10 annotated bibliographies

BRIEF REPORT

Children and Adolescent Victim Blaming

John Chapin Pennsylvania State University

Grace Coleman Crisis Center North, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Findings from a survey of 1,593 United States middle school and high school students indicates more than half the adolescents say they have been verbally bullied; 37% say they have been socially bullied; and 30% say they have been physically bullied. Despite their personal experience with bullying, about half believed victims were at least partially responsible, and 27% believed victims brought it on themselves. The strongest predictors of victim blaming were age, knowledge, and just world beliefs (JWB). Victim blaming was also significantly related to intent to bully and actual bullying, as well as bystander intervention.

Public Significance Statement The study contributes to the literature on school bullying by examining the extent of different forms of bullying among children and adolescents establishing some of the reasons for victim blaming. Some degree of Just World Beliefs are needed for mental health, but students need to be educated on violence and victims to break the cycle of school violence.

Keywords: bullying, victim blaming, belief in a just world, optimistic bias, bystander intervention

Bullying is an ever-present problem among children and ado- lescents. According to United States Government statistics (Bu- reau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2010), about one in seven students

in grades kindergarten through 12th grade is either a bully or has been a victim of bullying. Over half have witnessed bullying at school. Bullying contributes to dropout rates, low self-esteem, even suicide. Bullycide, suicide resulting from bullying, remains one of the leading causes of death among children under 14 in the United States (BJS, 2010). Ultimately, bullying victims may be- come bullies themselves. In a review of the literature on bullies, Rodkin, Espelage, and Hanish (2015) concluded that children who bully others are more likely to become adult criminal offenders, substance abusers, and experience difficulty keeping a job. Both reviews focused on longitudinal studies of children and adoles- cents.

Despite the high percentage of children and adolescents who have witnessed bullying, it isn’t always reported and they often do nothing to intervene. One explanation for this is victim blaming, the belief that bullying victims somehow deserved it. The purpose of the study is to document victim blaming among a sample of children and adolescents and to examine some of the causes and consequences of victim blaming.

Why Adolescents Might Blame Victims

Belief in a Just World

Early work in psychology (Lerner, 1965) suggests that people need to believe in a just world, where people usually get what they deserve (both positive and negative). The three most important functions of belief in a just world (BJW) are: (a) they compel people to behave justly (play fair), (b) they encourage people to

Editor’s Note. Continue the conversation by submitting your comments and questions about this article/book review to PeacePsychology.org/ peaceconflict. (The Editor of PeacePsychology.org reserves the right to exclude material that fails to contribute to constructive discussion.)

JOHN CHAPIN is a professor of communications at Penn State University. He received his PhD from Rutgers University in 1998. He is the recipient of the Stephen Schafer National Research Award for significant contributions to the field of crime victim rights from the National Organization for Victim Assis- tance (NOVA) and the Governor’s Victim Service Pathfinder Allied Profes- sional Award from the state of Pennsylvania. His research areas include violence prevention, adolescents, risk perception, and social effects of media.

GRACE COLEMAN is the Executive Director of Crisis Center North. She received her MA degree from Bloomsburg University in 1987. She is the recipient of several Statewide Leadership Awards from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Athena Award from the Northern Allegheny Chamber of Commerce for her community work in violence prevention. Grace recently launched a nationally recognized ca- nine therapy program, providing support for victims of domestic violence, both in counseling and courts venues. Her research interests include vio- lence prevention, domestic abuse, and pet therapy.

CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to John Chapin, College of Communications, Pennsylvania State University, 100 University Drive, Monaca, PA 15061. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 23, No. 4, 438 – 440 1078-1919/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000282

438

trust others, and (c) they help people interpret life events in a meaningful way (Dalbert, 2001).

A Little Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing

A recent study of 1,600 adolescents found knowledge was a strong predictor of risk perception. The more high school and college students knew about dating violence, the less likely they thought it could happen to them (Chapin, Strimel, & Coleman, 2014). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. When knowledge is paired with experience, adolescents’ risk-perceptions become more realistic. The challenge seems to be achieving a realistic risk perception without first having to experience bullying first-hand.

Bystander Intervention

In a recent controlled study of cyberbullying (Dillon & Bush- man, 2015), 68% of college students noticed the bullying, but only 10% chose to intervene. More were willing to passively intervene after the fact, once the danger was over. Understanding why and when people choose to intervene is complex.

Based on the preceding review of the literature, the following research questions and hypotheses are posited:

Research Question 1: What percentage of adolescents blame victims of bullying?

Hypothesis 1: Victim blaming increases as belief in a just world increases.

Hypothesis 2: Victim blaming increases as knowledge decreases.

Hypothesis 3: As victim blaming increases, the likelihood of bullying increases.

Hypothesis 4: As victim blaming increases, bystander inter- vention increases.

Method

Procedures and Participants

Participants were recruited through school-based programs about bullying offered by a Pennsylvania women’s center. Grades seven through 12 were included. The sample (N � 1,593) was 54% male, with an average age of 13 (range � 10 (middle school) to 18 (high school)). Consistent with the demographics of the region, 82% of the participants were Caucasian, 9% African American, 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian and the remaining identified as mixed race or “other.”

Materials

BJW was measured using a standard instrument. Participants rated eight items (“I feel I get what I deserve”; “I feel that my efforts are noticed and rewarded”) on a Likert-type scale (1 � strongly disagree; 7 � strongly agree). The eight items were summed to create a scale, � � .83.

For consistency, victim blaming was measured using an item adopting the same format as the BJW Scale: “I feel that many of

the kids who are picked on bring it on themselves by the way they dress or act.”

Knowledge of community resources was measured with five true/false items about resources for bullying victims specific to the community. Items were scored as correct or incorrect, resulting in a scale ranging from 0 to 5.

Bullying was measured in two ways. Participants were asked to identify past verbal, physical, and social bullying behaviors by checking boxes for each type of bullying, indicating it had hap- pened to them or they had done it to others. These items were adapted from the precaution adoption process model (Weinstein, 1988), which has been widely used for health contexts, but not yet for bullying. Yes responses for the three types of bullying were summed to create a continuous measure of past bullying. Intent to bully in the future was measured using an item adapted from Weinstein’s risk-perception measure: “Compared to other people my age in the US, my chances of bullying others are: (�3 � much less than others; 3 � much more than others).

Intent to intervene was measured with a single item: “If a friend or peer of mine bullies someone in front of me, I would try to stop him or her.”

Participants were also asked to provide their gender, age, and race. These items were left open-ended, so as not to confine how the adolescents defined themselves.

Results

RQ1 asked what percentage of adolescents blame victims of bullying. The ratings were evenly distributed, with 35% on the lower end (not blaming) and 27% on the higher end. About half (49%) were above the tipping point, indicating some level of victim blaming. Table 1 shows age as the strongest predictor of victim blaming, with victim blaming decreasing with age. No significant differences were attributable to gender or race.

H1 predicted that victim blaming would increase as BJW in- creased. About one quarter (24.5%) were at the high end of the scale, and few (3.9%) were at the low end. Table 1 shows the predicted relationship emerged, with BJW being a relatively strong predictor of victim blaming. H1 was supported.

H2 predicted that victim blaming would increase as knowledge increased. Participants scored an average of 74% on the pretest, indicating some knowledge of community resources for victims of bullying. Table 1 shows that the predicted relationship emerged,

Table 1 Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Victim Blaming

Predictor

Intended bystander intervention (Adj. r2 � .27, N � 1,372)

B SE B �

Age .23 .02 �.17���

Knowledge �.30 .06 �.13���

Just world .27 .06 .13���

Bystander intervention �.57 .22 �.07�

Intent to bully .07 .04 .05�

Past bullying .17 .08 .05�

Gender .18 .12 �.04

� p � .05. ��� p � .001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

439VICTIM BLAMING

with knowledge being a relatively strong predictor of victim blam- ing. H2 was supported.

H3 predicted that as victim blaming increases, the likelihood of bullying increases. It was interesting to note that intended bullying was strongly related to past bullying (adolescents who have bullied in the past anticipate continued bullying in the future). Eighteen percent said they have verbally bullied peers, 11% said they have physically bullied peers, and 12% said they have socially bullied peers. Likewise, 8% said they were more likely to bully than their peers, and 59% said they were less likely. Table 1 shows that the predicted relationship emerged, with intent to bully and past bul- lying both being significant, but relatively weak predictors of victim blaming. H3 was supported.

H4 predicted that as victim blaming increases bystander intervention decreases. A t test was used to demonstrate a significant difference in victim blaming between students who say they would intervene if a friend or peer bullied someone in front of them (M � 3.3, SD � 2.3) and those who say they wouldn’t (M � 4.0, SD � 2.4), t(1480) � 3.0, p � .01. Table 1 shows that bystander intervention is significantly related to victim blaming.

Discussion

While bullying has always been a part of the American educa- tional experience, new technologies provide wider audiences for bullies. In the current sample, 56% of the students say they have been verbally bullied, 37% say they have been socially bullied, and 30% say they have been physically bullied. Despite their personal experience with bullying, about half believed victims were at least partially responsible, and 27% believed victims brought it on themselves by how they dressed or acted. More than a dozen students added (unsolicited) written comments to indicate under what circumstances victims were to blame. The most common were about how they acted (“weird” and “gay” were frequent write-ins). Participants also wrote in “my brothers!” (indicating hitting or kicking one’s siblings is to be expected, but it isn’t OK at school).

The strongest predictors of victim blaming were age (decreases with age), knowledge (decreases with knowledge), and JWB (which also decreases with age). It is important that bullying prevention programs be offered by experts and those experts are given enough time to fully cover the topic. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Children and adolescents need to reach a tipping point where their knowledge is paired with realistic understanding of the risks.

Victim blaming was also significantly related to intent to bully and actual (self-reported) bullying, as well as bystander intervention. First and foremost, schools need to engage in bullying prevention education programming. These should in- clude both knowledge gain and attitude change elements. There are three audiences in the classroom for prevention program- ming: Victims, bullies, and potential bystanders. They all need to hear the message. Addressing victim bullying allows students to practice perspective-taking and develop empathy.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2010). Uniform crime report: Victim characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Chapin, J., Strimel, L., & Coleman, G. (2014). It won’t happen to me: Addressing adolescents’ risk perception of dating violence. Interna- tional Journal of Violence and Schools, 14, 44 –54.

Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York, NY: Kluwer.

Dillon, K., & Bushman, B. (2015). Unresponsive or un-noticed? Cyberby- stander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Comput- ers in Human Behavior, 45, 144 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb .2014.12.009

Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of perform- er’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 1, 355–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021806

Rodkin, P. C., Espelage, D. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying. American Psychologist, 70, 311– 321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038658

Weinstein, N. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol- ogy, 7, 355–386.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

440 CHAPIN AND COLEMAN