Which of the following reasons explain why aggressive peer

Peer Victimization

Peer victimization among children has been the focus of increased empiric attention over the last 3 decades (Hawker and Boulton, 2000; Nansel et al, 2001; Olweus, 1993; Storch et al, 2006). Defined as repeated exposure to negative actions on the part of one or more other individuals, 20% to 30% of youngsters are chronically victimized by peers. Although peer victimization has previously been considered an inevitable childhood occurrence, parents, school personnel, and health professionals have recognized the impact of being victimized on a range of psychosocial adjustment problems. Policy changes within schools have lagged, resulting in few improvements in the situation.

In the early 1990s and before, victimization was thought to occur primarily through physical or verbal attacks, such as hitting, pushing, cursing, or threatening. This research found that boys were victimized more frequently than girls. Such findings contradicted common knowledge about the peer experiences of girls, however, and the nature of aggressive behavior among girls and boys. More recent research has revised this conceptualization to include forms of peer maltreatment such as shunning, ignoring, and spreading rumors (Crick and Bigbee, 1998). By broadening the definition of peer victimization to include gender normative aggressive behaviors, a more balanced picture of peer experiences has been captured.

Although fewer data have been reported regarding the prospective relationships between peer victimization and adjustment, the extant findings further suggest that victimization is a distress-provoking experience. The conceptualization underlying these findings involves cognitive and behavioral components. Victimized children may internalize negative self-evaluations, resulting in greater distress and avoidance of interactions that have a high probability for victimization. Through the process of marginalization and ostracism, victimized children may have limited opportunities to build positive peer relationships that could provide physical protection and aid in coping with bullying-related distress. Cross-sectional studies have shown positive correlations between peer victimization and depressive symptoms, general anxiety, social anxiety, and externalizing symptoms. Longitudinal studies also have indicated that peer victimization predicts later symptoms of depression, social phobia, general anxiety, and internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Self-Perceptions

Peer victimization can predict decrements in a variety of self-related perceptions. The most common self-perception outcome assessed the bully–victim literature has been global self-esteem. Lowered self-esteem is both a concurrent correlate of victimization by peers and a long-term outcome. This pattern is particularly apparent for those adolescents who engage in characterological self-blame, or the tendency to think of oneself as the type of person who attracts bullying. Characterological self-blame can lead bullied youths to attribute their mistreatment by peers to some fundamental, unchangeable aspect of the self and thus experience loss of self-worth. In contrast, adolescents who engage in behavioral self-blame recognize that certain aspects of their behavior might invite victimization, but presumably they also recognize that that behavior is changeable.

More specific aspects of self-worth are also affected by experience of bullying by peers. Associations between peer victimization and lowered social self-esteem have been documented in several studies. There are also bidirectional associations between peer victimization and lowered self-perceived peer social competence, suggesting that bullied adolescents are highly aware of their problematic interactions with peers. This is particularly troubling in that lowered self-efficacy for peer interactions likely contributes to these youths' withdrawn and submissive behaviors, and thus may exacerbate their difficulties with peers.

Consequences of peer victimization in the sports environment

Peer victimization is associated with negative psychosocial consequences. Youth who are bullied feel socially isolated (Byrne, Dooley, Fitzgerald, & Dolphin, 2016), experience psychological distress (Nordhagen, Nielsen, Stigum, & Köhler, 2005), and report higher levels of mental health problems (Arseneault et al., 2010). In addition, peer victimization is related to sports-specific consequences. For example, bullied youth athletes are less likely to be engaged (Roman & Taylor, 2013) and less likely to enjoy sports (Scarpa, Carraro, Gobbi, & Nart, 2012). As a result of being bullied, youth athletes may discontinue sports all together (Ullrich-French & Smith, 2009). Victimized athletes also report lower self-esteem (Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2009) and feel less connectedness with teammates than nonvictimized athletes (Evans et al., 2016). Thus ensuring that sports represent safe environments is important to allow youth athletes to experience the benefits of participation.

