Content uploaded by Seok Jeng Jane Lim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Seok Jeng Jane Lim on Sep 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
School Psychology International
1–15
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0143034315571158
spi.sagepub.com
Article
Bullying in an
increasingly diverse
school population:
A socio-ecological model
analysis
Seok Jeng Jane Lim
Middle Tennessee State University, TN, USA
James L. Hoot
State University of Buffalo, NY, USA
Abstract
Systematic research into bullying has a short history spanning about 40 years. However,
investigations into school bullying from a multicultural context are especially limited. As
schools in the 21st century become increasingly diverse due to rapid globalization and
immigration, there is a need to consider bullying within changing populations. The goals
of this study were three-fold. First, to explore the prevalence of bullying between
refugee, immigrant, and native born children. Second, to explore the impact of immi-
gration status, and age and gender on the prevalence of bullying. Finally, through a socio-
ecological model framework, this study examined the influence of individuals and tea-
chers upon bullying among refugee children. This study employed a mixed methodology
consisting of both the Swearer Bully Survey and in-depth interviews. A purposeful
sampling of 116 Grade 3 and Grade 6 students and 13 teachers from an inner city
USA public school participated. Quantitative results suggest that statistically significant
differences were found only in regard to grade level. A new image of the concept of
‘victim’ emerged from the qualitative data. Refugee children responded as non passive
victims in contrast to the ‘passive victim’ adopted by immigrant and native born children.
Keywords
Bullying, diverse, immigrants, mixed methodologies, refugees
Corresponding author:
Seok Jeng Jane Lim, Middle Tennessee State University, 1301 East Main Street, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA.
Email: Jane.lim@mtsu.edu
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Bullying has gained tremendous global media attention in recent years. Smith
(2010) suggests the surge in attention can be attributed to a number of forces.
These include: Rapid increase in our knowledge base, publicity given to bullying,
victim suicides, pressure from former victims and parents, and emerging legal
repercussions. According to the US Department of Education (2011), bullying in
school has become an urgent social, health, and education concern globally. To
address this important issue, in 2010 the US Departments of Education and Health
and Human Services organized the first Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention
Summit to study this phenomenon. Emerging from this summit was a heightened
concern regarding bullying. Similarly, this heightened concern is reflected in pub-
lication trends. In a recent meta-analysis of school bullying, researchers found that
from 1980–2000, there were fewer than 190 peer-reviewed articles published on the
topic compared to more than 600 articles published from 2000 to the present day
(Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010).
In 1998, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD) conducted a study using a survey developed by the World Health
Organization to explore bullying issues with a sample of 15,686 Grade 6 to
Grade 10 students (Cornell & Bandyopadhyay, 2010; Nansel et al., 2001).
Results suggest that nearly one-third of the sample reported being involved in
bullying. Of these, 13% reported being a bully, 10.6% reported being victims of
bullying and 6.3% reported being both (Nansel et al., 2001). These data suggest
that 30% of students in the USA are involved in some form of bullying behavior.
In a more recent survey of 9th to 12th graders, 20.1% of students reported
having been bullied on school property during the 12 months before the 2011
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (Centres for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2012). The prevalence of being bullied was highest among White
(22.9%), followed by Hispanic (17.6%), and Black (11.7%) students. Prevalence
of bullying was higher among 9th Graders (24.2%) as compared to the 12th
Graders (15.2%). In addition, according to UNICEF Office of Research (2013)
Innocenti Report Card, 11% to 53% of children aged 11, 13, and 15 in 29 devel-
oped countries reported ‘being bullied at least once in the past couple of months’
(p. 28). Unfortunately, there are currently few studies exploring the issue of bully-
ing at the levels where quality intervention is most likely to impact a decrease in this
global problem—in the early grades. This lack of research is especially the case
when considering one of the most vulnerable student groups in our world’s
schools—refugee children.
This study explores issues of bullying in the early grades among the most
vulnerable––refugee children. Specifically, the goals of this study were three-
fold. First, it explores the prevalence of bullying among refugee, immigrant,
and native born children in Grade 3 and Grade 6 classrooms. Second, it
considers the impact of immigration status, age, and gender on the prevalence
of bullying, Finally through a social-ecological model framework, this study
examined the influence of individuals and teachers on bullying among refugee
children.
