The Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization among the School Youth

The Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization among the School Youth
Lisa Marie Giacinti
MHA610: Introduction to BioStatistics (NDF1328A)
Professor James Koziol
August 19, 2013

ABSTRACT

In our society today, many students experienced a lot of physical and social harm, threatened by others which results to much trembling and fear - fear of unknown. In that case, it presumes unhealthy to students to experience that kind of situation. In this paper, it presents the full context of school bullying, determine underlying factors and explore findings to what bullying is all about. It focuses mainly on reporting statistical analysis, like describing the population of interest, estimating mean and proportion and interpreting results due to hypothesis testing and interval estimation. It also touches the some main points of cyber bullying. The prevalence of bullying among US youth is substantial. Given the concurrent behavioral and emotional difficulties associated with bullying, as well as the potential long-term negative outcomes for these youth, the issue of bullying merits serious attention, both for future research and preventive intervention. In many cases, bullying may not only happen among children and youth. It also takes place in corporate world or public institution. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper since we limit the topic only to school bullying.

INTRODUCTION

Bullying is a pervasive type of aggression, which often occurs in schools. As with other types of aggression, the harm that is inflicted – whether physical, emotional or both – is intentional. However, bullying has defining features which set it apart from other aggressive behaviours, in that it is repeated, and that the bully or bullies have greater access to power than their victim(s). In this briefing, ‘bullying’ refers to peer-to-peer bullying within the school context. School bullying has been a topic of both public concern and academic research only since the 1970s. It is still an expanding field of study and much remains to be established in terms of the causes, the characteristics of those involved and what makes an effective anti-bullying intervention. There is great variation in the prevalence rates reported in studies of bullying, and although factors at the individual and social levels appear to be important, it is still unclear what causes it. Nevertheless, most children will experience bullying at some point, either as bullies, victims or witnesses. Children who bully others, children who are victimized and children who both bully and are bullied, share a number of common characteristics and all are likely to suffer negative long-term consequences. Important factors appear to be family and peer relationships. Bullying can be seen as a group process, with the peer group playing an important role: other pupils’ behaviour can reinforce, condone or help to stop bullying, and so it can be more likely in some classes or years than others. However, more research is needed to uncover the exact nature of the group processes involved in school bullying, and how they interact with individual differences. The purpose of this study is to determine the proportion of students who were victims of bullying, and how it affects them psychologically and socially. Along with that we explore underlying factors, make inference of the population of interest and derived findings on the basis of statistical results. The scope of this paper focuses on high school student, preferably on 7th – 12th grader, and has a history of bullying either by peers and other students.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

What is bullying?
Essential components of bullying behaviour
The studies examined for this briefing used different definitions of bullying, but overall the literature suggests five essential components. The following components are shared with general aggressive behaviour:

Intention to harm: bullying is deliberate, with the intention to cause harm. For example, friends teasing each other in a good-natured way are not bullying, but a person teasing another to upset them is bullying. Harmful outcome: one or more persons are hurt physically or emotionally. Direct or indirect acts: bullying can involve direct aggression, such as hitting someone, as well as indirect acts, such as spreading rumours.

However, bullying also has characteristics that set it apart from other aggressive behaviours: Repetition: bullying involves repeated acts of aggression: an isolated aggressive act, like a fight, is not bullying. Unequal Power: bullying involves the abuse of power by one or several persons who are (perceived as) more powerful, often due to their age, physical strength, or psychological resilience.

Types of bullying
Bullying can involve many different types of behaviour. Physical, or ‘direct’ bullying hurts an individual in a tangible way, but ‘indirect’ actions such as stealing or damaging their belongings can hurt them emotionally. This also applies to verbal bullying, which involves name-calling or being otherwise insulted or humiliated. Relational or social bullying refers to behaviours that disrupt the victims’ relationships with their peers (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995), such as social exclusion or spreading gossip. Bullying can be motivated by race, religion, culture, gender or sexuality. Sexual bullying may involve sexual acts or demands. Cyberbullying, a relatively more recent phenomenon that has attracted increasing attention in the last decade, involves using electronic means such as the internet, email and mobile phones. It is particularly vicious, as nasty messages or images can be spread quickly and seen by many. Research evidence suggests that it tends to happen outside of school (Ybarra and Mitchell, 2004; Dehue, Bolman and Vollink, 2008; Smith et al, 2008a). Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying Teachers are less likely than pupils to recognise verbal aggression, indirect physical aggression and social exclusion as bullying (Boulton, 1997; Craig and Pepler, 1997; Craig et al, 2000; Menesini et al, 2002). Primary school children tend to include a greater range of behaviours, such as one-off acts of aggression, but pupils’ definitions of bullying become narrower with age (Smith and Levan, 1995; Swain, 1998; Smith et al, 2002; Menesini et al, 2002; Naylor et al, 2006).