Introduction

Bullying and peer victimization are at the forefront of public discourse and are a part of the zeitgeist, but despite increased attention by both scientists and the public, the literature on these constructs during early childhood is rather limited. We will review the definitions of both constructs and provide some historical context for the study of bullying. Attention is given to relevant developmental theories that have served as the impetus for research within this area. Next, we address the known literature on bullying and peer victimization, respectively. For each construct, we highlight best practices in the assessment of these behaviors among young children and we provide key findings to encourage additional research in these areas. We also provide future directions for the study of bullying and peer victimization subtypes within early childhood. We conclude with a discussion of intervention efforts for reducing both behaviors during early development.

Meaning of Peer Relations Difficulties

Peer rejection, having few friends, and peer victimization have an impact on the emotional well being of children with LD. Loneliness is a negative experience that results from the perception that a person’s network is deficient in terms of number and quality of relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). Margalit and her colleagues found that Israeli children and youth with LD (preschool through adolescence) are more lonely than their counterparts without LD (e.g., Margalit, 1998; Margalit & Ben Dov, 1995; Most, Al-Yagon, Tur-Kaspa, & Margalit, 2000). Children with LD who are lonely tend to have higher rates of being rejected by peers and internalizing behavior disorders (Tur-Kaspa, Weisel, & Segev, 1998), and lower quality friendships (Margalit & Efrati, 1996). Adolescents with LD who exclusively have virtual friends (i.e., have friends on the Internet and social media but have no face-to-face friends) experience higher levels of loneliness than adolescents who interact with their friends face-to-face in addition to Internet communication (Sharabi & Margalit, 2011). With the exception of a study conducted with a sample of children in grades 4 to 6 in Beijing, China (Yu, Zhang, & Yan, 2005), all of the published studies reporting differences between children and youth with LD in loneliness had Israeli samples. Several qualitative studies describe the suffering of children and youth with LD who experience peer rejection and bullying or who have few friends (Goldberg et al., 2003; Higgins et al., 2002; Raskind et al., 2006; Wiener & Sunohara, 1998).

7.3 The reasons for loneliness in children and adolescents

Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996) suggest that loneliness in children may result from conflict within the home; insecure parental attachments; moving to a new school or neighborhood; losing a friend; losing an object, possession, or pet; experiencing the divorce of parents; experiencing the death of a significant person; rejection by peers; limited social skills or an understanding of how to make friends; shyness, anxiety, and low self-esteem that contribute to difficulties in making friends; victimization by peers (e.g., children who are bullied, physically or verbally attacked or taunted report high levels of loneliness, and distress). Asher et al. (1990) found that children who are aggressive report the greatest degrees of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Rubin and Mills (1991) report that shy, inhibited and anxious children often lack social skills and confidence to interact with others and frequently report feelings of loneliness.

Sullivan (1953) believed that loneliness was a consequence of peer victimization. Lonely children communicate their withdrawn behavior to peers, who reinforce a child's feelings of loneliness by bullying, ignoring or completely leaving a child out of activities. To determine whether this construct was valid, Berguno et al. (2004) interviewed 42 children between 8 and 10 years old about their experiences of loneliness at primary school. The children were further asked to describe their experiences of being bullied, as well as to comment on their perception of the consequences of particular teacher interventions. Eighty percent of the children said they had periods of being lonely at school and that they were related to boredom, inactivity, a tendency to withdraw into fantasy, and a passive attitude towards social interactions. Children who had few friendships were more vulnerable to becoming isolated. Sixty-eight percent of the children said they had been bullied and that teacher interventions were not effective in reducing the bullying. The authors continue by noting that:

Teachers who intervene by punishing the bullies are similarly contributing to the child's experience of loneliness since, according to our findings punishment is not an effective long-term strategy for dealing with instances of peer aggression. It would appear that the only effective teacher interventions are those that attempt an interpersonal resolution between victim and bully. (p. 495)

Lonely children often learn about social interactions from families who model, reinforce, and coach. Carr and Schellenbach (1993) believe that chronically lonely children may be raised in families that do not stress social learning, or the family itself may be isolated with little outside interaction with others.