2School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Conceptual framework of this research
A social-ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) has been commonly used to
study school violence and has been extended to bullying and peer victimization
influenced by the individual, family, peer group, school, community, and society
(Espelage & Swearer, 2010). Bullying is not just a group phenomenon determined
by the characteristics of bullies and victims but the social relationship within the
groups (Fandrem, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2009). According to Swearer, Espelage,
Vaillancourt, and Hymel (2010), an ecological perspective provides ‘a conceptual
framework to investigate the combined impact of social contexts and influences on
behavioral development’ (p. 42). Moreover, Hazler and Carney (2010) propose that
the social-ecological perspective integrates ‘the fullest possible diversity of people
and groups into community planning and implementation effort’ (p. 428).
School bullying
School bullying has been a major societal concern for generations (Carney &
Merrell, 2001). With greatly increasing globalization, Scherr and Larson (2010)
suggest the school context is a likely location for bullying to occur because of
the rapidly increasing immigrant, racial, and ethnic composition of classrooms.
The presence of these new immigrants and refugees in the receiving country can
result in perceived resource competition, differing value systems, and possible sus-
picion due to the increased focus on security as a response to global terrorism.
While victimization is a distressing experience in any context, it is made worse when
the victim is a refugee since bullying might be based upon the child’s ethnic, racial
identity, or immigration status.
Bullying and immigration status
The United States is known as a land of immigrants. These immigrants, however,
are generally subdivided into three broad categories: (1) voluntary immigrants who
left their places of birth by choice (Adams & Kirova, 2006); (2) refugees and asylum
seekers who enter the country not by choice; and (3) undocumented immigrants
who enter the country illegally. Suarez-Orozco (2001) predicts that by 2020, one in
every five students will be an immigrant or a child of immigrants. The rapid influx
of these migrants and refugees might present resource competition and differing
value systems in the host country (Scherr & Larson, 2010). Since immigrants and
refugees are becoming such a rapidly growing population, it is important for school
personnel (e.g. teachers and school psychologists) to educate themselves about this
emerging group.
Soriano and Soriano (1994) further suggest that ignorance of increasing diver-
sity and insensitivity may increase the likelihood of school violence—even with
students from the same ethnic background because of differences in class and
generations. McKenney, Pepler, Craig, and Connolly (2006) coined the term
Lim and Hoot 3
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
‘ethnic bullying’ to describe when bullying occurs on the basis of differences in
ethnic background or cultural identity. This form of bullying may include ‘direct
forms of aggression such as racial taunts and slurs, derogatory references to cultu-
rally-specific customs, foods, and customs, as well as indirect forms of aggression,
such as exclusion from a mainstream group or peers because of ethnic differences’
(p. 242). Scherr and Larson (2010) expanded this definition to include ‘immigrant
bullying’ as ‘bullying that targets another’s immigrant status or family history of
immigration in the form of taunts and slurs, derogatory references to the immi-
gration process, physical aggression, social manipulation, or exclusion because
of immigration status’ (p. 225). While the presence of diversity may not result in
ethnic or immigrant bullying, it can present differential social status that is a pre-
requisite for bullying.
Bullying and age
Bullying is a transnational issue (Cook et al., 2010). There have been mixed results
in research pertaining to bullying behavior and age. However, studies of the tran-
sition from elementary to middle school have shown interesting results. Smith
(2010), investigated bullying intervention programs in schools and found that inter-
vention is more successful in elementary as compared to middle schools. This
suggests that bullying behavior seems to increase when children approach middle
school as compared to elementary school (Cook et al., 2010; Jenson, Dieterich,
Brisson, Bender, & Powell, 2010; Shariff, 2008).This could be due to the maturation
of students from child to adolescence as well as organizational changes in the
school.
