ABSTRACT
School bullying, defined as a type of repeated aggressive behavior involving the systematic abuse of power through unjustified acts intended to inflict harm (Smith, 2004), has a traumatic impact on all involved regardless of role
Leanne Lester1, Donna Cross1, Julian Dooley2, and The´re`se Shaw1 1Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Mt Lawley, WA, Australia 2Sellenger Centre for Research in Law, Justice and Social Change, Edith Cowan University, Mt Lawley, WA, Australia
School bullying, defined as a type of repeated aggressive behavior involving the systematic abuse of power through unjustified acts intended to inflict harm (Smith, 2004), has a traumatic impact on all involved regardless of role
(perpetrators, victims, bully-victims, or bystanders), with the level of trauma related to frequency of exposure (Carney, 2008). Exposure to chronic victimization can lead to traumatic reactions which may result in greater expressed physical, psychological. and emotional symptoms (Garbarino, 2001), which in turn may contribute to lasting long-term effects (Carney, 2008). Stress from physical and verbal bullying has been found to elevate the levels of cortisol and may impact adolescent long-term mental health and memory functioning, affecting school achievement (Vaillancourt et al., 2011). Many students who are chronically victimized throughout school are maladjusted (Rosen et al., 2009), suffer stress later in life (Newman, Holden, & Delville, 2005), and are bullied as adults (Smith, Singer, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003). Genetic differences may result in some frequently bullied children being more vulnerable to the emotional effects of bullying victimization than others (Sugden et al., 2010). Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, and Patton (2001) reported that victimization rates were generally high (approximately 50%) and stable with two-thirds of adolescents who were frequently victimized 1 year later. A more recent Australian study found approximately one-quarter of adolescents are victimized every few weeks or more often (Cross et al., 2009). Given the high prevalence of chronic adolescent victimization and the
associated consequences, it is important to understand the developmental pathways of victimization. In adolescence victimization decreases from a high following the transition from primary to secondary school to lower levels at the end of secondary school with the development of social understanding, shifting norms against specific types of victimization (Nansel et al., 2001), and the priority of popularity (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010) in the peer group. The use of victimization trajectories allows the longitudinal examination of victimization, revealing those who are chronically victimized as well as associated predictors and outcomes of victimization trajectories. Previous longitudinal studies, focused on primary school (children Grade 3 through to Grade 7) victimization trajectory analyses (Boivin, Petitclerc, Feng, & Barker, 2010; Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly, 2003), found approximately 80% of students followed a low or non-victim trajectory, with the remainder of victims following stable, increasing, or decreasing victimization trajectories over time. Data in these studies were collected over a 4-year and 3-year time period respectively. Gender differences in the number and shape of victimization trajectories are expected due to the type of victimization experienced by males and females (males are more likely to experience physical victimization; females covert relational victimization; Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008) and the higher prevalence of victimization reported by males over females during the transition from primary to secondary school (Cross et al., 2009).