In explaining a more existential reason for loneliness, Seligman and Csikszetmihalyi (2000) write that Americans “live surrounded by many more people than their ancestors did, yet they are intimate with fewer individuals and thus experience greater loneliness and alienation” (p. 9). Ostrov and Offer (1980) suggest that American culture emphasizes individual achievement, competitiveness, and impersonal social relations, and that even early loneliness may be quite pronounced in the face of such socially alienating values. Saxton (1986) argues that in contemporary American society there is a decline in the face-to-face, intimate contacts with family members, relatives, and close friends which were much more prevalent several decades ago. Mijuskovic (1992) views American society as highly mechanized with “impersonal institutions, disintegration of the family as a result of a high divorce rate, high mobility rate with its impact on family and community ties; the fast-paced living and self-centeredness of the culture interferes with people's ability to establish and maintain fulfilling relationships (RokAch, 2007, p.184).

Seligman worries that Americans have become so caught up in a personal sense of entitlement that even helping professionals have gone along with, in fact encouraged, “the belief that we can rely on shortcuts to happiness, joy, rapture, comfort, and ecstasy, rather than be entitled to these feelings by the exercise of personal strengths and virtues, which results in legions of people who, in the middle of great wealth, are starving spiritually” (ABCNews.com, 2002, online). Seligman goes on to suggest that, “[p]ositive emotion alienated from the exercise of character leads to emptiness, to inauthenticity, to depression, and, as we age, to the gnawing realization that we are fidgeting until we die” (ABCNews.com, 2002, online).

Robert Putnam (Stossel, 2000) believes that this focus on self is producing a country without a sense of social connectedness, where, “[s]upper eaten with friends or family has given way to supper gobbled in solitude, with only the glow of the television screen for companionship” (p. 1). According to Putnam:

… [A]mericans today have retreated into isolation. Evidence shows that fewer and fewer contemporary Americans are unionizing, voting, rallying around shared causes, participating in religious services, inviting each other over, or doing much of anything collectively. In fact, when we do occasionally gather – for twelve-step support encounters and the like – it's most often only as an excuse to focus on ourselves in the presence of an audience. (Stossel, 2000, p. 1)

Putnam believes that the lack of social involvement negatively affects school performance, health and mental health, increases crime rates, reduces tax responsibilities and charitable work, decreases productivity and, “even simple human happiness – all are demonstrably affected by how (and whether) we connect with our family and friends and neighbors and co-workers” (Stossel, 2000, p. 1).

Commenting on the importance of understanding culture and the way cultures organize family life, belief systems, and closeness to others as factors in creating loneliness, RokAch (2007) writes,

Loneliness research tends to focus on individual factors, that is, either on personality factors or on lack of social contacts. However, loneliness could be expressive of an individual's relationship to the community. It is conceivable, then, that the difference between cultures and the ways in which social relations are organized within them will result in cross-cultural variations in the way people experience loneliness. The difference of the social tapestry, interpersonal interactions and the support networks which are available to individuals in various cultures are bound to affect the causes of loneliness. (p. 174)

Although loneliness may have social and cultural antecedents, many lonely children and adolescents report feeling lonely and rejected by others from a very early age and even in the presence of others. Among lonely youth who have experienced loneliness from an early age, the absence of social contacts as they age creates a sense of despair that should not be confused with depression. The loneliness they experience is a feeling of separateness and of not fitting in that sometimes worsens with age. This type of loneliness may have its roots in failure to bond with parents or parental rejection. A case at the end of the chapter describes the treatment for this type of loneliness.

