, with a mean age of 11.09 years old.  The sample was reduced to 1,065 (55% girls and 45% boys) participating youth.  Participating children were provided with lists of the children in their class.  Using the lists children were asked to nominate their classmates on several factors such as: “By whom are you bullied and whom do you bully”.  Teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire on each participating student in their class.  The teacher questionnaire inquired about the student’s: aggressiveness, isolation, academic performance, pro-social behavior and dislikabiliy.  (Vennstra, Lindenberg, Seigwart, De Winter, Oldenhinkel, Albertine, Verhulst, 2005)

Consenting parents were interviewed covering such information as the child’s developmental history, health, and parental pathology.  The Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran-Children (EMBU-C) was used to asses children’s perceptions of their parent’s parental characteristics such as: emotional warmth, over-protection and rejection.  A Familial Vulnerability Index was established as evidence was found for two genetic contributing factors, these were: the internalizing factors such as depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and phobia.  The second group, the externalized factors were: adult antisocial behavior, conduct disorder and alcohol or other drug dependence.

The research revealed that girls are more passive than boys.  Boys have a higher a degree of aggression, and an increased likelihood of being a bully and that girls are more likely to be victims.  Uninvolved children seemed to have higher socio economic status.  This multivariate study, as opposed to other univariate studies surprisingly showed that parental characteristics were not a contributing factor in adolescent bullying and victimization.  However, by self-report, bullies have an increased negative perception of their parents parenting styles and that both bullies and bully/victims are more likely to be disliked by their peers.  Individual traits such as gender, aggressiveness and isolation increase causality of bullying. (Vennstra, Lindenberg, Seigwart, De Winter, Oldenhinkel, Albertine, Verhulst, 2005)

The results showed that children who viewed themselves as victims also had a lowered self-esteem, and social anxiety.  The peers of victims reported that victims were disliked, and had elevated rejection rates and lowered acceptance rates.  However, researchers are suspicious of peer nominations.  These researchers speculate as to how likely  participating peers are to categorize their friends as bullies. (Vennstra, Lindenberg, Seigwart, De Winter, Oldenhinkel, Albertine, Verhulst, 2005)

The sub sample did not include higher risk children who had repeated or skipped a grade or children in special education.  All participants in the study came from one small area as well as small schools.  The design of this study was sound in that it yielded data with internal validity.

Researchers, Ladd and Ladd, from the University Illinois, Children’s Research Center, explained the results of numerous recent studies indicate that peer victimization leads to an assortment of profound adjustment problems, for the bully as well as the victim, throughout one’s life.  Researchers now know that by far the majority of victimized children are passive, with an internalized nature.   These children have several responding behaviors in common; they are compliant, shy, and withdrawn. 

Studies also show that the victimized children’s responses (signs of distress and compliance) to peer bullying behaviors may reward their victimizers, thus inadvertently provoking an increase or continuation of the abuse.  Ladd and Ladd, addressed this problem systemically, looking for parental features that put children at an increased risk for peer abuse. Relationships: Correlates of Peer Victimization in Kindergarten. (Ladd, & Ladd, 1998)

Participants were 197 kindergarten children, of whom 103 were boys and 94 were girls.  The children were on average 5 years and 6 months of age.  The children’s primary caregivers were 95% mothers, 2% fathers and 3% foster parents and others.  Children were sampled from three schools in the Midwestern U.S.  The composition of children chosen was ethnically and economically representative of the population.

Parents and children were visited in their homes and video taped in five different five minute sessions.  In the first and second sessions caregivers and children were asked to talk about something fun (positive) and something that was not fun (negative).   In the third session the parents were asked to tell the child a story about the child’s birth or about a time when the child was young.  The last two sessions were unshared experiences.  The five sessions were rated by separate groups of raters.  The raters were trained to observe the parent-child dyad in several different ways.  Recordings of the observation were standardized, by raters that worked separately. (Ladd, & Ladd, 1998)

Children whose parents were reportedly intrusive and demanding reported more incidents of victimization.  In contrast children whose parents were reportedly more responsive reported less incidents of peer victimization.  The results of this study indicate that overly close, intense relationships tend to be an indicator of future peer victimization.

