Content uploaded by Jolita Vveinhardt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jolita Vveinhardt on May 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 409
HARASSMENT AND BULLYING AMONG STUDENTS
IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: MANIFESTATION
OF SINGLE CASES OF HARASSMENT AND BULLYING IN ASPECTS
OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Jolita Vveinhardt1, Vilija Bite Fominiene2, Regina Andriukaitiene3
and Dalia Streimikiene4
∗
1)Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania
2)3)4) Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania
Please cite this article as:
Vveinhardt, J., Fominiene, V.B., Andriukaitiene, R.
and Streimikiene, D., 2019. Harassment and Bullying
among Stude
nts in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment and
Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables.
Amfiteatru Economic, 21(51), pp. 409-426.
DOI: 10.24818/EA/2019/51/409
Article History
Received: 15 November 2018
Revised:3 February 2019
Accepted: 2 March 2019:
Abstract
The research goal - to analyse manifestations of single cases of harassment and bullying in
students' inter-relationship and to compare them in aspects of socio-demographic variables.
623 students studying at Lithuanian higher education institutions were questioned. We
determined a dependence of harassment and bullying on respondents' age: they were
experienced more often by 18-30 year-old students, whereas older students' complaints
were less. Older students more often requested for active policy of higher education
institutions in preventing negative relations. Women showed more initiative in seeking for
help, unlike men, experience of negative relations of which was higher in the past.
Harassment and bullying were more experienced by the students studying at higher
education colleges, unlike those studying at universities. The research results are significant
in striving for better perception of impact of harassment and bullying at higher education
institutions on demographic variables and negative inter-personal relationship experienced
at school age. This knowledge is necessary for higher education institutions preparing and
developing a prevention of harassment and bullying.
Keywords: harassment, bullying, demographic variables, higher education colleges,
universities, students.
JEL Classification: I20, I23, O15, P46
∗ Corresponding author, Dalia Streimikiene - dalia.streimikiene@knf.vu.lt
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
410 Amfiteatru Economic
Introduction
Higher education institutions constantly face challenges of diversity management. Studying
at higher education institution is selected by students of very different age, different inter-
personal relationship, working, learning and other experience, representatives of different
ethnic or social groups. That means that the obtained experience and knowledge might
determine very different reactions to harassment and bullying and decisions taken, which
has to be taken into account by higher education institutions' administrations in striving to
ensure safe environment of studies. Students' safety is an important part of higher education
institution's policy, which affects not only students' psychological well-being. Bullying is a
strong source of stress (Hoel, Zapf and Cooper, 2002) and very negatively affects victim's
physical and mental health, it is related to induced depression, anxiety, low self-esteem,
loneliness and hopelessness, which might lead to suicide attempts (Hong, Kral and
Sterzing, 2014). Harassment and bullying also negatively affect study process, and
influence a decision to choose one or another university, taking into account public
responses - it is determined that selections of future students depend on how an education
institution guaranties safety (Shelley et al., 2017).
Over the last decades there were performed quite a few harassment and bullying studies at
work place, i.e. between students and lecturers (e.g., DeSouza, 2010) or between higher
education institutions' staff (e.g., Kang and Sidhu, 2015), however, some negative aspects
of students' inter-relationship remain as if in a particular grey zone, and perpetrators not
always remain identified and punished (Vidu et al., 2014; Valls et al., 2016). Conclusions
of some researches on harassment and bullying performed in different cultures highlight
that, in striving to ensure students' well-being, prevention policy of education institutions is
important in tackling the problems related to bullying, assessing both direct interpersonal
relationship and tendencies of rapid spread of bullying in cyberspace (DeSouza and
Ribeiro, 2005; Valls et al., 2016; Betts et al., 2016; Myers and Cowie, 2017; etc.). Its
importance grows when it's set that persons belonging to more than one disadvantaged
groups more often suffer from assaults (Andersson et al., 2017), and some continuity exists,
because bullying in childhood is related to aggressive behaviour when the person is an adult
already (Sansone, Leung and Wiederman, 2012).
All that indicates both impact of student’s experience and wide and sophisticated reasons'
spectrum related to individual demographic and social characteristics of a victim, which are
important to be considered by the managers of higher education institutions who organize a
policy directed against harassment and bullying. It is also very important to assess students'
previous bullying experience and differences of the persons choosing different institutions
that is colleges and universities.
The research goal is to analyse manifestations of single cases of harassment and bullying in
students' inter-relationship and to compare them in aspects of socio-demographic variables.
1. Review of the scientific literature
Modern society expects that the graduate of higher education will become its full-fledged
member - creative, communicating and cooperating as well as able to tackle efficiently life
problems. Young people also expect that higher education studies will affect their future
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 411
and successful career. In striving for these goals, a safe learning environment in higher
education also becomes an important component (Chekwa, Thomas Jr. and Jones, 2013),
where importance of good socio-psychological climate is highlighted in addition to the
physical one (Hagenauer and Volet, 2014). Unfortunately, the researches, although stating
endeavour of higher education institutions to create an environment favourable to
education, also reveal manifestations of various forms of aggression inside it (Aleid, 2016),
where bullying is distinguished as the most dominating aggression form (Piotrowski and
King, 2016).
Bullying is a multifaceted phenomenon, spread in a society widely enough. At the same
time, it is also a very personal experience of each person (Meriläinen, Puhakka and
Sinkkonen, 2015). Such amplitude of the phenomenon also determines its conceptions'
diversity that is related to both the research context and the use of the concepts in different
cultures and languages. First, bullying can be understood as a repeated form of aggressive
behaviour - systematic abuse of power. However, to describe the concept of bullying, the
most often used concept is a wider one, explaining that it is “unwanted aggressive
behaviour” that “inflicts harm or distress,” and is “repeated multiple times or is highly
likely to be repeated” in the context of an “observed or perceived power differential”
(Patchin and Hinkduja, 2015).
To better understand and research this phenomenon, it is divided into different types and
analysed in different contexts. And though bullying can occur in different social settings
all around world - school, home, workplace, army, prison or other places (Monks et al.,
2009), here it is manifests into both direct and indirect modes. During direct bullying, the
victims are being openly threatened, nicknamed, harassed, attacked, beaten, kicked.