Assertiveness Training

Given that many youth with tics experience actual limitations and discrimination/peer victimization due to tics (Conelea et al., 2011; Zinner et al., 2012), it is important that they learn to how to effectively communicate their needs and advocate for their rights. First, it is important for youth to understand what it means to be assertive and how it is different from being passive, aggressive, and passive–aggressive. Define each communication style for the youth and elicit examples of behaviors for each style (Mangini, 1986; McKay, Wood, & Brantley, 2007).

Next, identify situations where assertiveness may be particularly relevant and important. Example situations include addressing teasing from peers, difficulty competing school or homework assignments, or telling someone that they have a tic disorder. After identifying these situations, use role-playing to help the youth practice using assertiveness to communicate their needs. In addition, printing and sharing an “I have TS card” from the TAA website may be useful. These cards help youth explain the effects of TS and tic disorders. Specific strategies for how to communicate tic-related needs in important areas of daily functioning can be found in additional chapters within this text.

Abstract

The current chapter takes a process-oriented approach to examining the exploitation and the peer victimization of adolescents in digital environments. In considering the processes that contribute to adolescent experiences with both cyberexploitation and cybervictimization, special considerations are made for the degree to which adolescents’ self-explorations and authentic self-expressions in digital environments enhance their risk of these experiences and exacerbate the negative socioemotional effects. Digital technologies encourage identity exploration and enhance adolescents’ willingness to share authentic details about themselves. While this is adaptive in the context of prosocial interactions, sharing intimate aspects of one’s thoughts and emotions provides individuals seeking to exploit and harm adolescents with information that can be used for maladaptive purposes. Discussions of these risks and preventative strategies are also considered.

Victim Risk Factors

Victimization is generally determined by two factors: accessibility and vulnerability. Efforts to understand the causes of peer victimization have led researchers to focus on behavioral vulnerabilities that may contribute to a child being the target of abuse; the child who is singled out and identified as a suitable victim by an aggressor. In regards to accessibility, most victimization occurs at school, a highly charged and competitive environment where potential bullies can interrelate with a number of suitable victims (Beaty & Alexeyev, 2008).

The playground is the most common setting for bullying, followed by the hallways, classrooms, lunch areas, and toilets (Beaty & Alexeyev, 2008; Siann, Callaghan, Lockhart & Rawson, 1993). Victims have been identified and described by research as generally being of the same age as the bully, but smaller and weaker than their peers and commonly deviate from norms or social and cultural majorities. These variables can include styles of dress, body shape, communication style, ethnicity, social, economic advantage/disadvantage, sexual orientation, and physical or intellectual disability (Craig, Sue, Murphy & Bauer, 2010; Estell, Farmer, Irvin, Crowther, Akos & Boudah, 2009; Harries, Petrie & Willoughby, 2002; Olweus 1997; Scherr & Larson, 2010). Childhood developmental stages determine the methods of bullying, with physical and verbal abuse increasing throughout early childhood and declining in junior high where it is gradually replaced by relational bullying. Relational bullying then increases into adolescence and declines thereafter (Craig & Pepler, 2003; Smith, Cousins & Stewart, 2005).

Victims generally exhibit personality traits and behaviors that predispose them to victimization and indicate that they are less likely than others to be able to defend themselves against physical or psychological attack (Farrell, 1995; Hazler et al., 1997). Victims are commonly lacking self-esteem and are predisposed to a high tendency to self-blame, may cry easily, and be disposed to high levels of anxiety and signs of depression (Farrell, 1995; Hazler, Carney, Green, Powell & Jolly, 1997; Sullivan, Clearly & Sullivan, 2005). Although many male victims commonly enjoy close family relationships (Nickerson, Mele & Princiotta, 2008), children from abusive families and those with authoritarian parents are at the highest risk of being bullied (Swearer & Doll, 2001). Overall, victims of chronic bullying have personality traits more often associated with sensitivity and lack of aggressive tendencies (Olweus, 1999).

Recommendations for the treating clinician

The AAP and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine recommend that health-care providers are involved in prevention and intervention efforts around bullying. Screening for peer victimization can occur during all routine medical appointments with special consideration given to those who are at greater risk (Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention, 2009; Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005). Table 7.5 provides information about how to talk with patients about bullying.