Bullying and gender
Research on bullying pertaining to gender differences has also produced mixed
results. Several studies indicated boys bully more than girls and that boys are
also bullied more (Cross, Hall, Hamilton, Pintabona, & Erceg, 2004; Pellegrini &
Bartini, 2000; Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Galen and Underwood (1997), for exam-
ple, found that girls engaged in more social aggression whereas boys engaged in
more physical aggression. On the other hand, Swearer and Carey (2003) found no
significant differences in perceptions and attitudes of males and females towards
bullying in a five-year longitudinal study among 133 middle school youth from
Grades 6–8. Expanding on this research, the current study seeks to explore poten-
tial gender differences in Grades 3 and 6.
Instruments for assessing bullying
One of the earliest instruments to assess bullying was developed by Olweus (1993).
This instrument collected data from three target groups—the school, the class-
room, and the individual. Using this instrument, Olweus assessed an anti-bullying
4School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
program in Norway and found that it significantly reduced bullying. The positive
results have led other countries to adopt or adapt Olweus’ bullying prevention
program in their school. However, the Olweus program did not have universal
positive results. Olweus and Limber (2010) proposed that this could be due to
the cultural adaptation of the Olweus Bully Prevention Program.
Although the Olweus Bully Prevention Program has been the most widely used
international anti-bullying programs, other bully preventive measures have also
been proposed such as the Reynolds Bully Victimization Scales (2003) and
Swearer Bully Survey (2001, 2003) (Greif & Furlong, 2006). The Swearer Bully
Survey (2001, 2003) has been used in assessing bullying experience in school. Since
1998, the Swearer Bully instrument has been used in the USA, Germany,
Guatemala, and Peru (Swearer & Cary, 2003). Grief and Furlong (2006) completed
a comparative study on core components of these three bully prevention instru-
ments and found that the Swearer Bully Survey (2001) differs from the others since
it collects data from multiple informants such as parents and teachers as well as
student participants. Since children are impacted by the different systems within the
environment, this study employed the Swearer Bully Survey as instrument for this
study.
Research methodology
This study adopted a mixed methodology consisting of the Swearer Bully Survey
(2001, 2003) and qualitative interviews. The Swearer Bully Survey was used since it
took into consideration the perspectives of both teachers and children. However,
the researcher was required to adapt this instrument by adding pictures to the
original since picture adaptations were a more reliable way of gaining responses
to questions asked when there were more than 50 different languages spoken in the
school studied. This concept was adopted from the Picture Exchange
Communication Systems (PECS). Once questionnaires were completed, data
were input into SPSS software. ANOVA was used to determine significance of
variables under investigation. Qualitative interviews followed surveys to triangulate
the information and provide a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.
Quantitative methods are applied to the Swearer Bully Survey system consisting
of: (1) elementary (BYS-E; 44 items) and (2) teachers (BYS-T; 28 items). The
elementary version (BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) is a four-part (A–D) survey for
Grades 3 to 6 that queries students regarding their experiences with bullying,
perceptions of bullying, and attitudes toward bullying. Two more questions on
country of birth and the immigration status of the child were added to the original
BYS-E. The Bully Survey–Teacher Version (BYS-T) (Swearer, 2003) is a three-part
survey (A–C) that queries teachers regarding their experiences observing bullying
among students, perceptions of bullying, and attitudes towards bullying.
Since this investigation was not conducted with assured anonymity, a ‘confirm-
ing sample’ (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008) was incorporated to validate the findings
through an 11-question qualitative interview. The questions attempted to elicit
Lim and Hoot 5
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
from the participant’s the definition of a bully, a victim, and how the school and
home can ensure a safer place for children.
Measures and variables. The dependent variable in this study was the prevalence of
bullying in three areas: Prevalence of being bullied; prevalence of witnessing bully-
ing; and prevalence of being a bully. The dependent variable was a quantitative
variable based on a five point scale. The independent variables in this study were
categorical variables consisting of: (1) immigration status (refugee, immigrant, and
native born); (2) age (Grades 3 and 6); and (3) gender.
Sample
The sample in this study was drawn from an urban public school in a large metro-
politan area where classes consisted of a mixed group of refugee, immigrant, and
native born children. This school was chosen because it had students from more
than 30 countries speaking over 50 different languages. The largest groups among
these came from Burma, Somalia, Yemen, Thailand, Iraq, and Burundi. This study
included 51 Grade 3 students from five classrooms and 65 Grade 6 students from
six classrooms. Ages ranged from 7- to 14-years-old (N¼116). Descriptive statis-
tics indicated refugee children formed the majority immigration status in both
Grade 3 (57%) and Grade 6 (43%) classes. Of 116 respondents, breakdown of
the immigration status were as follows with refugees forming the majority 49%
(N¼57), followed by native born 28% (N¼32), and immigrants 23% (N¼27).