How common is bullying in schools?
Overall it seems that bullying can be expected to occur in any school. Its prevalence in many countries suggests that most children will experience school bullying at some stage, be it as bullies, victims or as witnesses. There is a lot of variation in the reported rates, however, which is partly due to the different methodologies used to survey bullying. The most common method is self-reporting: asking pupils in questionnaires or interviews about their bullying experiences. Other ways include asking teachers or pupils to nominate which children are victims or bullies; observing children; and recording bullying incidents. Different methods produce different bullying estimates: peer and teacher nominations tend not to correspond well with self-report information (Österman et al, 1994; Salmivalli et al, 1996) and observations produce higher rates than surveys (Pepler et al, 2004). Large-scale surveys in individual countries have reported victimisation rates of 9 to 32 per cent, and bullying rates of 3 to 27 per cent (Stassen Berger, 2007). In the World Health Organisation’s Health Behavior in School-Aged Children 2001/02, a survey of 35 countries, the average incidence rates of victims and bullies were both 11 per cent (Craig and Harel, 2004, cited by Salmivalli, 2009). How common are the different types of bullying? Research shows that verbal abuse is the most common form of bullying, followed by relational and physical forms (Baldry and Farrington, 1999; Tapper and Boulton, 2005; Stassen Berger, 2007). Sexual bullying and dating aggression have similar levels to general bullying (Pepler et al, 2006). Levels of cyberbullying are more difficult to gauge: each time a malicious image or message is viewed could count as a separate incident. Overall, levels of cyberbullying appear to be increasing (e.g. DCSF, 2009). Age and gender differences in bullying Overall, bullying decreases with age, although there is an initial increase when pupils transition from primary to secondary school (Olweus, 1993; Smith et al, 1999; Pellegrini and Long, 2002; Salmivalli, 2002; Griffin and Gross, 2004; Pepler et al, 2006). As children grow older they develop better social skills, which seem to protect them against bullying (Smith et al, 1999) - there are also fewer pupils who might bully them, as bullies are typically older pupils (Smith, et al, 1999; Carney and Merrell, 2001; Griffin and Gross, 2004). Early research suggests that boys are more likely to be involved in bullying, but later studies, which include indirect forms of bullying, show less of a gender difference (Craig, 1998; Stassen Berger, 2007). Girls are more involved in verbal and relational bullying, and boys in physical (Reid et al, 2004; Stassen Berger, 2007). As yet it is unclear whether there are consistent age or gender trends in cyberbullying. There are no defined ‘types’ of bullies or victims, but various studies have identified some shared individual characteristics. Studies such as Ball et al (2008) have also looked at the role played by genes, but more work is needed in this area. Defining characteristics of bullies Bullies are generally more aggressive than other pupils (Carney and Merrell, 2001; Smith, 2004; Schafer et al, 2005). Some have poor social skills, leading to difficulties in managing positive relationships, but others have advanced social competence, which enables them to manipulate others (Sutton et al, 1999; Vaillancourt et al, 2003). It is unclear whether bullies have low self-esteem (Olweus, 1999; O’Moore, 2000; Smith, 2004), but they may well be more likely to come from families with low parental monitoring and involvement, as well as inconsistent and harsh discipline (Carney and Merrell, 2001; Pepler et al, 2008). At primary school children tend to reject the bullies rather than the victims, but this reverses at secondary school where bullies may be popular (Pellegrini, 1998; Schafer et al, 2005). Bullies associate with peers who bully and are susceptible to peer pressure (Pepler et al, 2008). Outcomes associated with bullying behaviour include loneliness, poor academic achievement, poor social adjustment and greater risk of drug and alcohol use, and of being convicted of crime (Olweus, 1997; Roberts, 2000; Nansel et al, 2001). Research also suggests a link with