Meanwhile, indirect bullying is when manipulation of social relationships occurs on
purpose to hurt. Also bullying, considering its commonest forms, is divided into physical,
verbal, relational or social and cyber. The most common bullying forms, usually ascribed to
direct bullying, are physical and verbal bullying. During physical bullying, the bullies use
force to cause physical harm to victims. Meanwhile, verbal bullying, as one of the most
common forms of bullying, includes acts such as hurtful name-calling, persistent teasing,
gossip, and racist or sexual remarks. During such bullying, there are rumours, backbiting
spread on purpose to harm (Shaw et al., 2013). Meanwhile, cyber bullying is supposed as
one of the most pernicious and contemporary. It is a form of bullying when intentional and
repeating damage to person is done through computers, cell phones and other electronic
devices (Patchin and Hinduja, 2015).
However, analysing manifestation of these modes and forms of bullying, different
peculiarities of their manifestations were determined as well. Direct bullying is common in
young children. When a child grows, direct physical bullying gradually changes into verbal,
which gradually, when the child takes social understanding, turn into indirect and remains
dominant. In dominance of ways and forms of bullying, gender differences are significant
as well. Masculine gender is the gender that more often participates in direct and especially
direct physical bullying, meanwhile, girls are more implementing indirect or direct verbal
bullying (Smith, 2016; Jormanainen et al., 2014; Nishina, Juvonen and Witkow, 2005; etc.).
Since it is recognized that bullying is an extremely negative behaviour, their consequences
are painful and determine subsequent emotional and physical state and behaviour of the
persons participating. The researches analysing the relation between bullying
manifestations and participating persons determined that both victims or bullies, and
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
412 Amfiteatru Economic
bystanders become at risk for negative future outcomes. Manifestations of bad mental or
physical health could be determined by both the level of involvement into bullying and the
role taken. Victims of bullying most often suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal
thoughts, apathy, lack of personal satisfaction, feelings of sadness, unhappiness, loneliness
or self-esteem, they more often face sleeping difficulties and nervousness. Meanwhile,
being a bully can be related to highest use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs in future,
criminality (Blood and Blood, 2016; Seixas, Coelho and Nicholas-Fischer, 2013; Monks et
al., 2009; etc.).
Analysing bullying and its prevalence in various social contexts, most researches state that
involvement in bullying is mainly suffered by children and teenagers. Such understanding
determines the abundance of the researches preformed in the environment of primary and
secondary schools (Patton et al., 2017). However, recently, with emphasis that bullying
does not disappear with humans’ age, there is more and more interest in bullying existence
in higher education, by recognizing it as a sensitive and still unsolved problem (Kyriacou,
Mylonakou-Keke and Stephens, 2016). In this context, though recognizing the lack of
researches (Lund and Ross, 2016), bullying is examined by analysing both the relationship
between lecturers and students, and employees' relationship, and analysing the relationship
between students (Marraccini, Weyandt and Rossi, 2015; Perry and Blincoe, 2015;
Sinkkonen, Puhakka and Meriläinen, 2014; Serinkan et al., 2013; etc.). These researches
can be performed by using different measures, such as questionnaires, interviews, diaries,
observations that rely on different informants (Van Noorden et al., 2015). However, while
analysing bullying and its prevalence in higher education, self-report assessment is applied
most often, which helps to determine various bullying and victimization experiences.
Manifestation of bullying and harassment in relationship is determined from descriptions of
students' verbal and non-verbal communication, academic abuse (Palaz, 2013, Celik and
Bayraktar, 2004), behaviour of persons suffering from bullying and harassment (Cooper et
al., 2011) or damage suffered (Pickel and Gentry, 2017). The researches often analyse
persons' experience in childhood or at other education institutions (Holt et al., 2014; Adams
and Lawrence, 2011; Pontzer, 2010). The results of these researches are interpreted with
reference to both various cultural or socio-economic factors, education policies or
implemented intervention programmes, and various socio-demographic characteristics of
the researched persons (Porhola et al., 2016; Meriläinen, Puhakka and Sinkkonen, 2015).
Age, gender, ethnic origin, study course also might become significant factors in
explanation of quantitative manifestations of bullying and harassment in the context of
higher education (Goodboy, Martin and Goldman, 2016; Pontzer, 2010).
The results of the researches that indicate existence of the phenomenon in higher education,
often point out not only various negative psychosocial outcomes to participants of bullying
process. Alongside the phenomena such as use of alcohol or drugs, suicidal ideation, panic
attacks, stress and others (Birks et al., 2018; Cao, Wei and Cai, 2017; Jantzer and Cashel,
2017; Rospenda et al., 2014; etc.) a decision of the students who suffered bullying to leave
higher education institution is also pointed out (Cornell et al., 2013). In striving to avoid
various negative consequences and ensure students' well-being, it is important not only to
declare such negative behaviour, but also to look for efficient ways of solving the problem.
To this end, institutions of higher education increasingly provide various prevention or
intervention programs, which are directed towards reduction of aggressiveness in higher
education. Unfortunately, a considerable number of such programmes or single measures
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 413
are based on presumptions based on the researches performed in the context of secondary
or primary education (Glass and Fireman, 2016). One of the reasons is a lack of the
researches performed in the context of higher education.
2. Research methodology
The research instrument - questionnaire Bullying and Single Cases of Harassment in
Higher Education Institutions (B-SCH-St) which consists of 10 dimensions covering 42
items: communication (4 items, covering the character of student’s inter-communication in
higher education institution: harassing, ignoring, threatening, etc.), personal reputation (4
items, covering critics of personal features, values, etc.), student’s reputation (4 items,
covering the person’s reputation of a student by hiding important information, criticizing
performed work, etc.), experienced harm (5 items, covering worsening health, worsening
work results, stolen ideas and works, etc.), experiences at school (4 items that aim at
determining current students’ experiences brought from school in the aspect of pupil’s
destructive inter-relationship), reaction and behaviour (7 items, describing students’
personal reaction and behaviour regarding students’ destructive inter-relationship), possible
and existing intervention measures in higher education institution (8 items revealing
students’ opinion what measures would help to avoid abusive inter-relation among students
and 1 question, aimed at students’ proposals what could be done so that such abusive
relationship would be avoided at the institution of higher education) and 2 questions,
directly related to the topic being analysed (action of persons who were appealed for help
and single case of harassment and bullying dimensions) and 6 questions related to
information about the student. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha) for all
dimensions satisfy the major validity conditions raised for questionnaires because the
lowest value is 0.69, the highest - 0.88 (Vveinhardt et al, 2017; Vveinhardt et al., in press).