Table 7.5. Clinician tips for working with children who bully others.

1.

Figure out if the behavior is bullying (i.e., ascertain if there is a power imbalance, if it occurs repeatedly and over time)

Listen carefully and without judgment

Call the behavior bullying if it is bullying

Deconstruct any blaming and depersonalization of the target. Do not assign blame yourself, rather show empathy for the bully and the victim and their experiences

Help the parent to set clear expectations for behavior

Help the parent to develop a system involving natural consequences for bullying behavior

Provide alternative opportunities for leadership skills (if appropriate)

Refer to behavioral health if not already in place (especially if bully-victim). Update the existing clinician, if the family is already working with one

Assess for safety at home and school. (Is the child's safety threatened? Is the safety of another person threatened?) Report safety concerns immediately to parents/school personnel as appropriate. Report unsafe living circumstances/maltreatment to Children’s Services if identified

Schedule follow up

The AAP addresses bullying in the policy statement “Role of the pediatrician in youth violence prevention” (Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention, 2009). This statement notes that pediatricians can collectively contribute to youth violence prevention through promotion of parenting skills. In addition, pediatricians can provide screening to recognize bullying in primary care and appropriate referral for children who are either targets of bullying or who actively bully. While there are no official practice guidelines regarding bullying, the AAP has developed curricula such as Connected Kids: Safe, Strong, and Secure (CKSSS), which it recommends pediatricians use. Among other things, the CKSSS curriculum recommends that it should be explained to children that they should seek help from an adult if they think a fight is going to begin or bullying is occurring. CKSSS recommends that anticipatory guidance regarding bullying prevention should be introduced at the 6-year-old routine health-care maintenance (RHCM) visit, with reinforcement of the topic at the 8-year-old RHCM visit (AAP, 2009).

Clinicians also can use preventive measures such as encouraging patients to find enjoyable activities that promote confidence and self-esteem, model how to treat others with kindness and respect, and encourage patients to seek positive friendships (Stephens, Cook-Fasano, & Sibbaluca, 2018).

Clinicians who care for children can play a unique and important role in addressing all forms of bullying, including specific populations of children vulnerable to bullying such as children with special health-care needs and children who identify as LGBTQ. If youth are accompanied by parents, clinicians can aim to spend one-on-one time with youth to ask about issues that they may not feel comfortable discussing in front of their parents, including experiences of bullying (Hadland, Yehia, & Makadon, 2016).

They can educate parents and youth about how to recognize and respond to bullying. They may be in unique positions to identify youth who are targets of LGBTQ bullying, as many youth, including LGBTQ youth, who are bullied do not tell adults, including parents and teachers, because they worry about how these adults will react. The use of electronic psychosocial assessment tools, such as myAssessment or the Rapid Assessment for Adolescent Preventive Services, to identify high-risk behaviors may increase rates of disclosure and be a time-saving step for busy clinicians (Stephens et al., 2018).

Pediatric clinicians can ask youth about experiences of bullying and can look for symptoms indicating that youth have been bullied (such as signs of physical injury and or psychosomatic symptoms). Clinicians should refer youth experiencing clinically significant depressive, anxiety, or other psychological symptoms to appropriate mental health services (Earnshaw et al., 2017). When bullying is identified, clinicians can also reach out to school counselors and nurses to assist and advocate for their patients. They can refer families to school policies that address bullying. All US states have laws or policies about bullying prevention in schools. Information about each state’s antibullying laws and policies can be found at the StopBullying.gov website. Clinicians should be knowledgeable about their states’ policies and laws and prepared to help parents to advocate for the inclusion of evidence-based, school-wide prevention programs in their children’s schools. In addition, clinicians and their health-care teams can assist parents with including provisions about bullying in their child’s 504 Plan or IEP. Finally, clinicians should follow up with families to ensure that appropriate services are in place and that interventions have been successful.