Grades 3 and 6 participants are presented in Tables 1 and 2 by classroom and their
immigration status, respectively.
Table 2. Grade 6 participant immigration status.
Immigration
status Classroom 1 Classroom 2 Classroom 3 Classroom 4 Classroom 5 Classroom 6
Refugee 6 3 10 7 2 0
Immigrant 3 3 3 5 1 0
Native born 5 2 5 2 3 5
Total 14 8 18 14 6 5
Table 1. Grade 3 participant immigration status.
Immigration Status Classroom 1 Classroom 2 Classroom 3 Classroom 4 Classroom 5
Refugee 2 3 9 5 10
Immigrant 4 0 3 5 0
Native born 3 1 3 1 2
Total 9 4 15 11 12
6School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Following the survey, a sample of 22 students were selected for follow-up inter-
views. Students were selected based on survey findings indicating a high prevalence
of bullying either as a victim, bystander, or bully and also their ability to commu-
nicate in English. In Grade 3, three refugees, three immigrants, and four native
born children were interviewed. In Grade 6, four refugees, one immigrant, and
seven native born children were interviewed. A total of seven refugees, four immi-
grants, and 11 native born children were interviewed.
Thirteen teachers participated; of the teacher sample, 11 were female and two
males. A majority were Caucasian (85%) with a minority of Latino (7%) and Asian
(7%). Ages of the teachers ranged from 26 years to 65 years, with 54% between the
ages of 26- to 35-years-old; 15% between 36- to 45-years-old; 23% between 46- to
55-years-old and 7% between 56- to 65-years-old.
Results
This study hypothesized that refugee students would be subjected to more bullying.
Part A of the elementary version (BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) was completed by 39
respondents with the dependent variable as prevalence of being bullied. Data sug-
gest that more Grade 3 (59%) respondents identified themselves as victims than
Grade 6 (41%) students. Employing two-way ANOVA, immigration status showed
no significance differences, F(2, 33) ¼0.698, p>0.05 (Table 3). This suggests
that refugee children were not subjected to a higher prevalence of victimization.
However, a statistically significant main effect was found for grade level, F(1,
33) ¼6.400, p<0.05. This suggests that Grade 3 children (M¼27.7) were bullied
more than Grade 6 children (M¼18.7).
Part B of the elementary version (BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) was completed by
39 respondents with the dependent variable as prevalence of witnessing bullying.
Of these, 41% of the native born students witnessed bullying as compared to 38%
of refugee children and 21% of immigrant children. A two-way ANOVA found no
statistically significant main effect for immigration status F(2, 33) ¼0.184, p>0.05
and grade level, F(1, 33) ¼0.454, p>0.05.
Part C of the elementary version (BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) was completed by
15 respondents with the dependent variable as prevalence of being a bully. More
Table 3. Prevalence of being bullied, two-way ANOVA.
Source df F p
(A) Immigration 2 0.698 75.809 0.505
(B) Grade 1 6.400 695.468 0.016*
AB (interaction) 2 0.262 28.428 0.771
Error (within groups) 33 108.658
Note: *p<0.05.
Lim and Hoot 7
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
native born children (47%) admitted to being a bully as compared to refugee
children (33%) and immigrant children (20%). In addition to a rather
small response rate, the results for this variable were not surprising as the
survey was not anonymous so few would admit to being a bully. Employing
two-way ANOVA, results showed there was no statistically significant
main effect for immigration status F(2, 9) ¼2.414, p>0.05 and grade level,
F(1, 9) ¼2.516, p>0.05.
The second hypothesis explored sought to determine if immigration status,
grade level, and gender influenced bullying. Part A of the elementary version
(BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) was completed by 39 respondents with the dependent
variable as prevalence of being bullied. More Grade 3 (59%) than Grade 6
(41%) respondents identified themselves as having been a victim. Of these, refugee
children comprised 62% of the sample as compared to 20% of native born children
and 18% of immigrant children.