later violence in adulthood; some bullies behave aggressively towards partners, use harsh physical discipline with their own children, and their children are more likely to become bullies themselves (Roberts, 2000; Carney and Merrell, 2001; Smokowski and Kopasz, 2005). Defining characteristics of victims The majority of victims can be described as passive. Risk factors that have been identified for victimisation include peer-rejection, finding social situations difficult, and experiencing loneliness (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Nansel et al, 2001; Schafer et al, 2005; Scheithauer et al, 2006). Victims may understandably have poor self-esteem, and a greater tendency towards depression and anxiety (Craig, 1998; Hawker and Boulton, 2000; Carney and Merrell, 2001). Research suggests some victims may be more likely to have overprotective families (Smith, 2004) and to have experienced bullying from siblings (Duncan, 1999; Wolke and Samara, 2004). Children with disabilities are also at increased risk of victimisation (Nabuzoka, 2000; Knox and Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Mishna, 2003). Friendships act as a protective factor: having a number of meaningful friendships reduces the risk of victimisation (Hodges et al, 1999; Schwartz et al, 2000; Goldbaum et al, 2003). Other protective factors include high social competence, low aggression and low anxiety (Goldbaum et al, 2003). The impact of bullying in childhood can be long term. Some adult victims of childhood bullying report experiencing depression, poor self-esteem and interpersonal difficulties in adulthood (Hugh-Jones and Smith, 1999; Klomek et al, 2007). They may also be more prone to suicidal thoughts, attempt suicide (Klomek et al, 2007; Kim et al, 2009), or carry out acts of retribution (Carney and Merrell, 2001). Characteristics of bully/victims A small proportion of bullies can be described as ‘bully/victims’. These ‘provocative bullies’ are young people who bully others and are also bullied themselves. The proportion of this type tends to be higher in primary than in secondary schools (Roland and Idsoe, 2001; Schafer et al, 2005). Bully/victims are more likely to have poor social skills and act in ways that go against the norms of their peer group, such as behaving aggressively or interrupting other children (Greene, 2000; Griffin and Gross, 2004). They may have low self-esteem, social maladjustment, attention difficulties and poor problem-solving abilities (Mynard and Joseph, 1997; Carney and Merrell, 2001; Andreou, 2001). There is evidence that bully/victims come from families where parenting is inconsistent, sometimes abusive, and low in warmth (Bowers et al, 1994; Schwartz et al, 2000). These children are less likely to have social support than ‘passive’ victims of bullying, and therefore may also be at greater risk of more severe psychological problems resulting from it (Griffin and Gross, 2004; Smith, 2004). Participant roles in school bullying School bullying normally occurs in the presence of the peer group and is a social process (Cowie and Sharp, 1994; Craig and Pepler, 1995; Salmivalli et al, 1996; Pepler et al, 1998; Salmivalli et al, 1999; Menesini et al, 2000). Children’s responses to bullying, and their perceptions of themselves and of their own safety, are influenced by others (Salmivalli et al, 1998; Gini et al, 2008). The social context of individual classes or year groups can also influence the likelihood of bullying (Sharp, 1996; Kärnä et al, in press). However, more research is needed into the nature of the group process involved (Salmivalli, 2009). The ‘participant role approach’ (Salmivalli, 1999) suggests that children are not just bullies and/or victims in bullying: they may act as assistants of the bully - doing things that help, such as acting as a lookout - or as reinforcers, encouraging the bullying. On the other hand, they may be defenders, who try to stop it, or outsiders/bystanders, who neither encourage nor intervene (Salmivalli et al, 1996). Many anti-bullying interventions aim to change the behaviour of bystanders, encouraging them to defend the victim. Encouragingly, the majority of children express anti-bullying or pro-victim attitudes regardless of their actual behaviour when bullying occurs (Menesini et al, 1997; Boulton et al, 1999).