During the research 623 students from two types of Lithuanian higher education institutions
(9 universities and 9 higher education colleges) were questioned. Among respondents was
67.6 percent women (N=421) and 32.4 percent men (N=202), 33.1 percent was from higher
education colleges and 66.9 percents from universities. The greater part of the respondents
indicated that they are 21-25 year old (N=332). Others social demographic characteristics of
the persons under research together with the research results are presented in Tables no. 1-3.
The data collection procedure was realized in the months September-November of the year
2017 in Lithuanian higher education institutions. The autors were responsible for the data
collection and participation was entirely voluntary, confidential and anonymous.
Statistical analysis of the research data was carried out using SPSS (Statistical Package of
the Social Science) version 20.0. The following parameters were calculated: chi-square
criterion, applying cross-tabs and Kruskal Wallis H criterion.
3. Research results
During the research, while sorting out whether bullying exists in inter-relationship of higher
education institutions' students, it was determined that 81.54% of respondents (N=508)
stated that they are not experiencing bullying. However, 18.46% of the persons under
research (N=115) are experiencing bullying. They are often suffered by 1.6% (N=10) of
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
414 Amfiteatru Economic
respondents, and 17.82% (N=105) suffer bullying, but occasionally. The research results
through seven dimensions were compared considering such criteria: students' age, gender,
higher education institution's type and study cycle.
Table no. 1: Distribution of answers of students experiencing single cases of harassment
and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to age groups and dimensions
Dimensions
18-20
year
old
21-25
year
old
26-30
year
old
31-35
year
old
36-45
year
old
Chi-square
verification
results
Kruskal-
Wallis
H
verification
results
N =
158 N =
332 N = 47 N = 44 N = 42
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
X2 p X2 p
Communi-
cation
42.6% 36.7% 41.1% 20.5% 21.4% 11.234 0.024* – –
328.22 314.44 324.07 260.76 271.86 – – 9.809 0.044*
Personal
reputation
33.5% 32.8% 27.3% 25.5% 21.4% 3.695 0.449 – –
324.45 315.17 296.97 290.05 279.92 – – 4.715 0.318
Student's
reputation
35.4% 34.6% 34.0% 23.8% 25.0% 3.667 0.453 – –
320.10 316.05 311.59 279.70 283.82 – – 4.197 0.380
Experienced
harm 27.7% 32.5% 26.6% 18.2% 21.4% 6.179 0.186 – –
308.58 323.46 303.56 272.70 284.87 – – 7.147 0.128
Intervention
measures 67.2% 68.4% 81.0% 74.5% 77.3% 9.722 0.044* – –
292.18 302.24 368.24 344.26 366.98 – – 12.841 0.012*
Experience
at school 32.9% 26.8% 34.0% 29.5% 21.4% 3.704 0.448 – –
323.93 312.52 333.64 279.69 272.63 – – 4.839 0.304
Reaction
and
behaviour
74.5% 75.0% 72.9% 81.0% 76.6% 1.739 0.784 – –
304.98 310.47 294.22 335.94 345.31 – – 3.003 0.557
Notes: * - statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** - statistical significance level α = 0.01.
R.v. – average of ranks.
The number of students experiencing single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-
personal relationship, in some aspects significantly differs depending on age (5 age groups
distinguished). Verified by chi-square criterion, applying cross-tabs and Kruskal Wallis H
criterion, Table no. 2 presents the percentage of respondents' assent and ranks' averages
calculated from total sum of points. All statements were coded as negative, therefore, the
higher the value, the higher respondents' assent to distinguished statements. Accentuated
value of reliability p indicates statistically significant differences, in this case, in two
dimensions, i.e. in the dimensions „Communication” and „Intervention measures”. When
percentage or average are very similar to each other, in the sample of this research (and in a
particular dimension), then the determined difference is small and, therefore, p in such
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 415
cases does not indicate statistically significant differences. Statistically significant p
signifies that differences would be recorded in case not only of this, but of another sample
as well.
Analysing the communication dimension, it became clear that communication in younger
age groups (18-30 years) is more complicated than in older age groups (31-35 and 36-45
years). That means, the number of negative responses recorded in the students' group of age
up to 30 years was almost double.
Respondents' responses recorded in the dimension of intervention measures indicate that
the need for such measures is more highlighted in the age groups from 26 to 45 years.
Students representing the groups of 18-20 and 21-25 years are less categorical than the
persons belonging to older age groups. In this dimension, negative-positive responses are
less significant than in the dimension "Communication".
Table no. 2: Distribution of answers of students, experiencing single cases of harassment
and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to gender and dimensions
Dimensions
Women Man
Chi-square
verification
results
Mann-Whitney U
verification
results
N = 421 N = 202
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
X2 p U Z p
Communication 37.1% 34.2% 0.496 0.481 – – –
312.77 310.40 – – 42198.0 -0.179 0.858
Personal
reputation
31.2% 31.4% 0.002 0.967 – – –
310.25 315.65 – – 41784.5 -0.427 0.670
Student's
reputation
32.3% 35.6% 0.685 0.408 – – –
307.18 322.04 – – 40493.5 -1.153 0.249
Experienced
harm
28.3% 30.2% 0.248 0.618 – – –
308.86 318.55 – – 41198.0 -0.788 0.431
Intervention
measures
72.4% 63.9% 4.761 0.029* – – –
325.68 283.49 – – 36761.0 -2.742 0.006**
Experience at
school
25.7% 35.1% 6.010 0.014* – – –
301.34 334.23 – – 38031.5 -2.143 0.032*
Reaction and
behaviour
77.9% 67.8% 7.339 0.007** – – –
328.18 278.28 – – 35709.5
-3.274
0.001**
Notes: * - statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** - statistical significance level α = 0.01.
R.v. – average of ranks.
The number of students experiencing single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-personal
relationship, in some aspects significantly differs depending on gender, i.e. statistically
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
416 Amfiteatru Economic
significant differences were recorded in three dimensions. Verified by chi-square criterion,
applying cross-tabs and using Mann-Whitney U test (table no. 3). The results of the dimension
„Intervention measures” indicate, that female (students) position regarding the need for
intervention measures at higher education institutions is expressed stronger than that of male
(students). The results of the dimension „Experience at school” indicate that men (students)
had more negative experience at school than women (students). That means, male students
state that they experienced more bullying at school, saw more cases of bullying, when they
kept out of the conflict in order to avoid suffering, or just paid no attention. However, in the
dimension „Reaction and behaviour” it is highlighted that women are more applying for help
regarding single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-relationship than men. It can be
stated that such results could be conditioned by social constructs related to behaviour (in this
case a reaction to negative behaviour) norms based on sexuality.
Table no. 3: Distribution of answers of students experiencing single cases
of harassment and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to type of higher
education institution and dimensions
Dimensions
Higher
education
college
Univer-
sity Chi-square
verification
results
Mann-Whitney U
verification
results
N = 206 N = 417
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
X2 p U Z p
Communica-
tion
35.0% 36.7% 0.181 0.671 – – –
311.01 312.49 – – 42748.0 -0.112 0.911
Personal
reputation
27.7% 33.1% 1.886 0.17 – – –
302.97 316.46 – – 41091.5 -1.072 0.284
Student's
reputation
32.0% 34.1% 0.251 0.616 – – –
306.82 314.56 – – 41884.5 -0.603 0.546
Experienced
harm
25.2% 30.7% 1.995 0.158 – – –
301.16 317.35 – – 40718.5 -1.323 0.186
Intervention
measures
69.4% 69.8% 0.009 0.925 – – –
311.75 312.12 – – 42900.0 -0.024 0.981
Experience
at school
32.0% 27.1% 1.644 0.200 – – –
313.89 311.06 – – 42561.0 -0.185 0.853
Reaction
and
behaviour
69.9% 77.0% 3.647 0.046* – – –
291.84 321.96 – – 38798.5 -1.986 0.047*
Notes: * - statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** - statistical significance level α = 0.01.
R.v. – average of ranks.
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 417
The number of students experiencing single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-
personal relationship, in one aspect (out of seven analysed) significantly differs depending
on the type of higher education institution. Verified by chi-square criterion, applying cross-
tabs and using Mann-Whitney U test (table no. 4).
Table no. 4: Distribution of answers of students experiencing single cases
of harassment and bullying in inter-personal relationship, in regard to study cycle
and dimensions
Dimensions
1 cycle
Bachelor
2 cycle
Master
Chi-square
verification
results
Mann-Whitney U
verification
results
N = 543 N = 80
%
R.v.
%
R.v.
X2 p U Z p
Communica-
tion
36.6% 32.5% 0.520 0.471 – –
–
315.54 287.97 – – 19797.5 -1.492 0.136
Personal
reputation
32.6% 22.5% 3.376 0.049* – – –
316.75 279.75 – – 19140.0 -2.092 0.036*
Student's
reputation
33.8% 33.3% 0.005 0.941 – – –
312.55 308.24 – – 21419.0 -0.240 0.811
Experienced
harm
29.5% 25.0% 0.677 0.411 – – –
314.51 294.96 – – 20356.5 -1.136 0.256
Intervention
measures
67.8% 82.5% 7.157 0.007** – – –
302.71 375.07 – – 16674.5 -3.361 0.001**
Experience
at school
29.1% 26.3% 0.276 0.599 – – –
313.69 300.56 – – 20805.0 -0.611 0.541
Reaction
and
behaviour
74.4% 76.3% 0.126 0.723 – – –
310.09 324.98 – – 20681.5 -0.698 0.485
Notes: * - statistical significance level α = 0.05; ** - statistical significance level α = 0.01.
R.v. – average of ranks.
In the dimension "Reaction and behaviour", statistically significant differences between
university and non-university students are recorded. Thought insignificantly, university
students react stronger to the situation than college students (i.e. inform the responsible
persons or just the persons working at higher education institution and not related to the
course/group directly; tell course/group fellows to whom they are in good relationship, also
to friends outside the higher education institution and family members).
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
418 Amfiteatru Economic
4. Discussion
This study investigated Lithuanian universities and colleges students’ involvement into
traditional forms of bullying. The results of the performed research determined that 18.5 %
of the persons under research (N=115) experience bullying, i.e., negative actions of study
fellows, which continue not less than 6 months and at least once a week. These
data coincide with the results of other, though quite rare, researches indicating the existence
of the phenomenon in higher education. However, prevalence rates of harassment and
bullying fluctuate in various researches. Such fluctuations might be determined by a
number of factors, including what definition is used or what repeatability is considered as
bullying already (Smith, 2016). Different data might be determined by both the used
research methodology, and socio-cultural or economic environment of the researched set
(Sánchez et al., 2016). The research of Porhola et al. (2016), which analysed a prevalence
of bullying in higher education of different countries, could be mentioned as example. This
research revealed quite different number of students who suffered bullying from their
fellow students, which fluctuates from 2% in Estonian higher education to 25% in higher
education of Argentina. Peer bullying was also determined in higher education institutions
of other countries - they are suffered by 5%-7% of Finnish students (Sinkkonen, Puhakka
and Meriläinen, 2014), about 15% of Chinese students (Cao, Wei and Cai, 2017).
Researches performed in USA also point out this phenomenon, however, the number of
students suffering bullying fluctuates from 11% (Porhola et al., 2016) to 27 % (Perry and
Blincoe, 2015), depending on the research. The research performed in Turkey, Pamukkale
University, also indicates that students suffer bullying and harassment and that is pointed
out by 25.4% of the researched students (Serinkan et al., 2013). Even greater number of
persons under research from southeast of Spain college - 62.2 % - indicate that they faced
the phenomenon (Sánchez et al., 2017).
In this research, prevalence of single cases of harassment and bullying in inter-relationship
was analysed with reference to the dimensions distinguished by Vveinhardt (2017):
communication, personal reputation, student's reputation, experienced harm, intervention
measures, experience at school and reaction and behaviour in groups. The results obtained
were compared in aspects of students' age, gender and study cycle.
While discussing manifestations of harassment and bullying in higher education, attention
often is paid to students' previous experience of participation in bullying process. Usually it is
related to understanding that bullying does not disappear with age, i.e. with reference to Social
Learning Theory, the person might repeat negative behaviour that was rewarded previously
(Curwen, McNichol and Sharpe, 2011). It is also influenced by knowledge that those, who are
with histories of bullying, have big difficulties to adapt to the environment of higher education
institution (Holt et al., 2014), and there exists high enough prevalence of traditional bullying
and harassment at schools that sometimes reaches 89.6% (Modecki et al., 2014).
This research revealed that male, students of higher education institutions, are the ones
having higher negative experience related to bullying and harassment at secondary school.
That means, male students stated that they suffered more bullying at school, saw more
cases of bullying, when they kept out of the conflict in order to avoid suffering, or just paid
no attention. However, comparison of such results with the results of other authors is
complicated because the researches point out discrepant results. Though many researchers
state that boys of different age should be considered as being at risk for involvement in
bullying both as bullies, and as victims (Smith, 2016; Jormanainen et al., 2014; Iossi Silva
et al., 2013; etc.), other researches tend to distinguish girls as the ones more often suffering
from bullying (Malecki et al., 2015; Schneider et al., 2012).
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 419
In this research, male students, though they had more negative experience at school, were
not the ones who suffered bullying and harassment at higher education institution
statistically more often than women. The research also revealed that women also are not
the persons under research who indicate facing bullying more often than men. Other
researches performed in higher education institutions demonstrate discrepant results. The
research of Pontzer (2010) determined that it is men who could be distinguished as a gender
that more often participates in traditional bullying and harassment both as bully, and victim
of bullies. However, other researches do not determine relationship between students'
gender and being a victim of traditional bullying (Wensley and Campbell, 2012), or
determine significantly higher numbers of female students at higher education institutions
who suffered bullying (Meriläinen, Puhakka and Sinkkonen, 2015). Although, in the latter
case, a reliable difference in aspect of gender is not determined as well. In this context,
such results also could be explained by composition of the researched sample, where
usually women are dominating (Sinkkonen et al., 2014; Goodboy, Martin and Goldman,
2016). Also, there are the ones believing that, while analysing bullying, differences of
genders disappear after reaching the age of young adult (Glass and Fireman, 2016).
Thus, in the environment of higher education institution, distinguishing of gender as
involvement into bullying and harassment risk factor remains debatable for a while, and
that supposes the necessity for further researches. Also, not only previous experience
should be taken into account, but proportions of genders in higher education should be
assessed as well.
While analysing responses of students experiencing bullying and harassment in inter-
relationship considering age groups and dimensions, it was determined that younger
respondents in comparison to older ones point out that they more often face difficulties in
communication – they are more often being sneered, threatened, ignored in inter-
relationship. The research of Pontzer (2010) also points out higher involvement of younger
students as victims into the bullying process, which also determined a relation of such
victims' number with being a bullying victim in childhood. Significantly higher
participation of younger students in bullying and harassment could be related to their
transition from secondary school to higher education institution, since other researches also
point out that some bullying peaks are determined at the stages of school transition, namely
(Wang et al., 2016). Transition to higher education institution often raises high
requirements for formation of new social connections. Some are trying to establish
themselves in the new social hierarchy or to maintain social status they had at school
(Rospenda et al., 2013), and others, especially those who suffered school bullying and had
difficulty in peer relationships, are likely to demonstrate weaker peer relationships and
more difficult development of any relationship (Holt et al., 2014).
It also could be stated that a considerable number of younger students who faced
difficulties in relationship could be the ones who felt the lack of familial social support
during the initial adjustment to the higher school. And, according to the researches, such
support might protect previously bullied first-year students from various consequences of
negative inter-relationship (Reid et al., 2016). Differences in age aspect could also be
explained by analysing a learning environment of higher education institution, which could
be named as non-compulsory learning environment. It is stated that namely such
environment, contrary than hierarchical nature of many schools, often creates no conditions
to stimulate bullying (Coleyshaw, 2010). And the older the students, which is most often
related to their transition both to higher course and higher study cycle, the better they are
able to use this environment in striving for learning goals and adapting it to personal needs.
Including the attempt to avoid bullying and harassment.
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
420 Amfiteatru Economic
However, younger students, though suffering difficulties in communication, compared to
the older (26-year-old and older) ones less emphasize the need for intervention measures
that eliminate bullying and harassment or reduce their impact. It is also confirmed by data
analysis according to study cycles - the need for intervention measures is more emphasized
by master students who are likely older than bachelor students.
Quite weak need for intervention measures at higher education institution can be related to
failures in their adapting in a school environment. Most programmes of bullying prevention
preformed at the extent of Lithuania first of all are oriented only towards schools that
perform primary and basic education programmes. Second, programmes are often selected
that are not originally created, but simply adapted (Prakapas and Liubeckaitė, 2013).
However, efficiency of application of bullying prevention programmes, created and
successfully working in other countries, might be debatable in another context and other
social environment (Olweus and Limber, 2010). Most likely, one of the consequences is
the fact that education services provided in Lithuania are not always targeted towards
pupil's well-being and do not fully ensure emotional, social and physical security
(Trakšelys and Martišauskienė, 2016). It is also confirmed by data of different researches
performed in Lithuania - about 40% of teenagers are stating that they are not receiving a
required teacher's emotional support (Petrulytė and Guogienė, 2017), teenagers also do not
believe that in case of assault they will get help, and something will be changed
(Gumuliauskienė, Juodaitytė and Malinauskienė, 2010). Still, a considerable number of
teacher’s state that they feel a lack of abilities allowing to tackle cases of peer bullying at
school (Klanienė, Šmitienė and Vaitelytė, 2016).
Unfortunately, such young person's experience acquired at school forms a certain system of
beliefs and provisions. However, it is likely that non-compulsory learning environment and
system of comprehensive support to students, which is developed in higher education
institutions recently, and which help fulfilling student's emotional, academical and social
needs and create presumptions to ensure student's personal well-being and study success
(Sajienė and Tamulienė, 2012) gradually change students' beliefs regarding the need for
intervention measures as well.
Analysing data of the dimension "Intervention measures" in aspect of gender, it was
revealed that the position of women regarding the need of intervention measures at higher
education institutions is expressed stronger than that of male students. Women also more
often and more emotionally react to bullying, more often apply for help than men. In this
regard, the results of the performed research correspond to those of Meriläinen, Puhakka
and Sinkkonen (2015), who, by analysing students‘ suggestions for eliminating bullying
pointed out that women are more supportive in striving to understand and help to those who
experienced assaulting behaviour. Women, as the ones who more often take the role of
defenders, are distinguished by others as well (Smith, 2016), and school researches (Hunter
and Boyle, 2004) distinguish masculine gender namely as the one less applying to teachers
concerning bullying and seeking for help both for themselves and others.
All mentioned results of this research indicate that in Lithuanian higher education, in particular
dimensions, bullying manifests, and its prevalence may vary depending on students' gender,
age and course. These results also may help to forecast which students with reference to their
gender and age might become potential victims of bullying. By forecasting possible
manifestations of bullying, the previous experience of school bullying should also be assessed,
because „bullying experiences at school play an important role in students motivation to
continue their education at college“ (Goodboy, Martin and Goldman, 2016, p.62). And that
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 421
means that having assessed bullying manifestations between students comprehensively and
having selected efficient intervention measures, it would be possible to reduce students'
decision to leave higher education institution and to create a study environment as favourable
as possible, that would ensure the well-being of all studying persons.
Conclusions
The research results indicate dynamics of students' groups internal and inter-group
relationship with respect to age as one of the key factors in case of single cases of
harassment and bullying. In this case, there is important a provision of older respondents by
perceiving the need to manage negative aspects of inter-relationship by using intervention
measures. Also, higher trust in external measures of relationship management is typical to
women, whereas men, who had higher experience of negative relationships at school, are
more tended to tackle them on their own. This makes a basis to state that the sexuality
factor determines the fact that part of the conflicts don't reach public institutional level and
remain hidden. There also exists a dependence between reports on single cases of
harassment and bullying and the level of education provided by higher education
institution, as well as cycles of studies. Students of universities and older students of second
cycles of universities (masters) tend to report more on the destructive behaviour of
colleagues, more efficiently tackle arising problems of inter-relationship on the basis of
external help of third persons. Lack of such preparation or competence can be related to the
fact that more often bullying cases (exclusively in the area of personal reputation) and
appealing to external help sources are in the younger and lower cycle studies students'
groups.
Research limitations and further research
Although the situation is well revealed by the research results, however, they reflect only
the reactions of students of Lithuanian higher education institutions (higher education
colleges and universities) within the limit of such criteria as age, gender, type of the higher
education institution where one’s study, study cycle. While developing the research, it
would make a sense to incorporate wider criteria that reflect the diversity of students, and
also to assess efficiency of higher education institutions' policy against harassment and
bullying. It could be performed within inter-cultural analysis between few European and
other countries.
Acknowledgement
We thank our colleagues who helped organize the study in various higher education
institutions.
References
Adams, F. D. and Lawrence, G. J., 2011. Bullying victims: The effects last into
college. American Secondary Education, 40(1), pp.4-13.
Aleid, A. S., 2016. The Effectiveness of Student Extracurricular Activities in Evaluating
Violent Behavior among Students in the Preparatory Year at Hail University. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(18), pp.32-43.
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
422 Amfiteatru Economic
Betts, L. R., Gkimitzoudis, A., Spenser, K. A. and Baguley, T., 2016. Examining the roles
young people fulfill in five types of cyber bullying. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, [e-journal] 34(7), pp.1080-1098. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/
10.1177/0265407516668585.
Birks, M., Budden, L. M., Biedermann, N., Park, T. and Chapman, Y., 2018. A ‘rite of
passage?’: Bullying experiences of nursing students in Australia. Collegian, [e-journal]
25(1), pp. 45-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2017.03.005.
Blood, G. W. and Blood, I. M., 2016. Long-term Consequences of Childhood Bullying in
Adults who Stutter: Social Anxiety, Fear of Negative Evaluation, Self-esteem, and
Satisfaction with Life. Journal of Fluency Disorders, [e-journal] 50, pp.72-84.
10.1016/j.jfludis.2016.10.002.
Cao, J., Wei, S. and Cai, M., 2017. Investigation of influential factors of academic and
psychological distress in university students. Biomedical Research, 28(5), pp.2174-2179.
Celik, S. S. and Bayraktar, N., 2004. A study of nursing student abuse in Turkey. Journal of
Nursing Education, 43(7), pp.330-336.
Chekwa, C., Thomas Jr. E. and Jones, V. J., 2013. What Are College Students' Perceptions
about Campus Safety? Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(3), pp.325-332.
Coleyshaw, L., 2010. The power of paradigms: A discussion of the absence of bullying
research in the context of the university student experience. Research in Post-
Compulsory Education, [e-journal] 15(4), pp.377-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13596748.2010.526799.
Cooper, J. R., Walker, J., Askew, R., Robinson, J. C. and McNair, M., 2011. Students'
perceptions of bullying behaviours by nursing faculty. Issues in Educational
Research, 21(1), pp.1-21.
Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F. and Fan, X., 2013. Perceived prevalence of teasing and
bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1),
pp.138-149.
Curwen, T., McNichol, J. S. and Sharpe, G. W., 2011. The progression of bullying from
elementary school to university. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 1(13), pp.47-54, [online] Available at: <http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/
Vol_1_No_13_Special_Issue_September_2011/7.pdf> [Accessed 20 January 2017].
DeSouza, E. R., 2010. Frequency Rates and Correlates of Contrapower Harassment in
Higher Education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, [e-journal] 26(1), pp.158-188.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260510362878.
DeSouza, E. R. and Ribeiro, J., 2005. Bullying and Sexual Harassment among Brazilian
High School Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, [e-journal] 20(9), pp.1018-
1038. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260505277731.
Glass, D. J. and Fireman, G. D., 2016. College Aggression and Prosociality as Social
Strategies. NEEPS Special Issue, pp.50-72.
Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M. and Goldman, Z. W., 2016. Students’ experiences of
bullying in high school and their adjustment and motivation during the first semester of
college. Western Journal of Communication, [e-journal] 80(1), pp.60-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1078494.
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 423
Gumuliauskienė, A., Juodaitytė, A., and Malinauskienė, D., 2010. Research-based searches
for violence and bullying prevention possibilities. Teacher Education, 14(1), pp.194-207.
Hagenauer, G. and Volet, S. E., 2014. Teacher–student relationship at university: an
important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, [e-journal] 40(3),
pp.370-388. 10.1080/03054985.2014.921613.
Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. L., 2002. Workplace bullying and stress. In: L. Pamela,
D. Perrewe and C. Ganster, eds. 2002. Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress
and Health (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being). Volume 2. S.l: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp.293-333.
Holt, M. K., Greif Green, J., Reid, G., DiMeo, A., Espelage, D. L., Felix, E. D., Furlong,
M. J., Poteay V. P. and Sharkey, J. D., 2014. Associations between past bullying
experiences and psychosocial and academic functioning among college students.
Journal of American College Health, [e-journal] 62(8), pp.552-560.
10.1080/07448481.2014.947990.
Hong, J. S., Kral, M. J. and Sterzing, P. R., 2014. Pathways from Bullying Perpetration,
Victimization, and Bully Victimization to Suicidality among School-Aged Youth: A
Review of the Potential Mediators and a Call for Further Investigation. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, [e-journal] 16(4), pp.379-390. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:
2443/10.1177/1524838014537904.
Hunter, S. C. and Boyle, J. M. E., 2004. Appraisal and coping strategy use of victims of
school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, [e-journal] 74(1), pp.83-
107. 10.1348/000709904322848833.
Iossi Silva, M. A., Pereira, B., Mendonça, D., Nunes, B. and Oliveira, W. A. D., 2013. The
involvement of girls and boys with bullying: an analysis of gender
differences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, [e-
journal] 10(12), pp.6820-6831. 10.3390/ijerph10126820.
Jantzer, A. M. and Cashel, M. L., 2017. Bullying Victimization, College Adjustment, and
the Role of Coping. Journal of College Student Development, [e-journal] 58(2), pp. 283-
289. 10.1353/csd.2017.0020.
Jormanainen, E., Fröjd, S., Marttunen, M. and Kaltiala-Heino, R., 2014. Is pubertal timing
associated with involvement in bullying in middle adolescence? Health Psychology and
Behavioral Medicine: An Open Access Journal, [e-journal] 2(1), pp.144-159. 10.1080/
21642850.2014.881259.
Kang, L. S. and Sidhu, H., 2015. Identification of Stressors at Work: A Study of University
Teachers in India. Global Business Review, [e-journal] 16(2), pp.303-320. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0972150914564421.
Klanienė, I., Šmitienė, G. and Vaitelytė, R., 2016. Opportunities for improvement
teachers'competence to carry out the prevention of bullying among pupils at
school. Education in a Changing Society, 1, pp.5-12.
Kyriacou, C., Mylonakou-Keke, I. and Stephens, P., 2016. Social pedagogy and bullying in
schools: the views of university students in England, Greece and Norway. British
Educational Research Journal, 42(4), pp.631-645.
Lund, E. M. and Ross, S. W., 2016. Bullying Perpetration, Victimization, and Demographic
Differences in College Students A Review of the Literature. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, [e-journal] 18(3), pp.348-360. 10.1177/1524838015620818.
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
424 Amfiteatru Economic
Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., Coyle, S., Geosling, R., Rueger, S. Y. and Becker, L. D.
2015. Frequency, Power Differential, and Intentionality and the Relationship to Anxiety,
Depression, and Self-Esteem for Victims of Bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum,
44(1), p. 115.
Marraccini, M. E., Weyandt, L. L. and Rossi, J. S., 2015. College students' perceptions of
professor/instructor bullying: questionnaire development and psychometric
properties. Journal of American College Health, [e-journal] 63(8), pp.563-572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2015.1060596.
Meriläinen, M., Puhakka, H. and Sinkkonen, H. M., 2015. Students’ suggestions for
eliminating bullying at a university. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 43(2),
pp. 202-215.
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G. and Runions, K. C., 2014.
Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional
bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, [e-journal] 55(5), pp.602-611. 10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2014.06.007.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L. and Coyne, I., 2009.
Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, [e-journal] 14(2), pp.146-156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004.
Myers, C.-A. and Cowie, H., 2017. Bullying at University: The Social and Legal Contexts
of Cyberbullying Among University Students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
[e-journal] 48(8), pp.1172-1182. https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/
0022022116684208.
Nishina, A., Juvonen, J. and Witkow, M. R., 2005. Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic
consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, [e-journal] 34(1), pp.37-48. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_4.
Olweus, D. and Limber, S., 2010. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program:
Implementation and evaluation over two decades. In: S. Jimerson, S. Swearer and D.
Espelage, eds. 2010. Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective.
New York: Routledge, pp. 377-401.
Palaz, S., 2013. Vertical Bullying in Nursing Education: Coping Behaviors of Turkish
Students. International Journal of Nursing Education, 5(1), pp.193-197.
Patchin, J. W. and Hinduja, S., 2015. Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, [e-journal] 23, pp.69-74. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.avb.2015.05.013.
Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S. and Kral, M. J., 2017. A systematic review of research
strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, [e-journal] 18(1), pp.3-16. 10.1177/1524838015588502.
Perry, A. D. and Blincoe, S., 2015. Bullies and Victims in Higher Education: A Mixed-
Methods Approach. Journal of Bullying and Social Aggression, [online] Available at:
<http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/bullies-and-victims-in-higher-
education/> [Accessed 17 January 2017].
Economic Interferences
AE
Vol. 21 • No. 51 • May 2019 425
Petrulytė, A. and Guogienė, V., 2017. Paauglių psichologinės sveikatos vertinimas vykdant
tiriamąją ir prevencinę veiklą, Pedagogika / Pedagogy, 126(2), pp.99-114.
Pickel, K. L. and Gentry, R. H., 2017. Slut Shaming in a School Bullying Case: Evaluators
Ignore Level of Harm When the Victim Self-Presents as Sexually Available. Sex
Roles, [e-journal] 76(1-2), pp.89-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0662-6.
Piotrowski, C. and King, C., 2016. The enigma of adult bullying in higher education: a
research-based conceptual framework. Education, 136(3), pp.299-306.
Pontzer, D., 2010. A theoretical test of bullying behavior: parenting, personality, and the
bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, [e-journal] 25(3), pp.259-273.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9289-5.
Prakapas, R. and Liubeckaitė J., 2013. Patyčių prevencijos išgrynintoje gimnazijoje
bruožai. Socialinis darbas, 12(1), pp.109-120.
Reid, G. M., Holt, M. K., Bowman, C. E., Espelage, D. L. and Green, J. G., 2016.
Perceived social support and mental health among first-year college students with
histories of bullying victimization. Journal of Child and Family Studies, [e-journal]
25(11), pp.3331-3341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0477-7.
Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Wolff, J. M. and Burke, L. A., 2013. Bullying
victimization among college students: Negative consequences for alcohol use. Journal
of Addictive Diseases, [e-journal] 32(4), pp.325-342.10.1080/10550887.2013.849971.
Sajienė, L. and Tamulienė, R., 2012. Paramos studentams kokybės vertinimo parametrai
aukštojo mokslo institucijose. Aukštojo mokslo kokybė, 9, pp.120-139.
Sánchez, F. C., Romero, M. F., Navarro-Zaragoza, J., Ruiz-Cabello, A. L., Frantzisko, O.
R. and Maldonado, A. L., 2016. Prevalence and patterns of traditional bullying
victimization and cyber-teasing among college population in Spain. BMC Public Health,
[e-journal] 1(16), pp.1-10. 10.1186/s12889-016-2857-8.
Sansone, R. A., Leung, J. S., and Wiederman, M. W., 2012. Having been bullied in
childhood: Relationship to aggressive behaviour in adulthood. International Journal of
Social Psychiatry, [e-journal] 59(8), pp. 824-826. https://doi-org.
ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0020764012456814.
Schneider, S. K., O'donnell, L., Stueve, A. and Coulter, R. W. S., 2012. Cyberbullying,
school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students.
American Journal of Public Health, [e-journal] 102(1), pp.171-177. 10.2105/
AJPH.2011.300308.
Seixas, S. R., Coelho, J. P. and Nicholas-Fischer, G., 2013. Bullies, victims and bully-
victims: Impact on health profile. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 38, pp.53-75.
Serinkan, C., Akşit, İ., Avcik, C., Arat, G. and Alacaoğlu, D., 2013. The Study of Students’
Perceptions of Mobbing at Pamukkale University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, [e-journal] 89, pp.856-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.944.
Shaw, T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R. and Waters, S., 2013. The Forms of
Bullying Scale (FBS): validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying
victimization and perpetration in adolescence. Psychological Assessment, [e-journal]
25(4), pp.1045-1057. 10.1037/a0032955.
Shelley, W. W., Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., McDougle, R. D., Rissler, G. and Cleary, H.,
2017. Race, Bullying, and Public Perceptions of School and University Safety. Journal
AE
Harassment and Bullying among Students in Higher Education Institutions:
Manifestation of Single Cases of Harassment
and Bullying in Aspects of Demographic Variables
426 Amfiteatru Economic
of Interpersonal Violence. [e-journal] First Published October 20, 2017. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/0886260517736272.
Sinkkonen, H. M., Puhakka, H. and Meriläinen, M., 2014. Bullying at a university:
students' experiences of bullying. Studies in Higher Education, [e-journal] 39(1),
pp.153-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.649726.
Smith, P. K., 2016. Bullying: Definition, Types, Causes, Consequences and Intervention.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, [e-journal] 10(9), pp.519-532. 10.1111/
spc3.12266.
Trakšelys, K. and Martišauskienė, D., 2016. Švietimo paslaugų kokybė: efektyvumas,
rezultatyvumas, prieinamumas. Tiltai, 73(1), pp.191-206.
Valls, R., Puigvert, L., Melgar, P. and Garcia-Yeste, C., 2016. Breaking the Silence at
Spanish Universities: Findings from the First Study of Violence Against Women on
Campuses in Spain. Violence Against Women, [e-journal] 22(13), pp.1519-1539.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077801215627511.
Van Noorden, T. H., Haselager, G. J., Cillessen, A. H. and Bukowski, W. M., 2015.
Empathy and involvement in bullying in children and adolescents: A systematic
review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, [e-journal] 44(3), pp.637-657.
10.1007/s10964-014-0135-6.
Vidu, A., Schubert, T., Muñoz, B. and Duque, E., 2014. What Students Say About Gender
Violence Within Universities: Rising Voices From the Communicative Methodology of
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, [e-journal] 20(7), pp.883-888. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.vdu.lt:2443/10.1177/1077800414537211.
Vveinhardt, J., Fominienė, V. B., Švagždienė, B. and Andriukaitienė, R., 2017.
Diagnostics of single cases of harassment and bullying in relationships between students
of higher education institutions: intervention measures for the timely identification of
the phenomena. Transformations in business & economics, 3(42), pp. 240-257.
Vveinhardt, J., Fominiene, V. B., Andriukaitiene, R. and Streimikiene, D., (in press).
Diagnostics of single cases of harassment and bullying in relationships of students in
higher education institutions: verification of questionnaire dimensions. Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja.
Wang, W., Brittain, H., McDougall, P. and Vaillancourt, T., 2016. Bullying and school
transition: Context or development? Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, pp.237-248.
Wensley, K. and Campbell, M. A., 2012. Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young
university students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), pp.649-654.