Employing a three-way ANOVA, immigration status, F(2, 27) ¼0.765, p>0.05
and gender, F(1, 27) ¼0.629, p>0.05 showed no significant differences. However,
a statistically significant main effect was found for grade level, F(1, 27) ¼4.691,
p<0.05 (Table 4).
Post hoc comparisons were employed to assess possible differences between
immigration status, grade level, and gender. None was found. However, descriptive
statistics suggests that more Grade 3 children (M¼27.7) were being bullied than
Grade 6 children (M¼18.7).
Part B of the elementary version (BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) was completed by 39
respondents with the dependent variable as prevalence of witnessing bulling. More
boys (54%) than girls (46%) admitted witnessing bullying. Of these, 41% of native
born witnessed bullying compared to 38% refugee children and 21% of immigrant
children. A three-way ANOVA found no statistically significant main effect for
grade level, F(1, 27) ¼1.060, p>0.05, immigration status, F(2, 27) ¼0.197,
p>0.05, and gender, F(1, 27) ¼2.081, p>0.05.
Table 4. Prevalence of being bullied, three-way ANOVA.
Source df F p
(A) Immigration 2 0.765 88.441 0.475
(B) Grade 1 4.691 542.384 0.039*
(C) Gender 1 0.629 72.771 0.434
AB (interaction) 2 0.312 36.030 0.735
AC (interaction) 2 0.046 5.309 0.955
BC (interaction) 1 0.248 28.659 0.623
ABC (interaction) 2 0.867 100.226 0.432
Error (within groups) 27 115.614
Note: *p<0.05.
8School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Part C of the elementary version (BYS-E) (Swearer, 2001) was completed by
15 respondents with the dependent variable as prevalence of being a bully. Of these,
more native born children (47%) admitted to being a bully as compared to refugee
children (33 %) and immigrant children (20%). A three-way ANOVA found no
statistically significant main effect for grade level, F(1, 4) ¼2.362, p>0.05, immi-
gration status, F(2, 4) ¼2.480, p>0.05 and gender, F(1, 4) ¼2.881, p>0.05.
The third research question adopted a social-ecological model framework to
examine the influence of individuals and teachers upon bullying among refugee
children. Of the 22 children interviewed, seven were refugee children from Grade 3
(N¼3) and Grade 6 (N¼4). Of these, four were girls and three boys. These
refugees came from Africa, Myanmar, Cambodia, Iraq, Rwanda, and Thailand.
A new image of ‘victim’ emerged from the results when comparing the definitions
of bully and victim among the interviewees.
The image of the victim described by both grade levels portrays a child calling
for help. One of the Grade 6 African refugees stated ‘A victim is scared, he or she
needs help, they feel like they are prisoner ...want to move on with life’. The
refugee children consistently expressed the notion that ‘the victim is someone
who is picked on by a bully and has always been bullied’. This description rein-
forced Olweus’ (2010) criterion of repetition as part of the definition for bullying.
Refugee children also shared the characteristics of a victim as someone who is quiet
and shy but at the same time can be angry. Victims’ academic performance is
affected as a Cambodian refugee shared ‘He doesn’t complete his homework, he
gets bad behavior points’. As a result, a Grade 3 refugee said ‘...it makes them not
come to school’.
A different image of a victim, however, emerged from a Grade 6 refugee from
Iraq as ‘someone who tries to defend themselves’. This new image seemed to sug-
gest that the victim was trying to take control of the situation, being more active
than passive in the bullying scenario. The non-passive image was also supported
by a Grade 3 Thai refugee: ‘When they are mean to me, I tell don’t treat me like
that. If they actually hit me, I say don’t touch me’; his defensive response results
in the bully leaving him alone. This response appears to be more of a ‘non passive’
victim.
In addition to being non-passive, three of the Grade 6 refugees suggested they
would report the bullying situation to the teacher, principal, and parents. Although
the outcome is not always positive (as stated by one African refugee child, ‘I tell the
teacher but she is always telling me to ignore that person but it never works’)
it illustrates how a victim can take action instead of demonstrating passivity.
The image of a non-passive victim seemed more prevalent among refugee children
than native born and immigrants. One native born in Grade 6 responded, ‘They
know I won’t do anything about it’. Other native born and immigrants inter-
viewed would walk away but none would react visibly or act upon the bullying
situation. Perhaps, since refugee children have experienced the trauma of war and
separation, they have learned to be more resilient and exhibit an image of a non-
passive victim.
Lim and Hoot 9
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Discussion
Moving from a passive to non-passive victim
Data from this study did not support the notion that refugee children are subjected
to a higher prevalence of bullying. However, one of the major outcomes of this
investigation was the responses towards bullying among the refugee, immigrant,
and the native born children in the classroom. Refugee children tended to react
as non-passive victims as compared to the passive traits displayed by immigrant
and native born children. Passive victims were defined as those who did not react
visibly or act upon the bullying situation. Non- passive victims, on the other hand,
were defined as those who reacted to bullying by defending themselves and by
reporting to a higher authority (e.g. teacher, principal) during the bullying
encounter.
This study supports a new category of victims as non-passive. This finding
contrasts with data reported by Petrosino, Guckenburg, DeVoe, and Hanson
(2010) who reported that 64% of respondents who experienced bullying did
not report it. Newman, Murray, and Lussier (2001) acknowledged the vital role
of the victim, yet limited research is based on the victim’s decision to seek help
rather than remaining silent. Rigby (2012) also addressed the importance of
strengthening the victim to become more assertive when bullied. He further
acknowledged that empirical study in this area of research is still lacking.
No one chooses to be victimized. However, if victims could be supported in
moving from being passive to non-passive, then the bullying cycle might be
short-circuited.
According to Nastasi and Naser (2014), the school psychologist is regarded as
the ‘mesosystem in the child’s ecology’ in ensuring protection from all forms of
violence and refugee status and promotion of children’s rights within school,
family, community, and society (pp. 36, 44). As teachers and school psychologists
work with an increasingly diverse school population globally, this study suggests a
range of differing reactions of victimized children—especially refugee victims.
Refugee children have been subjected to prior trauma and this resiliency could
be their way of coping when faced with adversity. Data from this study suggests
a need to investigate more globally the international bullying phenomenon so
schools have a better understanding of means to prevent bullying in our growing
multicultural school settings.
Implications of bullying to future acts of violence
One of the statistically significant findings of this study was differences in bullying
among grade levels. Grade 3 children were subjected to a higher prevalence of
victimization as compared to Grade 6 children. This study also supported other
research that found higher victimization among younger children in the school
(Nishioka, Coe, Burke, Hanita, & Sprague, 2011; Vaillancourt et al., 2008) This
10 School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
suggests that bullying might occur regardless of immigration status and may be
starting at a younger age than previously imagined. This is an alarming wake-up
call for policy makers, researchers, psychologists, and educators who need to con-
sider that aggression can take place within the younger age groups. Moreover, just
as aggression may be happening earlier, appropriate early intervention is likely to
produce significantly greater long-term socio-economic dividends.
The qualitative findings of this study also suggest the potential of current bully-
ing behavior to future acts of bullying. This was vocalized by a Grade 6 African
refugee boy who stated ‘cause I believe that what you learn in school helps you
understand how to act outside of school, they were bullied, so they learned to be
bullies, then they need to bully ...’. The Centre for the Study and Prevention of
Violence (2001, 2008) suggests that bullies are up to four times as likely as non-
bullies to be convicted of crimes by age 24. Moreover, bullying victimization has
been related to school shootings and this cycle of violence can progress to adult-
hood in the form of dating violence, harassment, assault, child abuse, and hate
crimes (Greif & Furlong, 2006).
Developing a more culturally appropriate bullying instrument
The Swearer Bully Survey was employed in this study because it collected data
from both children and teachers. Since the diverse school population of this study
consisted of refugees, immigrant, and native born children, many did not have the
English literacy capability to complete the original 17-page survey. As a result, the
survey was extended to include pictorial representations. Rigby’s (2010) Peer
Relations Assessment Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R) bully instrument also
adopts pictorials for young children with limited reading skills. Although adding
pictures to the original Swearer Bully Survey aided the refugee and immigrant
children’s comprehension, there is still a need to consider the cultural appropriate-
ness of the pictorial presentation as each culture might have a different interpret-
ation of the pictures. A pictorial bully survey instrument for elementary and middle
school children can be used as a bridge to investigate the bullying phenomenon for
younger children and children with limited English capacities from a diverse
culture.
Building a safer school for better learning
Maintaining a safe school is a top priority for schools. However, one of the major
challenges in accomplishing this task is the increasing prevalence of bullying.
Higher prevalence of school bullying is negatively related to academic performance
especially in the areas of mathematics and reading (Konishi, Hymel, Zumbo, & Li,
2010). This finding was supported in the current study in the qualitative interviews.
This study also suggests that teachers and children may have a different under-
standing of the prevalence of bullying in schools. When comparing the Swearer
Lim and Hoot 11
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Bully Survey-Elementary and Teacher Version, results suggest that children may be
victimized more frequently than teachers and school psychologists realize. Children
who are victimized felt that 44% of the teachers in this study were unaware of their
bullied status. Teachers might have a different interpretation of bullying. Rigby
(2012) suggests the need to distinguish between aggressive acts and bullying behav-
ior. There is, then, a need to consider more qualitative interviews with teachers to
better understand the adult’s perception of the prevalence of bullying. In an inter-
national meta-analysis of bullying research, Altomare, McCrimmon, and Beran
(2013) found that teacher involvement is rated by students as the most powerful
strategy for addressing bullying. This suggests that in addition to school psycholo-
gists working with children who are being victimized, it may be equally important to
work with teachers in establishing their definition of bullying and providing bullying
prevention strategies for them. If there is no consensus to the bullying phenomenon,
it will be difficult to ensure a safe school environment for all children to learn.
References
Adams, L. D., & Kirova, A. (2006). Introduction: Global migration and the education of
children. In L. D. Adams, & A. Kirova (Eds), Global migration and education: Schools,
children, and families (pp. 1–12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Altomare, A. A., McCrimmon, A. W., & Beran, T. N. (2013). Bullying across the globe.
School Psychology International, 1–14, Retrieved from http://spi.sagepub.com/site/spe-
cial_issues/globalbullying.xhtml
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding
and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International,22(3),
364–382, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034301223011.
Centre for the Study and Prevention of Violence (2001, 2008). Safe communities––safe school
fact sheet. Retrieved from www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/safeschools/
FS-SC07.pdf
Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance––
United States, 2011. Surveillance Summaries, 2012. MMWR 2012; 61 (N0. SS–4)
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6104.pdf
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors
of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investi-
gation. School Psychology Quarterly,25(2), 65–83, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0020149.
Cornell, D. G., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2010). The assessment of bullying. In S. R. Jimerson,
S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international
perspective (pp. 265–276). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cross, D., Hall, M., Hamilton, G., Pintabona, Y., & Erceg, E. (2004). Australia: The
Friendly Schools project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds), Bullying in
schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp 187–210). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584466.011.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2010). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention
and intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds), Handbook of
12 School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 61–72). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Fandrem, H., Strohmeier, D., & Roland, E. (2009). Bullying and victimization among native
and immigrant adolescents in Norway: The role of proactive and reactive aggressiveness.
The Journal of Early Adolescence,29(6), 898–923, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0272431609332935.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education
(7th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Galen, B., & Underwood, M. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression
among children. Developmental Psychology,33(4), 589–600, doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037//0012-1649.33.4.589.
Greif, J. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). The assessment of school bulling: Using theory to
inform practice. Journal of School Violence,5(3), 33–50.
Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2010). Cultural variations in characteristics of effective
bullying programs. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds),
Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 417–430). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Jenson, J. M., Dieterich, W. A., Brisson, D., Bender, K. A., & Powell, A. (2010). Preventing
childhood bullying: Findings and lessons from the Denver Public Schools trial. Research
on Social Work Practice,20(5), 509–517, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1049731509359186.
Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., & Li, Z. (2010). Do school bullying and student-
teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel analysis. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology,25(1), 19–39, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0829573509357550.
McKenney, K. S., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2006). Peer victimization and
psychosocial adjustment: The experiences of Canadian immigrant youth. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,9(4), 239–264.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psycho-
social adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association,285(16), 2094–2100,
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.
Nastasi, B. K., & Naser, S. (2014). Child rights as a framework for advancing professional
standards for practice, ethics, and professional development in school psychology.
School Psychology International,35(1), 36–49, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0143034313512409.
Newman, R. S., Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Confrontation with aggressive peers at
school students’ reluctance to seek help from the teacher. Journal of Educational
Psychology,93(2), 398–410.
Nishioka, V., Coe, M., Burke, A., Hanita, M., & Sprague, J. (2011). Student-
reported overt and relational aggression and victimization in Grades 3–8.
Issues and Answers Report,REL 2011-No. 114. Washington DC: US
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Centre
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?
pubid¼REL2011114.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Lim and Hoot 13
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S.
R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds), Handbook of bullying in schools:
An international perspective (pp. 9–33). New York, Ny: Routledge.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,80(1),
124–134, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and
peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American
Educational Research Journal,37(3), 699–725, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00028312037003699.
Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J., & Hanson, T. (2010). What characteristics of
bullying, bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bullying
to school officials? Issues & Answers Report,REL 2010-No. 092. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Centre for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/
project.asp?ProjectID¼239
Rigby, K. (2010). Peer Relations Assessment Questionnaires–revised (PRAQ-R). Australia:
ACER Press.
Rigby, K. (2012). What schools may do to reduce bullying. In S. R. Jimerson, A.
B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds), Handbook of school violence and
school safety: International research and practice (2nd ed). (pp. 397–408). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Scherr, T. G., & Larson, J. (2010). Bullying dynamics associated with race, ethnicity, and
immigration status. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds), Handbook
of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 223–234). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the
home. Abingdon: Routledge.
Smith, P. K. (2010). Bullying in primary and secondary schools: Psychological and organ-
izational comparisons. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds),
Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 137–150). New York,
Ny: Routledge.
Soriano, M., & Soriano, F. I. (1994). School violence among culturally diverse populations:
Sociocultural and institutional considerations. School Psychology Review,23(2), 216–235.
Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Globalization, immigration and education: The research
agenda. Harvard Educational Review,71(3), 345–365.
Swearer, S. M. (2001). The Bully Survey. Unpublished manuscript, The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Swearer, S. M. (2003). The Bully Survey. Unpublished manuscript, The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Swearer, S. M., & Carey, P. T. (2003). Perceptions and attitudes toward bullying in middle
school youth: A developmental examination across the bully/victim continuum. Journal
of Applied School Psychology,19(2), 63–79, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J008v19n02_05.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done
about school bullying?: Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher,
39(1), 38–47, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357622.
14 School Psychology International
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
XML Template (2015) [2.2.2015–2:26pm] [1–15]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/SPIJ/Vol00000/150002/APPFile/SG-
SPIJ150002.3d (SPI) [PREPRINTER stage]
UNICEF Office of Research (2013). Child Well-being in Rich Countries:A comparative
overview, Innocenti Report Card 11. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. Retrieved
from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf
US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Department,
Policy and Program Studies Services (2011). Analysis of State bullying laws and
policies. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/
state-bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., ...Davis,
C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?.
International Journal of Behavioral Development,32(6), 486–495, doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0165025408095553.
Author biographies
Seok Jeng Jane Lim, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Department of
Elementary and Special Education at Middle Tennessee State University. Her pri-
mary research interest is focused on bullying with a special focus on refugees and
immigrants. She is the current President of Tennessee Association for Childhood
Education International (TACEI).
James L. Hoot, PhD, is a Professor at the Department of Learning and Instruction
at State University of New York at Buffalo. His primary research interest is
focused on issues concerning early childhood education globally. Dr Hoot is a
member of the Executive Board of the World Organization for Early Childhood
Education (OMEP USA) and has served two terms as President of the Association
for Childhood Education International (ACEI).
Lim and Hoot 15
by guest on February 7, 2015spi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