This study demonstrates a correlation between parenting styles and socialization outcomes for children.  The research in this study is strong because the data was collected from trained raters whom directly observed and recorded the parent-child interaction instead of using self reports from the children as other studies have done.  However, this study did not address the child’s personality as it contributed to the treatment of the child by the parents. (Ladd, & Ladd, 1998)

In another study to determine the effects of family, on social outcomes at school, researchers Wendy Hoglund and Bonnie Leadbeater, found that school and classroom ecologies effect changes in children’s behavior, emotional health and socialization.  Hoglund and Leadbeater site that mounting evidence illustrates that the interplay among three contributing factors, such as child’s family, school and classroom environment work together to form a backdrop for social outcome.  Researchers now believe that abusive family relations are a factor in whether or not a child is victimized at school by their peers.  Furthermore, there are studies that illustrate that when children are exposed to antagonistic, aggressive peers they are far more likely to join the hostile peers in manipulations to harm other children.  Additionally, positive relationship with friends and family reduces the risk for victimization in the classroom and in the school. (Hoglund, Leadbeater, 2004)

Using 432 first graders from seventeen schools (49% girls), researchers Hoglund and Leadbeater, launched a three year longitudinal study.  They chose to focus on family disruptions such as: socio economic status, mother’s level of education and the amount of times the family and child have moved.  Household moves are believed to be high stressors and detrimental to forming peer bonds, affecting the child’s ability to make friends. 

To measure this dependent variable, researchers asked parents to fill out a questionnaire.  Past research illustrated that parent education is also a marker for both poor relationships and poor social outcome.  Lack of education affects the socio economic level of the family at large and is harmful, leading to higher rates of conduct disorder and emotional problems at school. 

Poverty levels affect neighborhoods as well as neighborhood schools.  Children living in economically challenged neighborhoods are exposed to more incidents of deviant behavior are at an elevated risk to engage in said behavior.  To address this dependent variable, teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire, the Social Experience Questionnaire, which assess for prosocial, relational and physical victimization. (Hoglund, Leadbeater, 2004)

Results of the surveys indicated that indeed higher levels of education amongst parents and fewer household moves were positively correlated with higher social competence and fewer emotional problems. School disadvantage showed a higher concentration of antisocial behavior, which correlates with an increase in peer physical victimization.  Girls seem moderately less likely to engage in physically aggressive peer relations.  Interestingly, the results also indicated that socially incompetent children entering kindergarten, finished kindergarten with an increase in several areas of social competence.(Hoglund, Leadbeater, 2004)

This study fell short in that it needed a larger sampling to assess the variables so that it would show a clearly defined pattern.  A clearer, detailed definition of children’s perception of victimization, the abusers and the classroom environment would be helpful.  With a larger sampling and clearer definitions, researchers could control for clearer outcomes. 

            A study done to measure the mother and child interaction as it affects victimization was done in 1998 by Regina Finnegan, Ernest Hodges and David Perry. At the Florida Atlantic University.  These three researchers state that there is a lack of information in this area which is due to few studies done on how family factors influence the victimization outcome.  These factors fall into two categories: first, insecure attachment to mother, which is exemplified by anxious-resistant attachment and secondly the child rearing practices of both mothers and fathers. 

Information from these earlier studies indicates that over protective mothers who treated their sons as though they were younger than they really were, have infantized them as well as fathers who were uninvolved with their sons, both of these scenarios set the stage for victimization when the children enter school.  Conversely, girls who were victimized reported that their mothers were over “critical, bossy and sarcastic”. (Finnegan, Hodges, Perry 1998)

The study conducted in 1998, was done to determine the parental behaviors that injure social development are mainly “autonomy for boys and connectedness for girls”. (Finnegan, Hodges, Perry, 1998)   The researchers  gathered their sample from two small schools, 184 children, 78 of whom were boys and 106 of whom were girls, from the fourth through seventh grade.  The study was performed by Finnegan, Hodges, Perry used questionnaires.  Questionnaires were used to measure children’s perception of their parents parenting practices and were administered in two week intervals. 

These questionnaires were: The perceived Parenting Questionnaire, the Child Coping Questionnaire and the Peer Nomination Inventory.  Groups of 6-8 children were administered the questionnaires by adults who read them out loud., totaling a 48 item inventory.   Parenting measures included: over protectiveness, encouragement of assertion, affectionate contact, and threat of coercion.  Children’s coping skills were measured according to fear, self-blame, endorsement of aggression and compulsive noncompliance.

Results of this study showed that maternal over protectiveness is a predictor of a lower self-confidence in boys and results in victimization.  The victimization and bullying of girls might be caused by maternal hostility.   The reason for the victimization of girls on other girls is due partly to depression, feelings of worthlessness, and anxiety caused by the maternal hostility perpetrated by mothers onto their daughters.

This study did not account for the children’s temperament or the children’s bias perceptions regarding the parenting styles of their parents.  The sample was of predominantly Caucasian children in a concentrated area.  Moreover, the study did not show conclusively the correlation between family influencing factors and victimization (Finnegan, Hodges, Perry, 1998).

            There is more information needed to formulate a standardized curriculum that addresses positive social outcome.  To date, the studies done thus far do not address the commonalities of the uninvolved children and their families, or the temperament of the bully/victim child at birth.  The studies have relied primarily on questionnaires and participant known videos.  Although interesting, this information is bias at its best. 