METHODOLOGY
A secondary data was used to make this study possible. All the necessary information about the data was lifted from 2011 National High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey and for documentation purposes we utilized the CDC’s 2011 YRBS Data User’s Guide. Participants All regular public, Catholic, and other private school students, in grades 9 through 12, in the 50States and the District of Columbia were included in the sampling frame for the 2011 national YRBS. Puerto Rico, the trust territories, and the Virgin Islands were excluded from the frame. Schools were selected systematically with probability proportional to enrollment in grades 9through 12 using a random start. One hundred and ninety-four schools were sampled. Instrumentation All classes in a required subject or all classes meeting during a particular period of the day, depending on the school, were included in the sampling frame. Systematic equal probability sampling with a random start was used to select classes from each school that participated in the survey. Response Rates The 2011 national YRBS attained the following response rates: School response rate - 158 of the 194 sampled schools participated.158/194 = 81% school response rate Student response rate – 15,503 of the 17,672 sampled students submitted questionnaires; 15,425 questionnaires were usable after data editing.15, 425/17,672 = 87% Overall response rate = School response rate * Student response rate (158/194) * (15,425/17,672) = 71% Assessment Subverting records eliminates records that are judged too incomplete overall to be valid for analysis. Records are marked “subverted” under the following conditions: • When there are more than 50 total questions and if a student answers 20 or less questions or answers with b, c, d, e, f, g, or h 15 or more times in a row, all values except the demographic variables are set to missing. • When there are 50 or fewer total questions and if a student answers 15 or less questions or answers with b, c, d, e, f, g, or h 12 or more times in a row, all values except the demographic variables are set to missing. Data Analysis Variables Weight
A weight based on student sex, race/ethnicity, and grade level was applied to each record to adjust for school and student nonresponse and oversampling of black and Hispanic students. The overall weights were scaled so that the weighted count of students equals the total sample size, and the weighted proportions of students in each grade match the national population proportions. Thus the data are representative of students in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the United States. “WEIGHT” indicates the weight factor assigned to each student record. Stratum The sample design employed a three-stage cluster sample stratified by racial/ethnic concentration and MSA status. “STRATUM” indicates the stratum the school the student attends was assigned to. Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) PSUs consist of counties, groups of smaller adjacent counties, or sub-areas of very large counties. “PSU” indicates the PSU the school the student attends was assigned to. Research Questions: In this study, we seek to answer the following questions: * Is there a significant difference between the proportion of male and female who were bullied in school property? * Are men less likely to experience cyber bullying than women?

* Are race and bullying independent? Or dependent on each other?

Statistical Tests

Prior to the question posed, the appropriate statistical tests would be test of proportion and logistic regression or likelihood ratio test. Since this study is subject to change, it is reasonable to explore other test. In addition, we utilized the demographic profile and seek for frequencies. All computations were due to Epi InfoTM 7. RESULTS and DISCUSSSION Now in this section we would analyze results and derived conclusions and findings based on the output from Epi InfoTM 7. The following tables were the frequencies and confidence interval of the selected variables. First, we need to define some variables: q2 = gender (1 = female and 2 = male) q5 = race (A, B, C, D, & E – see questionnaire 2011 National High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey q22 = refer to the question: is he/she bullied in the school property (1 = YES/2 = NO) q23 = refer to the question: is he/she experience cyber-bullying (1 = YES/2 = NO) Output: Frequency
Frequency variable: q23
Weight variable:
Strata variable(s): q2
Include missing: False q2 = 1 | q23 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 1381 | 19.79 % | 19.79 % | 18.86 % | 20.74 % | | 2 | 5599 | 80.21 % | 100.00 % | 79.26 % | 81.14 % | | TOTAL | 6980 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

q2 = 2 | q23 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 678 | 9.90 % | 9.90 % | 9.21 % | 10.64 % | | 2 | 6168 | 90.10 % | 100.00 % | 89.36 % | 90.79 % | | TOTAL | 6846 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |
Looking at the table, we have the frequency and respective percentage of each gender regarding the question: are they bullied in school property? The first table is for the students who answered yes, while the second coded as 2 for no. Here, looking at percentage, most of the boys coded as 2 in the row are bullied in school property, however, a larger percentage of them also tell that they are not bullied, this we yield because most of the respondents are boys. On the other hand, female are less likely to experience being bullied in school property. Looking at the confidence interval, it computes the population proportion of men and women who were bullied in school. Thus, we can see a significant difference by just looking at the interval. Men have the greater proportion, or in other words, they are more likely to be bullied than women. As it follows, the same is true for those who responded no. Next, we look on to another question that says: During the past 12 months, have you ever been electronically bullied? (Include being bullied through e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, Web sites, or texting.) Frequency variable: q22 Weight variable:
Strata variable(s): q2
Include missing: False q2 = 1 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 1448 | 19.71 % | 19.71 % | 18.81 % | 20.64 % | | 2 | 5900 | 80.29 % | 100.00 % | 79.36 % | 81.19 % | | TOTAL | 7348 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

q2 = 2 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 1183 | 16.23 % | 16.23 % | 15.39 % | 17.10 % | | 2 | 6107 | 83.77 % | 100.00 % | 82.90 % | 84.61 % | | TOTAL | 7290 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |
As depicted in the table, we have the frequency and respective percentage of each gender regarding the question: do they experience being electronically bullied? The first table is for the students who answered yes, while the second coded as 2 for no. Here, looking at percentage, most of the boys coded as 2 in the row are bullied in the internet or in social networking sites which is unfortunately not stated here, however, a larger percentage of them also tell that they are not bullied, this we yield because most of the respondents are boys. On the other hand, female are less likely to experience being bullied in the internet. Looking at the confidence interval, it computes the population proportion of men and women who were bullied electronically. Thus, we can see a significant difference by just looking at the interval. Men have the greater proportion, or in other words, they are more likely to be bullied than women. As it follows, the same is true for those who responded no. In comparison, the two questions almost yield the same results, because most of them show that men are more likely to be bullied than women either in school property or electronically. Next, we look on to frequencies of being bullied in school properties determined by race. As it is shown, there are respondents who have multiple races, so it is not easy to determine whether race could be a factor whether students could be a victim of bullying. However, we can still consider some points and other test if race is independent of school bullying as well as electronic bullying. In the same manner, we look on to proportion and interpret confidence interval. Note: To maintain comparability, Q4 and Q5 are combined to create the two-column raceeth variable. If the student selected “B” for Q4 and only one response option for Q5 then raceeth is set to a number between “1” and “5”depending on the Q5 option selected. If they selected “A” for Q4 and no response for Q5, raceeth is set to “6” indicating “Hispanic/Latino”. If they selected “A” for Q4 and one or more responses for Q5, then raceeth is set to “7” indicating “Multiple – Hispanic/Latino”. If they selected “B” for Q4 and more than one response for Q5, then raceeth is set to “8” indicating“Multiple – Non-Hispanic/Latino”. Raceeth is set to “missing” if they answered “B” to Q4 and left Q5 blank, or they left Q4 blank regardless of the response for Q5, or if Q4 or Q5 is out of range. A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. Asian
C. Black or African American
D. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
E. White
Frequency variable: q22
Strata variable(s): raceeth
Include missing: False raceeth = 1 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 66 | 22.92 % | 22.92 % | 18.19 % | 28.21 % | | 2 | 222 | 77.08 % | 100.00 % | 71.79 % | 81.81 % | | TOTAL | 288 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 2 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 75 | 16.34 % | 16.34 % | 13.14 % | 20.12 % | | 2 | 384 | 83.66 % | 100.00 % | 79.88 % | 86.86 % | | TOTAL | 459 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 3 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 287 | 10.60 % | 10.60 % | 9.48 % | 11.84 % | | 2 | 2420 | 89.40 % | 100.00 % | 88.16 % | 90.52 % | | TOTAL | 2707 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 4 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 24 | 20.87 % | 20.87 % | 13.85 % | 29.44 % | | 2 | 91 | 79.13 % | 100.00 % | 70.56 % | 86.15 % | | TOTAL | 115 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 5 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 1333 | 22.15 % | 22.15 % | 21.11 % | 23.22 % | | 2 | 4686 | 77.85 % | 100.00 % | 76.78 % | 78.89 % | | TOTAL | 6019 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 6 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 285 | 14.71 % | 14.71 % | 13.17 % | 16.38 % | | 2 | 1653 | 85.29 % | 100.00 % | 83.62 % | 86.83 % | | TOTAL | 1938 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 7 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 382 | 17.12 % | 17.12 % | 15.59 % | 18.76 % | | 2 | 1849 | 82.88 % | 100.00 % | 81.24 % | 84.41 % | | TOTAL | 2231 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |

raceeth = 8 | q22 | Frequency | Percent | Cum. Percent | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | | 1 | 129 | 20.44 % | 20.44 % | 17.41 % | 23.85 % | | 2 | 502 | 79.56 % | 100.00 % | 76.15 % | 82.59 % | | TOTAL | 631 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % | | | |
As the output tells us that race and bullying is dependent upon each other, so whatever race and/or ethnicity a student has, he/she can never be excuse to any bullying. Logistic Regression Outcome variable: qn23_RECODED
Co-variates: raceeth
Dummy variables:
Interaction terms:
Include missing: False Term | Odds Ratio | 95% | C.I. | Coefficient | S.E. | Z-Statistic | P-Value | raceeth (2/1) | 0.8364 | 0.5525 | 1.2662 | -0.1786 | 0.2116 | -0.8444 | 0.3985 | raceeth (3/1) | 0.4771 | 0.3384 | 0.6727 | -0.7400 | 0.1752 | -4.2226 | 0.0000 | raceeth (4/1) | 1.0780 | 0.5993 | 1.9390 | 0.0751 | 0.2995 | 0.2508 | 0.8020 | raceeth (5/1) | 1.1019 | 0.7996 | 1.5184 | 0.0970 | 0.1636 | 0.5930 | 0.5532 | raceeth (6/1) | 0.5852 | 0.4141 | 0.8269 | -0.5359 | 0.1764 | -3.0375 | 0.0024 | raceeth (7/1) | 0.8387 | 0.5996 | 1.1730 | -0.1759 | 0.1712 | -1.0278 | 0.3040 | raceeth (8/1) | 1.2786 | 0.8819 | 1.8536 | 0.2458 | 0.1895 | 1.2969 | 0.1947 | CONSTANT | * | * | * | -1.5966 | 0.1600 | -9.9812 | 0.0000 |

Convergence: | Converged | Iterations: | 5 | Final -2*Log-Likelihood: | 11253.6638 | Cases Included: | 13601 |

Test | Statistic | D.F. | P-Value | Score | 207.6631 | 7 | 0.0000 | Likelihood Ratio | 199.8005 | 7 | 0.0000 |

In this table, it computes about the likelihood ratio test and formulate regression equation on binary outcomes. Our goal here is to find the value of likelihood ratio, since it is significantly great thus we conclude that race and ethnicity could be a factor to bullying. Conclusion and Findings School bullying is pervasive and most children will probably experience it at some stage, either as a witness, a victim, or by being a bully themselves. Large-scale surveys show that it happens across the world, though it can involve different behaviours and have different meanings in different countries. Telling someone usually helps, but this does depend upon how well it is acted upon by the school. Factors at both the individual and social level appear to be important causes of bullying. Family and peer relationships have been identified as important for children who bully, are victimized and are bully/victims. All three groups share some individual characteristics. Bullying is a group process involving the whole peer group, and can be more likely to occur in some classes or years than others. However, more research is needed to uncover the exact nature of the group processes involved, and how they interact with individual differences. In the results, men are more likely to be bullied than women whether in school property and electronically. Also, whatever race a student has, he/she could be a victim of bullying. As supported from the likelihood ratio tests. Although advanced technology creates new opportunities for learning and social networking, it is clear from the some in this special issue that it also can leave individuals more vulnerable to aggressive and violent behavior perpetration, and to the influence of negative stereotyping. These concerns need to be incorporated into existing policies that are focused on preventing violent behavior, and highlight the importance of technology companies’ continued involvement in maintaining a safer cyber-experience. Jones et al. (2013, this issue) proposed that our social institutions accept some of the burden for confronting technologically based violence. Schools must have policies that not only cover offline bullying but online bullying as well. Finally, this study talks about bullying but it shows some limitations. I would recommend to other researchers to dig deeper on bullying esp. in workplace as well as cyber-bullying supported by appropriate statistical tests.

REFERENCES
Leff, S. S. (2007). Bullying and Peer Victimization at School: Considerations and Future Directions. School Psychology Review, 2007, Volume 36, No.3, pp.406-412. Sugarman, D. B. and Willoughby, T. (2013). Technology and Violence: Conceptual Issues Raised by the Rapidly Changing Social Environment. Psychology of Violence © 2013 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1– 8. Jones, M. L. et al (2012). Online Harassment in Context: Trends From Three Youth Internet Safety Surveys. Psychology of Violence © 2012 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, 53– 69. Low, S. et al. (2012). Differentiating Cyber Bullying Perpetration From Non-Physical Bullying: Commonalities Across Race, Individual, and Family Predictors. Psychology of Violence © 2012 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, 39–52 Jansen, P. W. et.al. (2012). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do family and school neighborhood socioeconomic status matter? licensee BioMed Central Ltd. University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Borowsky, I. W. Ph.D. MD. et .al. (2012). Suicidal Thinking and Behavior among Youth Involved in Verbal and Social Bullying: Risk and Protective Factor. Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Toksoy, D., BayramoLlu, M. M. (2013). Bullying within the Forestry Organizations of Turkey. Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Forest Faculty, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey. Espelage, D. L. Ph.D., Holt, M. K. Ph.D., (2013). The Relationship Between Youth Involvement in Bullying and Suicide Suicidal Ideation and School Bullying Experiences After Controlling for Depression and Delinquency. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2013-07-01, Volume 53, Issue 1, Supplement , Pages S27-S31. Nansel, T. R. Ph. D. et.al(2001). Bullying Behaviors Among US Student, Prevalence and Association with Psychosocial Adjustment. JAMA. 2001;285(16):2094-2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094. Alana, James (2010). School Bullying: A Research Briefing. PhD Researcher (Goldsmiths, University of London, NSPCC). Retrieved from www.nspcc.org.uk/inform Craig, W. M. and Pepler, D.J. (1997) Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13:41-59. Note: The first five sources are from Ashford Library online.

References: Leff, S. S. (2007). Bullying and Peer Victimization at School: Considerations and Future Directions. School Psychology Review, 2007, Volume 36, No.3, pp.406-412. Sugarman, D. B. and Willoughby, T. (2013). Technology and Violence: Conceptual Issues Raised by the Rapidly Changing Social Environment. Psychology of Violence © 2013 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1– 8. Jones, M. L. et al (2012). Online Harassment in Context: Trends From Three Youth Internet Safety Surveys. Psychology of Violence © 2012 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, 53– 69. Low, S. et al. (2012). Differentiating Cyber Bullying Perpetration From Non-Physical Bullying: Commonalities Across Race, Individual, and Family Predictors. Psychology of Violence © 2012 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, 39–52 Jansen, P. W. et.al. (2012). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do family and school neighborhood socioeconomic status matter? licensee BioMed Central Ltd. University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Borowsky, I. W. Ph.D. MD. et .al. (2012). Suicidal Thinking and Behavior among Youth Involved in Verbal and Social Bullying: Risk and Protective Factor. Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Toksoy, D., BayramoLlu, M. M. (2013). Bullying within the Forestry Organizations of Turkey. Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Forest Faculty, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey. Espelage, D. L. Ph.D., Holt, M. K. Ph.D., (2013). The Relationship Between Youth Involvement in Bullying and Suicide Suicidal Ideation and School Bullying Experiences After Controlling for Depression and Delinquency. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2013-07-01, Volume 53, Issue 1, Supplement , Pages S27-S31. Nansel, T. R. Ph. D. et.al(2001). Bullying Behaviors Among US Student, Prevalence and Association with Psychosocial Adjustment. JAMA. 2001;285(16):2094-2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094. Alana, James (2010). School Bullying: A Research Briefing. PhD Researcher (Goldsmiths, University of London, NSPCC). Retrieved from www.nspcc.org.uk/inform Craig, W. M. and Pepler, D.J. (1997) Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13:41-59. Note: The first five sources are from Ashford Library online.