Questionnaires that are answered by parents about their own performance as parents, could be skewed, as abusive parent is unlikely to answer truthfully.  Using children’s answers about their peers and parents might be answered untruthfully as well.  Children in harsh environments are likely to be confused and scared to answer the questions negatively, thinking that they might be punished.  At best, if all questionnaires are filled out truthfully, they remain abstract and subject to alterations in the mood of the parents and children. 

Method

            Participants were 200 babies that were chosen randomly from 4 different hospital’s maternity records.  The hospitals were chosen for their location and diverse population served.  Parents consented to participate in the study.  Parents were told that researchers were recording baby’s growth and development with regards to what baby formula the child was given during the baby’s first year.  The sample was randomly divided into two groups: the first group was of children who lived with both parents, the second group consisted of one parent households.  No children in foster care or with significant health problems were chosen. .

Parents, 180 of which were mothers and 20 fathers and  200 babies, of which 107 were girls and 93 were boys were visited in two week intervals over six months.  Trained information recorders observed parents and babies and recorded information on several levels:  Parents mood and adjustment to baby, and baby’s attachment and comfort with mother.  Baby’s temperament, development, weight, sleep cycles, eating habits, family histories and the amount of time that babies spent crying each day.   Parents level of education, work schedules, affluence, attentiveness i.e. how long baby was left to cry and observed parenting style.

            After six months visits were reduced to twice a month for the remainder of the first year.  After the first year parents and babies were visited once a month and information was again recorded.  As the children entered kindergarten the information recorders visited and recorded information by observation of the participating children at school.  Trained observer and information recorders visited children’s homes and then spent one week at each school at the beginning of the school year and another week in the middle of the school year, recording their information.  All data will be fed into a computer and categorized.

Parents

The test was measured for single and two parent households, work schedule, education level, social economic status, whether or not they used child care, what kind of childcare (in home family or a licensed center facility), attentiveness, responsiveness, level of frustration, anxiety level and quality of communication between parent and child,  form of discipline, and form of reassurance and consolation.

Baby/Child

Height/weight, development, sleep schedule, nursing/ bottle fed, where baby sleeps with regard to location of the parents, sleep cycle, eating schedule, when, how long and why does baby cry and response to parent’s soothing.  As baby grows, recorders observed and noted acting out behaviors such as: hitting, pinching, pushing, scratching, biting, and taking toys away from other children and interferences with other children.

Researchers observed and recorded positive behaviors, such as: sharing, the ability to play with other children, the ability to pretend, ability to console another child, child’s response to aggressive behaviors of other children and the ability to be helpful and kind.

Results

            As hypothesized temperament at birth is one predictor of  bullying and victimization of children at school.  A parent’s negative response to a frustrating child is also a predictor of a negative outcome in socialization at school.  Even tempered children received increased positive responses and communication from parents.  Authoritarian, harsh parents, had children that were disliked at school and were involved with being bullied and/or bullying at school. 

            Girls who had harsh, cold mothers showed an increased risk of aggressive behavior toward peers at school.  Likewise, boys who had over controlling, interfering mothers where at higher risk for victimization by peers at school. 

            Uninvolved children had attentive, responsive, and understanding parents.  There was a significant correlation between higher income and educational levels of the parents of the uninvolved children.  Uninvolved children’s homes were more stable over time and children spent less time in daycare or afternoon programs at school.  Uninvolved children, were liked at school by  their peers.  Differences between single parent and two parent households were not significant.  Differences between bottle fed and nursed babies were not significant.

 Bibliography  

Please for give the format.

Akos, P., Hamm, J. V., Mack, S. G., (2007). Utilizing the developmental influence of peers in middle school groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work. 32, 51-60.  

Batsche, G. M., Knoff, H. M., (1994). Bullies and their victims: understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-174. 

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J., (2003). Identifying and targeting risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 577-582.  

Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E.V. & Perry, D.G., (1998). Victimization by peers:  Associations with children’s reports of mother-child interaction.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1076-1086. 

Glover, D., Gough, G., Johnson, M., (2000). Bullying in 25 secondary schools:  Incidence, impact and intervention. Educational Research, 42, 141-156.

 Hall, K. R., (2006). Using problem based learning with victims of bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 9, 231-237. 

Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J., (2004). The effects of family, school, and classroom ecologies on changes in children’s social competence and emotional and behavioral problems in first grade. Developmental Psychology, 40, 533-544.  

Ladd, G. W., & Ladd, B., (1998). Parenting behaviors and parent-child relationships: Correlates of peer victimization in kindergarten. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1450-1458. 

A. D., Bartini, M., (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 360-366. 

Rodkin, Philip C.: Hodges, Ernest V., (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384-400.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S., (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, 665-675. 

Schwartz, D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge K. A., Bates, J.E., (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 648-662.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Oldehinkel, A.J., (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary school: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescences.