University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A family affair: the role of parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition as explanatory factors for bullying

(USC Thesis Other)

A family affair: the role of parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition as explanatory factors for bullying

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A FAMILY AFFAIR 1
A FAMILY AFFAIR: THE ROLE OF PARENTING STYLE, PARENTAL SUPERVISION,
AND FAMILY COMPOSITION AS EXPLANATORY FACTORS FOR BULLYING

by

Yolanda M. Jauregui

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Yolanda M. Jauregui

A FAMILY AFFAIR

2
Dedication
To my dad, Dr. Eduardo U. Rodriguez—the greatest father in the world—who instilled in
me and in others the value of an education. Thank you for teaching me that I CAN learn and I
CAN achieve what I want.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank my amazing mother, Beatriz L. Rodriguez, for all
the love and unconditional positive regard she has given me throughout this dissertation process-
I love you mom. I would also like to acknowledge and thank my brother, Edwin U. Rodriguez,
who brought me laughter and encouragement when life was difficult. To my circle of friends,
extended family, and amazing co-workers who have also been there for me and who stuck by me
even though I went missing in action for a few years.
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, who encouraged me to trust
in the process and whose guidance brought me to this point. I would also like to thank Dr.
Ginger Clark and Dr. Mary Andres who inspired me from day one and always made me feel
supported. I would also like to acknowledge my cohort buddies, The Sensational Six, whose
support helped make these three years fly by.
Last but not least I would like to thank the love of my life, the best husband in the world,
Dr. Martin Jauregui. His unconditional love and support have guided me through this
dissertation process, and his encouragement has been everything to me, and for that I am forever
grateful.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Chapter One: Introduction and Background 8
Background of the Problem 10
Characteristics of Bullies 11
Types and Forms of Bullying Behavior 12
Factors Contributing to Bullying 13
Theoretical Framework 14
Ecological Systems Theory 14
Importance of the Study 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 18
Patterns and Consequences of Bullying 18
Patterns of Bullying 18
Consequences of Bullying 19
Parties Involved in Bullying 20
Bully-Perpetrators 21
Bully-Victims 21
Predictors and Risk Factors for Bullying 23
Internal and Emotional Factors that Influence Bullying Behavior and Role 23
Peer and Social Factors that Contribute to Bullying Behavior and Role 25
School Related Factors that Contribute to Bullying Behavior and Role 27
Family Factors Related to Bullying 29
Parenting Style 29
Parental Supervision 31
Family Composition 32
Summary of Literature Review 34
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 35
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Participants 37
Instruments 38
Forms of Bullying Scale 38
Parental Authority Questionnaire- Modified Version 40
Adolescent Perceptions of Parental Knowledge 41
Procedure 42
Preparation 42
Selection Process 43
Data Collection Process 43
Chapter Four: Reults 45
Preliminary Correlation Analyses 45
Analysis of Research Questions 46
Post-Hoc Analysis 48
Chapter Five: Discussion 49
Summary and Discussion of Main Findings 49
A FAMILY AFFAIR

5
Level of Supervision and Bully-Perpetrators 50
Parenting Style and Bully-Perpetrator 51
Bullying role, Family, and Ecological Systems Theory 52
Implications for Practice 54
Recommendations for Parents 54
Recommendations for School Staff 55
Limitations 56
Suggestions for Future Research 58
Conclusion 59
References 61

A FAMILY AFFAIR

6
List of Tables
Table 1: Results of Pearson Correlation Analysis 46
Table 2: Simultaneous Multiple Regression of Parenting Style and Parental Supervision
Predicting Bully-Perpetrator Role 47

Table 3: Simple Regression of Only Parental Supervision Predicting Bully-Perpetrator Role 47

A FAMILY AFFAIR

7
Abstract
This study uses Bronfenbrenner’s (1997) ecological systems theory as the foundation for an
investigation into the role that certain family-based factors play in predicting both bully-
perpetrator and bully-victim roles. In his ecological systems theory, Bronfenbrenner comments
that the environment—made up of the micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono systems—can
significantly influence development. Given the rising number of incidents of bullying and the
role of certain environmental factors in promoting bullying behavior, the purpose of this study
was to examine whether parenting style, level of parental supervision, and family composition
served as explanatory factors for being a bully-perpetrator or bully-victim. Through a
quantitative survey method, this study found that level of parental supervision significantly
predicted being a bully-perpetrator, while an authoritarian parenting style approached
significance in predicting bully-perpetrator role. Despite research to the contrary, family
composition was found to be non-significant in predicting bullying role. The findings suggest
that parenting style and supervision do play an important role in the development of bully-
perpetrators and bully-victims. Considering the amount of time children spend interacting with
and existing in both home and school-based environments, the results of this study hold
implications for a variety of stakeholders, including both parents and school-wide staff.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Increasing societal focus is being placed on the issue of bullying as a result of recent
tragic incidents involving cases of bullying and suicide. Coverage of events like the deaths of
Phoebe Prince and Rebecca Sedwick, who both committed suicide after being bullied, brought to
light the pervasiveness of the problem and the consequences that bullying has for everyone
involved. In the United States, up to 64% of adolescents reported incidences of bullying
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). The problem has become so
widespread that there are approximately 3.7 million bullies and 3.2 million victims of bullying
each year across the United States (Nansel et al., 2001). The difference in these numbers is often
due to the fact that a significant number individuals take part in being both a bully-victim and a
bully-perpetrator. While, for most victims, the cost of bullying is minor, some forms of bullying
hold severe consequences. According to Anderson et al. (2001), bullying, in extreme cases, is
often associated with school-related deaths. Overall, the statistics highlight an emerging problem
highlighted by the finding that more than half of the student population in American public
schools has experienced some form or type of bullying.
Whether traditional or through a digital source, the impact of bullying is nevertheless
negative and associated with a variety of consequences. Bullying has been linked with violence-
related behaviors, including weapon-carrying and fighting injuries, as well as other long lasting
psychological and social impacts (Nansel, Overpeck, Haynie, Ruan, & Scheidt, 2003).
According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (2014), bullying is
extensive and results visible and severe consequences including substance abuse, physical abuse,
depression, and anxiety. Rigby (2003) identifies four distinct types of consequences associated
with bullying, including negative impacts on psychological well-being, social adjustment,
A FAMILY AFFAIR

9
emotions, and physical wellness. Among the more specific social detriments associated with
being bullied is the fact that there is a relationship between bullying behavior and school issues
such as academic achievement, adjustment, and school attendance (Dake, Price, & Telljohann,
2003). Whether it is the bully-perpetrator or the bully-victim, there are significant long-term
consequences for everyone involved.
The evolving nature of bullying, along with society’s efforts to understand it in all its
forms, make it a difficult concept to define. However, definitions of bullying all seem to
encompass several common components, including an imbalance of power that occurs over a
period of time and behavioral actions that are hurtful, such as threats of violence and the
spreading of rumors (Olweus, 1993). According to Arora (1996), the three common types of
bullying are physical, social, and verbal bullying. Physical bullying is typically understood as
aggression involving some type of physical violence; verbal bullying typically involves name-
calling and the spreading of rumors; social bullying includes outcasting and ostracism.
Adding to the statistics on bullying is the emergence of cyberbullying, a newly evolving
yet equally dangerous form of bullying. The data on cyberbullying are limited. In one study, 6%
to 135 of middle and high school students reported single incidents of bullying (Wang, Iannotti,
& Nansel, 2009). Of those who were cyberbullied, up to 68% reported multiple events (NCES,
2011). The significant range between reports of single and multiple cases of cyberbullying
indicates potential underreporting of cases. In fact, in one study conducted by Li, Cross, and
Smith (2011), victims and witnesses were encouraged to report instances of bullying, though it
was later found that 29% of the students still did not report what they had heard or experienced.
Other research conducted by Petrosina, Guckenburg, DeVoe, and Hanon (2010) supports these
A FAMILY AFFAIR

10
results, showing that an even higher percentage of respondents—approximately 69%—do not
report cyberbullying.
Because of the significant social, physical, and emotional consequences of bullying, a
great deal of research focused primarily on the antecedents and factors that put children at risk of
being a bully-victim or becoming a bully-perpetrator and on interventions to combat bullying.
Personality, peer relations, and school environments have all been considered risk factors and
predictors of bullying behavior (Hilton, Anngela-Cole, & Wakita, 2010). Recent efforts to try to
get at the core of this problem shifted to considering the role of the family, a factor which has
been studied to some degree, but of which many aspects have been largely overlooked. What is
the role of parenting in encouraging or discouraging bullying? Is there a relationship between
supervision and bullying? What function do changing family compositions and the emergence
of non-traditional forms of family play in bullying? An analysis of the relationship between key
family factors and bullying role not only addresses the gaps in the research on predictive factors
for bullying, but, through a better understanding of the role that families play in encouraging and
discouraging specific bullying roles, may also provide a yet unexplored approach to addressing
an ever-increasing problem. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the role of the
family, specifically parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition, as explanatory
factors for bully-victim and bully-perpetrator roles.
Background of the Problem
Instances of bullying are difficult to identify because of the challenges associated with
establishing a definition of bullying. What looks like social aggression to one person may look
like simple teasing to someone else, yet many definitions of bullying include teasing as a
component. By understanding the constantly evolving nature of bullying behavior, researchers
A FAMILY AFFAIR

11
successfully established clearly defined categories and types of bullying through which they
quantify both the patterns and appearance of bullying and also developed strategies to address
the consequences associated with the various forms of bullying.
Characteristics of Bullies
Bullying is a term that is difficult to define because of its diverse and ever-evolving
nature. Bullying can, depending on circumstances, be a characteristic, status, or behavior. There
are, however, common characteristics of bullying that are consistent at any age and stage in life.
Hazler, Carney, Green, Powell, and Jolly (1997) conducted a survey that offered 70 potential
characteristics of bullying to experts in the field, resulting in 19 common characteristics. Among
the 19 characteristics identified by Hazler et al. (1997), the 6 that experts consistently agreed
were present in bullies were controlling others through verbal and physical action, becoming
easily angered and quick to use force, feeling little empathy for victim, having often been
exposed to aggressive behaviors, chronically repeating aggressive behaviors, and misinterpreting
the actions of others.
Haynie et al. (2001) state that additional characteristics of bullying include poor
psychosocial functioning, high aggression and hostility, and a high sense of security in one’s
self. Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, and King (1982) found that bullies have positives attitudes
towards aggression, while Olweus (1994) describes bullies as aggressive, impulsive, confident,
and of average popularity. Carney and Merrell (2001) support findings by Olweus (1994)
indicating that bullies are overly aggressive and seem to enjoy dominating children. Pellegrini
(1998) also describes bullies as being of above average popularity. Research by Batsche and
Knoff (1994) indicates bullies have difficulty with problem-solving skills and are easily
provoked into fighting back.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

12
Types and Forms of Bullying Behavior
For all of the difficulties involved in defining the concept, bullying can be generally
characterized as a repeated act of aggression between individuals with varying degrees of power
(Olweus, 1991). Bullying can subsequently be categorized into traditional forms of bullying,
which involve social, physical, and verbal aggression, and non-traditional forms of bullying that
include cyberbullying, a more recent form of bullying that involves technology or internet-based
aggression.
Physical bullying is the most well-known type of bullying and usually entails hitting,
kicking, and various other forms of physical aggression. Physical bullying is direct and can co-
occur with other types of bullying. Smokowski and Kopasz (2005) explain that this type of
bullying behavior is less sophisticated, and the bully is often easy to identify because of the overt
use of physical harm. Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) mention that physical bullying declines with
age as other forms of bullying may increase.
Beyond direct physical aggression, bullying can also take place indirectly. Compared to
physical bullying, verbal bullying involves the use of hurtful or hateful words and language with
the intent to cause harm to another person. Verbal bullying is much more difficult to detect
because of the quickness with which it happens. These subtle and indirect forms of bully
behavior increase during childhood and can proceed into adolescence (Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007). Social bullying, which is also known as relational aggression, is one of the most common
indirect forms of bullying behavior. It is typically characterized by exclusion or out-casting, and
generally leaves victims feeling isolated and rejected. Wang et al. (2009) state that girls are
typically associated with this indirect form of bullying behavior.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

13
The spread, accessibility, and increased popularity of technology and electronic media
spurred the growth of cyberbullying, which, by virtue of its name, most people associate with the
Internet. Vandebosch and Cleemput (2008) caution that because most people identify
cyberbullying as bullying that takes place primarily online, a more comprehensive definition is
required. Vandebosch and Cleemput suggest using terms such as electronic bullying or digital
bullying in order to fully encompass the bullying that takes place over the many diverse forms of
electronic media and technology. Outside of the electronic or digital nature of aggressive
behavior, cyberbullying encompasses many of the same criteria that define and characterize
traditional physical, social, and verbal bullying (Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2008).
Factors Contributing to Bullying
Natvig, Albrektsen, and Qvarnstrom (2001) note that the school environment has long
been associated with the promotion of bullying behavior. Often, the need to belong to a certain
peer group is a factor that can encourage bullying behavior. Sutton and Keogh (2000) as well as
Rigby (2005) found a strong association between the need for social acceptance and instances of
bullying. Additionally, when teachers do not address bullying behavior, be it through a lack of
classroom management or through a failure to extinguish bullying behavior when they see it
happening, aggressive behavior can also be reinforced (Allen, 2010). Overcrowded schools and
lack of on-campus supervision during recess and lunch are additional factors that have been
found to serve as additional causes of bullying behavior (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000).
More than school and peer-related factors, family has been found to significantly explain
or predict problems with bullying behavior (Fosco, Stormshak, Dishion, & Winter, 2012; Ary,
Duncan, Biglan, Metzler, Noel, & Smolkowski, 1999). Parental supervision in particular was
found to considerably predict bullying behavior, especially during 7th and 8th grades, when
A FAMILY AFFAIR

14
parents typically demonstrate a drop in involvement and supervision (Dishion, Nelson, &
Bullock, 2004; Dishion, Nelson, & Kavanagh, 2003). When parents fail to provide proper
supervision or consequences, bullying behavior can often be reinforced (Knutson, DeGarmo,
Koepple, & Reid, 2005). Authoritarian parents who make use of physical or punitive
punishment at home often promote bullying behavior in their children (Hart, Nelson, Robinson,
Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998). Given the important role that families can play in promoting
or eliminating bullying behavior in children, the purpose of this study is to examine parenting
style, parental supervision, and family composition in order to determine the relationship
between these variables and bully-victim and bully-perpetrator role.
Theoretical Framework
Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1997) ecological systems theory provides a framework for
understanding the role of various contributing factors in bullying. Bronfenbrenner describes five
environmental systems that an individual interacts with throughout the span of her or his life that
can in turn influence and impact human behavior: the exosystem, the macrosystem, and
chronosystem. The microsystem represents the place where the developing person and the
environment are directly interacting for some time, such as when a child interacts with his home
or school during a given period of time. The mesosystem involves the interrelations between
different microsystems at a particular point in the developing person’s life, such as when at-
home experiences impact or affect in-school experiences. The exosystem is an extension of the
mesosystem in that the system includes other settings that the developing person is not directly
involved in but is connected to and impacted by, such as a parent’s place work or business. The
macrosystem is symbolic of the culture, sub-cultures and values that have been set and in which
A FAMILY AFFAIR

15
a person abides by formally and informally. The chronosystem is the system that includes the
changes and consistencies that happen over time to the person and the surrounding environment,
such as changes in family structure or socioeconomic status.
According to Bronfenbrenner (1997) and his ecological systems theory, people’s
development is directly affected and influenced by the systems to which they belong and within
which they interact, including a person’s home, school, and surrounding environments and the
cultures and values associated with those environments. Essentially, a child can be directly and
indirectly influenced and affected by what takes place in and between many of the systems that
are a part of that child’s life.
School environment, peer relations, parenting style, supervision, family composition, as
well as personalities and internal feelings of worth can all be taken as representations of
Bronfenbrenner’s five ecological systems. Parenting style, parental monitoring, and family
composition are variables that specifically represent Bronfenbrenner’s micro, macro, and chrono
systems. Just as Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems can influence development, in their own
way, these aspects of family life can positively and negatively influence bullying. Given
Bronfenbrenner’s model of how certain systems can influence behavior, the ecological systems
theory provides the framework through which the relationship between family-based factors and
the development of a bullying role—that of a bully-perpetrator or bully-victim—can be observed
and analyzed. By looking at these three specific aspects of family life as unique systems in
which students interact in and with, Bronfenbrenner’s systems theory will be used as a
theoretical framework for examining if and how parenting style, parental monitoring, and family
composition explain the emergence of specific bullying roles.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

16
Importance of the Study
Recent tragic events brought about increased attention to the issue of bullying, as, more
and more, research indicates that a growing percentage of students across the United States are
suffering from various forms of bullying. By one measure, more than half of the students in the
United States experience some type of bullying during the school year (NCES, 2011). Whether
it involves physical, verbal, social, or digital-based aggression, bullying carries with it severe
consequences. For some, those consequences are physical and include bruises and scars. For
others, the impact is more psychological, and can lead to increased levels of anxiety, depression,
and suicidal ideation (Rigby, 2001).
A variety of factors have been identified as predictors or causes of bullying. For some
bullies and victims, the root of social aggression rests within the school environment, where
teachers either fail to properly address bullying behavior or where the pressure to belong and be
accepted is enough to increase bullying (Allen, 2010; Rigby, 2005). In other cases, bullying is
the result of personal or internal factors such as low self-esteem, or family-related problems such
as a lack of supervision or changes in family composition (Dishion, Nelson, & Bullock, 2004).
The issue of bullying shows no signs of slowing down, despite schools across the country
continuing to implement a variety of prevention and intervention strategies to address with
bullying. Children across the country continue to deal with and suffer the consequences of
bullying, with devastating results. With the growing number of school children experiencing
physical, social, verbal, and cyberbullying, research into social aggression must continue to seek
out and identify the most significant precursors and risk factors associated with bullying.
Factors ranging from school environment and classroom management, to self-esteem and
peer relations have all been found to contribute, in varying degrees, to the problem of bullying.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

17
One facet of society that has proven to be a significant predictor of bully-perpetrator and bully-
victim roles, both as a risk factor and as a potential solution, is family. Through various ways,
the family has been found to significantly explain or predict problems with bullying behavior,
particularly the emergence of specific bullying roles. This study is important precisely because it
looks at three key features of family—parenting style, parental supervision, and family
composition—and seeks to analyze exactly how these three variables predict to bully-victim and
bully-perpetrator roles. Therefore, the purpose of this study, is to specifically examine the role
of family factors in the form of parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition to
determine if and how they predict bully-victim and bully-perpetrator roles.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of the literature, beginning with an overview of the
different categories or statuses associated with bullying, followed by a section on the
environmental, social, and economic factors that most significantly contribute to bullying. The
chapter then focuses on the relationship between family-based factors and bullying, looking
specifically at the literature on family composition, parenting style and parental supervision both
for informative background and associations between each variable and bullying roles. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the literature and presents the purpose and research
questions guiding this study.
Patterns and Consequences of Bullying
Patterns of Bullying
Nansel et al. (2001) looked at data from a representative sample of 15,686 American
public and private school students in grades 6 through 10 who completed the World Health
Organization's Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey during the spring of 1998.
Out of this sample, 29.9% reported moderate to frequent involvement in bullying, with
approximately 13% having been bullied (Nansel et al, 2001). Males were more likely than
females to be both bully-perpetrators and bully-victims, with males participating more in
physical bullying and females taking part in more social and verbal types of bullying (Nansel et
al., 2001; Von Marees & Petermann, 2010).
There is a tendency for some forms of bullying to decrease with age. In Nansel et al.’s
(2001) study, the frequency of bullying was higher among students in middle school in
comparison to students in high school. Regardless of the decrease over time, Nansel et al. (2001)
still reports that more than three million students are identified as bully-victims and close to four
A FAMILY AFFAIR

19
million students are characterized as bully-perpetrators. In a later article analyzing data from the
2005 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Survey administered to a representative
sample of over 7,000 students nationwide in grades 6 to 10, Wang et al. (2009) found that boys
were more involved in physical and verbal bullying and girls were involved in relational
bullying. Boys were also more likely to be cyberbully-perpetrators; girls were likely to be
cyberbully-victims (Wang, et al., 2009).
Regardless of the cause, type, or location, bullying is a problem that continues to increase
across the country. Close to one-third of American public school students report having bullied
another student at least once during the school year (Nansel et al., 2001). Boys have long been
known to participate in physically aggressive forms of bullying; girls show an increased
prevalence for taking part in social forms, which often include spreading rumors and social
outcasting (Von Marees & Petermann, 2010).
Consequences of Bullying
Because bullying occurs in various forms, the consequence of bullying behavior can be
equally varied. The severity of bullying generally depends on the form or type of bullying
experienced. While health related issues commonly result from physical forms of bullying,
social, verbal, and cyber bullying can also have a psychological impact on victims.
The physical effects of being victimized by a bully-perpetrator are measurable and
visible, as bruises, scars, scratches and bumps are common physical signs of bullying. One study
by Rigby (1998) indicated that thirty-three percent of boys and fifty-five percent of girls felt that
their health had significantly deteriorated as a result of being bullied. Physical symptoms
beyond bruises and scars are also often associated with bullying. . For example, Fekkes, Pijpers,
A FAMILY AFFAIR

20
Fredriks, Vogels, and Varloove-Vanhorick (2006) report that abdominal pain and headaches
were two common physical symptoms resulting from being bullied.
Psychologically, bully-victims often experience various forms of distress, including
increased suicidal ideation, anxiety, and depression (Rigby, 2001). Bully-victims often report
feeling either angry or sad; boys typically report feelings of anger, while girls most often report
feeling sad (Rigby, 2007). Rejection by peers or an inability to defend themselves often leaves
bully-victims with a reduced sense of self-esteem as well as feelings of isolation and loneliness
(Rigby, 2007). However, the psychological effects of bullying are not limited to victims, as
Dietz (1994) argues that bully-perpetrators often suffer higher levels of depression as adults in
comparison to bully-victims.
With bullying often taking place in school settings, victims often also suffer academic
consequences. For some bully-victims, school can become such an uncomfortable place that
approximately 10% to 29% percent of students often choose to skip school rather than have to
face victimization (Slee, 1994). Bully-victims often also display a lack of interest in school and
a measurable drop in grades (Olweus, 1994).
Parties Involved in Bullying
Despite recent research that uncovered the presence of additional statuses or categories
when it comes to describing a bullying situation, bullying continues to be considered a dyad, as it
most commonly involves a bully-perpetrator and a bully-victim. Hooper, L’Abate, Sweeney,
Gianesini, and Jankowski (2014), for example, describe bullying as a triad involving a victim,
rescuer, and persecutor. Depending on an individual’s status, participation, and behavior, a
person could actually fall into one of four categories, which include the bully-perpetrator,
bully/victim, bully-victim, and bully-bystander (Psalti, 2012; Wang et al., 2009).
A FAMILY AFFAIR

21
Bully-Perpetrators
By far, the most recognized role within the realm of bullying is the role of the bully-
perpetrator, or the individual responsible for the committing acts of bullying. Whether through
images in popular culture or through academic research, bully-perpetrators are identifiable and
easily stereotyped through specific characteristics, behaviors, and backgrounds. Hussian and
Sharma (2014) identify two kinds of bully-perpetrators: those who proactively use aggressive
behavior to achieve a particular goal and those that react aggressively to being provoked. Bully-
perpetrators typically lack empathy with their victims and have a need to dominate others,
despite very often being anxious and insecure themselves (Hussian & Sharma, 2014). Among
their peers, bully-perpetrators present conflicting perceptions, as some researchers identify them
as having issues with social problem solving (Warden & Mackinnon, 2003), while other
researchers indicate that bully-perpetrators are described by their peers as socially competent,
highly intelligent, and popular (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2006).
Gender and age. Generally speaking, bully-perpetrators are more often male. When
girls take on the role of the bully-perpetrator, they tend to do so using a more social form of
aggression, while boys who bully tend to be more physically aggressive (Merrell, Buchanan, &
Tran, 2006). According to Borg (1998), the actions of bully-perpetrators evolve over time and
shift from physical bullying behaviors as young children, to more subtle or covert behaviors as
they age.
Bully-Victims
Victims of bullying are distinguished by their own unique characteristics and behavior
patterns. Batsche and Knoff (1994) categorized bully-victims as anxious, insecure, and
unassertive. In a later study, Perren and Alexander (2005) support the earlier findings by
A FAMILY AFFAIR

22
Batsche and Knoff (1994), adding that bully-victims were more submissive, more withdrawn,
more isolated, less cooperative and sociable, and often lacked playmates. Veenstra et al. (2005)
also add that bully-victims are withdrawn and anxious, but also depressed, cautious, and quiet.
Additionally, Nansel et al. (2001) continue that bully-victims are lonelier and tend to not have
many good friends.
In their global study of school bully-perpetrators and bully-victims, Hazler et al. (1997)
identified 19 characteristics common in bully-victims. Among these were the belief that they
cannot control their own environment, ineffective social skills, poor interpersonal skills, less
popular, and have fears of being personally inadequate. Physically, bully-victims are usually
small, weak and frail compared to bully-perpetrators, and tend to have body image issues
(Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005).
Gender and age. A distinct pattern exists in areas involving the age and gender of bully-
victims. Whether it is due to the lack of reporting, changes in status, or homogenization of a
population, there tend to be fewer victims of physical bullying as age increases (Ma, 2001).
However, research by Rivers and Smith (1994) and Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen and Brick (2010)
seems to indicate an increase in indirect bullying as age increases. A similar trend exists between
gender and bully-victims, where boys are more likely than girls to be victims of bullying.
Scheithauer, Hayer, Petermann, and Jugert, (2006) as well as Rivers and Smith (1994) found that
male bully-victims are more likely to experience physical bullying. Females on the other hand,
were more likely to experiences indirect forms of bullying such as teasing and social isolation
(Carbone-Lopez et al., 2010; Rivers & Smith, 1994;). Wang et al. (2009) support these results,
maintaining that boys are more involved in physical types and girls are more involved in
A FAMILY AFFAIR

23
relational bullying, which, according to Paquette and Underwood (1999) typically involve
gossip.
Predictors and Risk Factors for Bullying
The intricacies of bullying are strongly tied to the complex nature of today's
society. Much like the identification of various forms of bullying, research has also revealed that
a variety of issues in an individual's life can contribute to the development and appearance of
certain bully behaviors. Generally, those contributing factors can be grouped into four distinct
patterns or categories: personal, family, peer, and school dynamics (Hilton et al.,
2010). Individual attitudes, level of self-esteem, and degree of psychosocial adjustment all
constitute personal dynamics to some degree. Affiliations with and opinions of cohorts signify
peer dynamics. Cohesion, attachment, involvement, and mistreatment are all family-related
factors, while school size, classroom management, and teacher-to-student ratio represent school-
based issues that can contribute to or encourage bullying.
Internal and Emotional Factors that Influence Bullying Behavior and Role
A variety of personal factors and characteristics have been found to be predictors of
bullying behavior, particularly attitudes toward oneself and others. Nickerson, Mele, and
Princiotta (2008) along with Rigby (2005) found that being non-empathetic, particularly toward
bully-victims, might lead to more instances of bullying behavior. Empathy—measured using
the Olweus Empathic Responsiveness Questionnaire—was cited as a significant predictor of a
child’s role as a bully-perpetrator, bully-victim, or bystander in a bullying situation, with bully-
perpetrators scoring much lower on the measure of empathetic concern than all other groups
(Nickerson et al., 2008). Rigby (2005) also suggests that a negative attitude toward bully-
victims and lack of empathy was highly associated with bullying behavior. Both Rigby (2005)
A FAMILY AFFAIR

24
and Nickerson et al. (2008) recommend that intervention programs focus on promoting
empathetic attitudes towards bully-victims.
O’Moore and Kirkham's (2001) research showed that low self-esteem and self-worth
were strongly linked to bullying behavior. Children in elementary and middle school grades
characterized as pure bullies reported lower level of global self-esteem, which only seemed to
become increasingly lower with an increased frequency of bullying (O'Moore & Kirkham,
2001). According to O’Moore and Kirkham (2001), much of the issues regarding low self-
esteem and self-worth associated with bully-perpetrators center on personal feelings of
inadequacy toward behavior, intellectual status, physical appearance, popularity, and happiness.
Viding, Simmonds, Petrides, and Frederickson (2009) identified callous and unemotional
traits—characteristics that include a lack of empathy and guilt—as playing a “potentially
significant role in the development of bullying” (pg. 7). Children, particularly boys with what
were described as high levels of callous and unemotional traits, were found to be predisposed to
bullying behavior in part due to an associated inability to process emotions or manage behaviors
(Viding et al., 2009). Similarly, Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, and Bonano’s (2005) research
indicates that greater moral disengagement, or the processes through which individuals justify
committing violent or terrible acts against others, contributed to bullying. Hymel et al. (2005)
specifically identified justification for bullying and blaming the bully-victim as two items of
moral disengagement that were the most significant predictors of bullying role and behavior.
Personality has been found to serve as a predictor of bullying role. In a study of Italian
elementary school children and the five common personality traits used to describe people, Tani,
Greenman, Schneider, and Fregoso (2003) found that emotional instability, friendliness, and
energy were the three personality traits most significantly associated with students who became
A FAMILY AFFAIR

25
bully-perpetrators. The results specifically indicate that bully-perpetrators were characterized as
having lower levels of friendliness along with higher levels of both emotional instability and
energy, suggesting that they essentially have a preoccupation with personal goals, a lack of
sympathy for victims, and a tendency toward actively initiating conflicts (Tani et al.,
2003). Espelage, Bosworth, and Simon (2001) found that traits such as impulsivity, lack of
confidence in using non-violent problem solving strategies, and anger were also associated with
higher levels of bullying over time. Anger in the form of reactive aggression, along with positive
attitudes toward violence as a method of solving problems were traits found in individuals more
likely to become bully-perpetrators (Espelage et al., 2001).
Peer and Social Factors that Contribute to Bullying Behavior and Role
Social factors related to peers play a unique role in promoting bullying behaviors and
roles, especially in school settings. The most common manifestation of influential social factors
that promote bullying are relationships with peers and the need to belong or maintain popularity
or group membership.
Sutton and Keogh (2000) observed that young children, in attempting to build a
reputation through their dealings with others, may develop behaviors that can, in turn, lead them
to develop into bully-perpetrators. A negative correlation was found between a child’s desire for
social success and his views, attitudes, and behaviors toward bully-victims (Sutton & Keogh,
2000). Ultimately, the need to gain status and acceptance from peers, and the subsequent
dominance and powerful reputation associated with bullying another individual are enough to
encourage bully-perpetrator role development, particularly among boys (Sutton & Keogh, 2000).
Research by Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie (2007) affirms the role that peers play in
promoting bully-perpetrator role development, noting that consistent associations have been
A FAMILY AFFAIR

26
found between peer relations and bullying, a result also observed by Rigby (2005). In Rigby’s
(2005) study, expectations on the part of friends were associated with bullying behavior and role
development. Spriggs et al. (2007) specifically support previous results that indicate that
rejection by peers and friendships with deviant peers can contribute to the problem of
bullying.
The role of peers can, in actuality, be both a buffer and an antecedent in bullying
situations. In some situations, peer relationships can encourage some students to become bully-
perpetrators, while in other cases certain relationships can actually serve to safeguard students
from bullying and various other forms of physical aggression. Pellegrini and Long’s (2002)
research highlights the importance of social affiliation as both an agent and an inhibitor of
victimization in children transitioning from elementary to middle school, emphasizing that a
larger number of friendships and peer affiliations can discourage bullying due to a bully-
perpetrator’s fear of greater social disapproval and retaliation. In another study of school
transition, Pellegrini (2002) found that, while having friends and affiliates inhibits becoming a
bully-victim, status and the desire for certain friendships remain important factors motivating
bullying.
Loosely associated with the influence of peers, social skills have also been found to play
a role in bullying situations. Hodges and Perry (1999) categorize social skills as interpersonal
variables, and argue that a lack of these not only makes students potential targets, but may, in
fact, reinforce and invite aggressive actions on the part of bully-perpetrators. Given the results
of Pellegrini and Long’s (2002) study that indicate membership in large social groups can serve
as a protective factor against bullying, Hodges and Perry (1999) find that number of friends does
not matter and that no such fear of retaliation exists among bully-perpetrators who target victims
A FAMILY AFFAIR

27
lacking in specific social skills and those who demonstrate anxiety or physical weakness.
Hodges and Perry’s (1999) results suggest that peer victimization, personal difficulties, and peer-
relational problems are all part of a system that is mutually reinforcing.
School Related Factors that Contribute to Bullying Behavior and Role
Factors related to the school environment have long been associated with bullying
behavior (Natvig et al., 2001), and researchers have typically focused on physical aspects of
school environments as risk factors for bullying.. More recently research has begun to include
the role of teachers in encouraging bullying behavior. In general, both physical and psychosocial
factors in schools can contribute to or promote bullying behavior.
Allen (2010) looks specifically at teacher practices and classroom management as risk
factors for bullying, finding that harsh disciplinary approaches, low-quality instruction, and
classroom disorganization all play a role in encouraging the development of bully-perpetrators.
According to Allen (2010), schools respond to aggression with more aggression, typically in the
form of harsher punishments and expulsion. When this aggressive approach to dealing with
bully-perpetrators is compounded by teachers who lack classroom management skills, the
problem of bullying only grows worse. Poteat and DiGiovanni (2010) add that, when teachers
and schools fail to address the use of biased language, particularly language related to sexual
orientation, they may directly contribute to an environment that essentially promotes bully-
perpetrator roles. According to Rigby (2005), the expectations of others, teachers in particular,
can determine if a child becomes a bully-perpetrator. Rigby (2005) described this phenomenon
as a potential misinterpretation by students, who may in fact see a teacher’s failure to support a
bully-victim as form of support of encouragement of a bully-perpetrator. Lack of teacher
A FAMILY AFFAIR

28
intervention during episodes of bullying has also been found to serve as a factor that encourages
bully-perpetrator roles and behaviors (Craig et al., 2000).
In addressing school-wide environments, Meyer-Adams and Conner (2008) note a
relationship between a school’s psychosocial environment and the presence of aggressive
behaviors. Using data drawn from a sample of over five-thousand middle school students, the
results indicate that bullying behaviors have a tendency to increase when schools fail to establish
firm and clear rules of conduct, are unable to positively involve adults, lack adequate campus
monitoring and supervision, and promote hostile forms of discipline (Meyer-Adams & Conner,
2008). Yoneyama and Naito (2003) conclude that students may learn about power-dominant
behaviors through the actions of teachers, who, through their relationships with students and
their classroom management approach, can teach students to oppress the socially weak and be
intolerant of students with individual differences. Essentially, authoritarian school
environments, including those with high levels of regimentation and disciplinary approaches that
humiliate or shame, can create schools where bullying is commonplace (Yoneyama & Naito,
2003).
A school’s physical environment, from layout to size, can also be a contributing factor to
bullying behavior, as Rigby (2007) comments that bullying can happen in various parts of a
school campus, from inside the classroom to outside on the playground. Outside of the
classroom, most bullying tends to take place during recess or lunch, when supervision is limited;
inside the classroom, bullying occurs when teachers are out of the room, when teachers are not
paying attention and when lessons are considered to be particularly boring (Rigby, 2007).
Craig et al. (2000) concur that bullying takes place both inside and outside of the
classroom, with the frequency of bullying being almost twice as high outside as it is inside. A
A FAMILY AFFAIR

29
majority of the bullying outside of the classroom is direct and verbal bullying, in most cases as a
result of poor supervision (Craig et al., 2000). According to Craig, et al., the unstructured and
loosely supervised nature of school playgrounds—compared to the more structured environments
inside a classroom—may in fact foster bullying. Larger schools are also considered more
conducive to encouraging the development of bully-perpetrators and aggressive bully behavior,
in part because of a greater age range of students in attendance (Bowes, Arseneault, Maughan,
Taylor, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2009).
Family Factors Related to Bullying
A variety of family factors such as parenting style, parental supervision, and family
composition have been found to have an impact on bullying role. Family is undoubtedly an
influential force in a child’s life that can influence behavior in different ways. Parents and
parenting style are especially important because they can mold behaviors that can be functional
or dysfunctional. Family dynamic, in particular, plays an important role because it
simultaneously guides and models behavior in a child’s life.
Parenting Style
Baumrind (1991) identifies four individual parenting styles: permissive,
rejecting/neglecting, authoritarian, and authoritative. Authoritative parents recognize a child’s
interest and qualities, but also set standards for future conduct; this approach is inherently
democratic (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritarian parents shape and control a child’s behavior using a
standard of conduct based on a model of higher authority; this approach typically values
obedience (Baumrind, 1991). Permissive parents allow children to regulate their own activities,
giving in to their desires and impulses without any defined standards (Baumrind, 1991). Parents
characterized as rejecting/neglecting are generally detached and can often reject or neglect a
A FAMILY AFFAIR

30
child’s needs (Baumrind, 1991). Some parenting styles have been found by researchers to
contribute more to the development of certain bullying roles and behaviors than others (Haynie
et al., 2001).
In analyzing the factors that contribute to aggression in children, Hart et al. (1998) found
that parents who used coercive parenting styles—those most often associated with authoritarian
parents—raised children who were more overtly aggressive; psychological control on the part of
mothers was also associated with overtly aggressive children. Baumrind (1991) associates
authoritarian parenting styles with bullying and authoritative parenting styles with more positive
behaviors and outcomes. Baldry and Farrington (2000; 1998) also suggest that bully-
perpetrators tend to come from homes with authoritarian parents.
In a study involving 9- to 12-year-old students, Ahmed and Braithwaite (2004) identified
bullies by their home environments, commenting that the parents of bully-perpetrators were
more likely to support an authoritarian approach to parenting. Duncan (2004) comments that
authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parents all risk raising children who bully and display
aggressive and delinquent behaviors. Pontzer (2010) adds that the likelihood of becoming a
bully-perpetrator is strongly associated with having authoritarian and neglectful parents who
treat children in hostile or indifferent manners. Children may essentially mimic parenting
behavior in their interactions with peers, increasing their chances of becoming bully-perpetrators
(Pontzer, 2010).
The relationship between bullying role and parenting style is not limited to Western
societies. A study of bullying among children in Taiwan yielded results that support the
relationship between parenting style and bullying. Hokoda, Lu, and Angeles (2006) found a
negative association between authoritative parenting and children’s experiences of bullying.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

31
Interestingly, no relationship was found when looking at authoritarian parenting and instances of
bullying (Hokoda et al., 2006). In Myron-Wilson’s (1999) study, bully-perpetrators themselves
indicated having parents who favored a more punitive style of child rearing.
Parental Supervision
Parental supervision typically describes the process through which parents are able to
keep themselves informed and aware of a child’s activities. Dishion and McMahon (1998)
define supervision as the physical presence of a parent. In situations involving bullying
behavior, a lack of parental supervision has been identified as a key factor.
Parental supervision can either prevent or promote aggressive and anti-social behaviors
(Fosco et al., 2012; Ary et al, 1999). In fact, parental supervision was found to significantly
predict bullying behavior, particularly during late middle school years, when several studies
indicate a drop in involvement, guidance, and family management (Dishion, Nelson, & Bullock,
2004; Dishion, Nelson, & Kavanagh, 2003). Earlier studies by Kim, Hetherington, and Reiss
(2003) as well as Bacchini, Miranda, and Affuso (2011) also support the idea of parental
supervision as a factor contributing to behavioral problems.
Malete’s (2007) study of secondary students in Botswana found a negative correlation
between parental supervision and aggressive and externalizing behaviors. Knutson et al. (2005)
established that a lack of parental supervision and monitoring led to a sense of neglect, which, in
turn, resulted in an increase in aggressive behaviors on the part of neglected children. Holt,
Kantor, and Finkelhor (2009) suggest that there is less supervision in the homes of bully-
perpetrators, a characteristic that was reported by both parents and bullies.
Espelage et al. (2000), along with Ary, Duncan, Duncan, and Hops (1999) found that
students who spent the most time without adults present were more likely to engage in bullying
A FAMILY AFFAIR

32
behavior, suggesting that adults—specifically through the amount of time they spend with
children—play a significant role in the development of bully-perpetrators. Rudatsikira, Siziya,
Kazembe, and Muula (2007) note a negative association between parental supervision and
physical fighting. Similar results were also found in a much earlier study by Farrington (1993),
who argues that bullying is more likely to happen in situations and during times when there is
minimal adult supervision or surveillance. Laird, Marrero, and Sentse (2009) add that greater
monitoring activity was linked to fewer behavioral problems, noting that in some situations, the
simple perception of supervision can be enough to deter antisocial and aggressive behaviors.
Family Composition
The composition of the American family changed significantly over the last 50 years.
Today, a growing number of children are raised in non-traditional families. The days of the
“nuclear family” gave way to more blended families, single parent families, families with same-
sex parents, and families headed by grandparents. Of these factors, none contributes more to
bullying role than a single-parent household. During the 1950’s, less than one-fifth of American
children lived in single-parent households; by the late 1990’s, that number had increased by two-
thirds (Mayer & Leone, 2007).
Spriggs et al. (2007) argue family structure is positively associated with bullying
involvement, while Bowers, Smith, and Binney (1994) found that children who are bully-
perpetrators were thirty five percent more likely to not have a father at home as compared to
bully-victims. The important role of a father in bullying role is also noted by Flouri and
Buchanan (2002), who found that father involvement can actually protect children from being
bully-victims and increase their mental well-being. A later study by Flouri and Buchanan (2003)
supports their earlier conclusion about father involvement and adds that a father plays a
A FAMILY AFFAIR

33
significant role in reducing the development of bully-perpetrators even after divorce or when
families are intact. Interestingly, Jablonska and Lindberg (2007) indicate that children in single-
father families were at a higher risk of aggressive behaviors when compared to children in
single-mother families.
Although they do not specifically address bullying, Barbarin and Soler (1993) concluded
that children living in single-parent households were less well-adjusted and more likely to
exhibit negative behaviors, especially towards peers. Ram and Hou (2003), in their study of
family resources, found that children in single-parent or step-parent families experienced greater
emotional and behavioral problems as a result of changes and family structure. These problems
were found not only in children who had lived with one parent for a long period of time, but also
in children experiencing a recent change in family structure (Ram & Hou, 2003). Research by
Holt et al. (2007) also found that bully-perpetrators were more likely to live with mothers only.
Turner, Finkelhor, and Ormrod (2007), in a study involving one thousand children, found that
children from both single parent and step families had a higher likelihood of being bully-victims,
with children from step families having the greatest risk of being bullied.
In looking at family cohesion, which can be described as how close or distant family
members are to each other, Bowers, Smith, and Binney (1992) highlight the fact that bully-
perpetrators describe their families as less cohesive, especially when the father does not live at
home. This lack of cohesion within a family can be predictive of children who bully. Bowers et
al. (1994) found that bully-perpetrators were more likely to designate someone other than a
parent as the family member most in their lives.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

34
Summary of Literature Review
Bullying is a social problem that has existed for some time. A significant number of
middle school children, more so than any other grade level, report some type of involvement
with it, either as a victim or a perpetrator. The image of bullying behavior typically involves
boys, who have a tendency to take part in physical forms of bullying. Girls, however, are no less
likely to bully or be bullied, but their approach to bullying is distinctly social in nature. Whether
it involves boys or girls, or takes the form of physical or social aggression, bullying nevertheless
comes with significant consequences. Bullying behaviorIt often leaves behind more than just
bruises and scars. Bullying can affect the psychological well-being as well as academic
achievement of bully-victims, who often choose to retreat from school and social activities for
fear of being bullied.
A great deal of research on the issue of bullying has considered the two major roles
involved in bullying, that of the perpetrator and the victim. Research shows that each individual
status is categorized by unique behaviors and characteristics. Bully-perpetrators are typically
aggressive individuals, while bully-victims are often passive. Bullying is a complex issue that is
the result of a variety of factors. Predictors of bullying role include internal and emotional
factors, peer and social factors and school-related factors. Lack of empathy and lack of self-
esteem, pressure to belong, and issues within school environments represent just a few of the risk
factors associated with the development and prevalence of these specific bullying roles.
More important than social, school, and personal factors is the role of family. The
changing nature of today’s family, which has become more non-traditional than ever before,
coupled with the amount of supervision and the approach to childrearing taken by parents, seems
to be playing an ever-increasing and significant role in explaining bullying roles. This study on
A FAMILY AFFAIR

35
the factors that contribute to bullying role is especially important as today’s parents and families
seek to work through the best approach to take in raising their children, while simultaneously
struggling to meet the challenges of a society that demands more time from them than ever
before.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
Given the significant impact that bullying has had and continues to have on the lives of
youth, and the recognition that various factors contribute to its development, the purpose of this
study is to explore if and how family-based factors of parenting style, parental supervision, and
family composition predict the emergence of certain bullying roles, particular that of bully-
victim and bully-perpetrator. The specific research questions are as follows:
Research Question 1: Does parenting style (Authoritarian, Authoritative, and
Permissive) and parental supervision predict bully-perpetrator role?
Hypothesis 1a: The type of parenting style, whether it be authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive will predict bully-perpetrator role.
Hypothesis 2b: A decrease in parental supervision will predict bully-perpetrator
role.
Research Question 2: Does parenting style (Authoritarian, Authoritative, and
Permissive) and parental supervision predict bully-victim role?
Hypothesis 2a: The type of parenting style, whether it be authoritarian,
authoritative, or permissive will predict bully-victim role.
Hypothesis 2b: An increase in parental supervision will lower bully-victim role.
Research Question 3: Are there differences by family composition type (nuclear, single
parent, divorced, and blended) in bully-perpetrator and bully-victim role?
A FAMILY AFFAIR

36
Hypothesis 3a: There will be family composition type differences in bully-
perpetrator and bully-victim role.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter reviews the methods employed in carrying out this study, beginning with a
description of the research participants followed by an examination of the various instruments
used to operationalize and collect data. A description of the recruitment approach and data
collection methods concludes the chapter.
Participants
The participants in this study were from a high school in Los Angeles County that is part
of the Partnerships to Uplift Communities, or PUC, a non-profit charter school system affiliated
with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Most of the students who attend PUC
schools reside in the northeast side of Los Angeles as well as the northeast side of the San
Fernando Valley. The students attending the Early College Academy for Leaders and Scholars
(ECALS), which is a PUC charter high school of about 300 students located in the northeast side
of Los Angeles, either live in the surrounding area or commute to ECALS due to the school’s
open enrollment policy. Ethnically, the student population at ECALS is 90% Latino/Hispanic.
Approximately 90 percent of the students participate in the National School Lunch Program,
whose income eligibility uses the federal poverty guidelines as criteria for qualification (United
States Department of Agriculture, 2014).
The initial recruitment effort yielded a sample of 74 participants; this sample was
representative of the PUC school system, as the population of participants was 90% Latino. A
second effort at securing a larger sample through social media yielded an additional 74
participants, 90% of whom were Caucasian. Before results were analyzed, the data were
examined for completeness. Surveys with missing responses were dropped from analysis; a total
of five surveys were dropped due to missing information or outliers. Overall, a sample of 143
A FAMILY AFFAIR

38
surveys from the original 148 obtained, were used in this study, with 72 participants identifying
as Latino/Hispanic and 71 participants identifying as Caucasian. While, initially, a larger sample
of participants was secured, the number of participants who identified as either African
American or Asian was not large enough to allow for proper analysis of data. Thus, only the
Latino (n = 72) and Caucasian (n = 71) groups were included in the analysis.
Instruments
A survey was created using the Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS), The Parental Authority
Questionnaire Modified Version (PAQ-M), and the Adolescent Perceptions of Parental
Knowledge measure (APPK) to examine the relationship between parenting style, parental
supervision, and family composition with bully-perpetrator and bully-victim role.
Forms of Bullying Scale
The FBS was used to assess frequency of experiences with 5 types of bullying behavior:
verbal bullying, threatening behaviors, physical bullying, damage to relationships, and
social bullying (Shaw, Dooley, Cross, Zubrick, & Waters, 2013). The FBS is designed for use
with 12- to 15-year-old youth. There are two versions of the FBS: the Forms of Bullying Scale
Victimization Version (FBS-V) and the Forms of Bullying Scale Perpetration Version (FBS-P).
Each version of the FBS contains 10 items, and the two versions comprise the same items, with
wording changed to reflect either victimization or perpetration. The items were derived from the
revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) and the Peer Relations
Questionnaire (Rigby, 1998).
The internal consistency for both the FBS-V and FBS-P were high with a Cronbach’s
alpha value of .87 (item to total correlations .48 – .71) and .85 (item to total correlations .44 –
.67) respectively. The test-retest reliability was analyzed using the scores from 207 students in
A FAMILY AFFAIR

39
grades 3 through 12, and the authors conducted the analysis 1-2 weeks after initial testing (Shaw,
et al., 2013). The test-retest reliability coefficients for all six scales were .80 to .87, and had a
median that was .84, showing that there is significance in the reliability.
On the FBS, construct validity of scores was shown through factor analysis while scale
validity was tested using data from two independent studies of 3,496 Grade 8 and 783 Grade 8
through10 students (Shaw et al., 2013). A strong relationship between the FBS-V and FBS-P
and separate single-item bullying items demonstrated acceptable concurrent validity. There
existed correlations with social-emotional outcomes such as depression, anxiety, conduct
problems, and peer support, which provided significant evidence of convergent and discriminant
validity (Shaw et al., 2013).
The FBS was selected for use in this study because of its overall effectiveness for use
with the chosen population. The scale has only 10 items when it was administered to the sample
population, which includes adolescents ages 12 to 15. Having only 10 questions can make data
collection manageable due to the short attention span common in this stage of development;
administration can be conducted quickly when assessing a large number of students. The FBS
provides the examinee with a 5-point Likert scale for responses, which allows for a genuinely
neutral stance, but can be a weakness if the adolescent circles only the middle response. The
FBS is a self-report scale, which also helps with efficiency, but may not be as accurate if the
adolescent chooses responses that are more socially acceptable.
The FBS represents the most useful instrument for this study specifically because it is the
most efficient. It has a good range of response scale because it offers a 5-point scale. The FBS
is dependable and measures what it is supposed to, yielding scores that are in the significant
range. The scale is based on bullying theory and is also measured against other instruments for
A FAMILY AFFAIR

40
consistency. In terms of content, the instrument measures the frequency of experience within the
five types of bullying behavior, and it has a victim and a perpetrator form. The instrument is
brief and focused, with only 10 items per scale.
Parental Authority Questionnaire- Modified Version
The Parental Authority Questionnaire Modified Version (PAQ-M) was used to measure
parenting style (Trinkner, Cohn, Rebellon, & Gundy, 2012). The PAQ-M is an adapted and
shortened (12-items) version of the 30-item, Likert-scaled Parental Authority Questionnaire
(Buri, 1991), which is used to measure parenting. The original PAQ consists of 30 items, 10 for
each of three parenting styles: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. The
modified PAQ was developed in the context of a study that examined the relations among
parenting style, perception of parental legitimacy, and changes in delinquency over time using a
sample of middle and high school students (Trinkner et al., 2012). Trinkner et al. (2012)
reworded each item of the PAQ to reflect parents in general, rather than mother and father
separately. The authors also shortened the PAQ by selecting what the authors agreed were the
four best representations of each parenting style as conceptualized by Baumrind (1971, 1991).
The resulting 12-item scale measures authoritative parenting (“My parents tell me how I
should act and explain the reasons why”), authoritarian parenting style (“My parents feel that
parents must use force to get children to act the way they are supposed to”), and permissive
parenting style (“My parents feel that children can do whatever they like”). Items were averaged
for each parenting style with higher scores indicating greater use of each parenting style. Each
student had a score reflecting the extent to which their parents used authoritative
(M = 2.79, SD = .69, alpha = .74), authoritarian (M = 2.15, SD = .67, alpha = .73), and
permissive (M = 1.86, SD = .58, alpha = .66) parenting styles.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

41
Trinker et al. (2012) performed a factor analysis and provided a three-component
solution. According to Trinker et al. (2012) the first component contained all four authoritative
items and accounted for 20.38% of the variance. The second component contained all four
authoritarian items and accounted for 19.90% of the variance while the third component
contained all four permissive items and accounted for 17.33% of the variance. The results
suggest that the modified PAQ is functioning similarly to the original PAQ, therefore the
modified version of the PAQ should be considered valid.
The PAQ was selected for use in this study because the modified version of the PAQ
measures parenting style from the adolescents’ perspective and is only twelve items long. Time
is an important variable when high school students are being sampled because of attention span,
as well as the fact that the researcher only has one class period to administer the measure.
Therefore, the shorter the survey the better. Also, given that the participants in this study will be
in high school, the modified PAQ was an appropriate measure since it was designed with this
population in mind.
Adolescent Perceptions of Parental Knowledge
In this study, the Adolescent Perceptions of Parental Knowledge measure (APPK) was
administered to measure parental supervision. The APPK captures adolescents’ perceptions of
their parents’ knowledge about adolescents’ activities (Yu, 2010). The author mentioned that
parental knowledge is often referred to as parental monitoring and can be described as an active
tracking of their child’s interests, daily activities, and whereabouts (Yu, 2010).
On the APPK, there are four items, and the responses are scored on a 5-point scale that
starts with 1 being very untrue to 5 being very true. Sample items include: “My parents usually
know where I am when I am away from home” and “My parents usually know whom I am with
A FAMILY AFFAIR

42
when I am not home”. Reliability for the APPK is established with internal consistency with
Cronbach alphas ranging from .80 to .89. Criterion validity was established when Yu (2010)
examined the reciprocal associations between perceived parental knowledge and self-control
between two age cohorts of Korean children using a longitudinal sequential design. Yu (2010)
found an inverse relationship and the higher the initial levels of adolescent perceptions of
parental knowledge of their whereabouts and activities predicted a slower rate of increase in the
adolescents’ self-control. Also, higher initial levels of self-control predicted slower rates of
increase in parental knowledge over time (Yu, 2010).
The APPK is a valid measure of how adolescents’ perceive their parents knowledge of
their whereabouts. This was an appropriate scale for this research study because the participants
were adolescents in high school. The goal of the research was to gather data on parental
supervision from the perspective of the child. If the research looked at the perception of
supervision from the adolescent’s point of view, then the result was a true disclosure.
Procedure
The following section presents a description of the preparation for data collection, the
process for selecting the population sample, and the process for collecting data.
Preparation
The process of obtaining the participants began by contacting the individual school or
student directly. For students who were recruited on campus and in-person, a parent consent
form was used to obtain permission from both the school and the parents. For the students who
were recruited online, permission from parents was obtained using the same parent consent form.
The parent consent form included an introduction to the researcher, the university, and a brief
explanation of the purpose of the data collection. Researcher contact information was provided
A FAMILY AFFAIR

43
in case there were any questions on the part of a parent, guardian, or school. A signature line
was included and an option to not participate in the survey was also provided.
A research survey was then created using the FBS, PAQ-Modified, and APPK measures.
An online survey was created and distributed to the participants who were given the option of
completing the survey at school or at home.
Selection Process
The sample population was selected from four classrooms, one from each grade, at the
PUC charter high school. The online surveys were distributed to one college prep class from
each grade level in addition to also being distributed to each of the students who was recruited
online. Because there were multiple college prep classes per grade level, the participating
classes were selected at random. After the teacher was contacted, the teacher provided a date
and time for an introduction of the survey. The second group of participants was selected online
after responding to a call for survey participation through several social media sites. Snowball
sampling was used to secure the second group of participants.
Students were given a consent form to participate and receive a survey. Regardless of
how they were recruited, only the students who returned the consent form received the survey
link. The process of collecting a sample of participants took approximately one month to
complete.
Data Collection Process
Students who returned the parent consent form were handed a copy of the survey link and
were given the option of completing the survey while in class or at home. Oral instructions for
completing the survey were provided to the students who took the survey at school; written
instructions were given to students who took the survey at home.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

44
The students who took the survey at school were given one 50-minute class period to
complete the survey, with an option to continue the survey at home if more time was needed.
There were no time limits placed on the students regardless of where the survey was taken. Once
the survey was completed, the researcher uploaded the data onto SPSS for further analysis and
coding.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

45
CHAPTER FOUR: REULTS
This chapter presents an overview and analysis of the results of the study on family
factors as predictors of bully-perpetrator and bully-victim roles. The chapter begins by
presenting the preliminary correlation analyses to provide a general overview of patterns of
relationships among the major variables. This is then followed by presentation of the findings by
each research question.
Preliminary Correlation Analyses
Pearson correlation analyses were conducted in order to examine the relationships
between the primary variables of bullying role (perpetrator and victim), parenting style
(authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive), and parental supervision. Notable findings include
a significant positive correlation between bully-perpetrator and bully-victim roles (r = .605, p =
.001) and a negative correlation between being a bully-perpetrator and level of parental
supervision (r = -.244, p = .018).
Parenting styles, specifically authoritarian and authoritative styles, were positively
correlated with each other (r = .350, p = .001). A significant correlation was also found between
authoritative parenting style and level of parental supervision (r = .315, p = .002). Authoritarian
parenting style was found to be approaching significance in being correlation with bully-
perpetrator role (r = -.201, p = .051). Authoritarian parenting style was also positively correlated
with both a permissive parenting style (r = .227, p = .027) and level of parental supervision (r =
.491, p = .001).

A FAMILY AFFAIR

46
Table 1
Results of Pearson Correlation Analysis
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Perpetrator -- .605** .087 -.201 -.005 -.244*
2. Victim -- .121 -.049 .015 -.060
3. Authoritative -- .350** .096 .315**
4. Authoritarian -- .227* .491**
5. Permissive -- -.015
6. Supervision --
Notes. 1. Perpetrator; 2. Victim; 3. Authoritative; 4. Authoritarian; 5. Permissive; 6.
Supervision
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question One asked, “Do parenting style (authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive) and parental supervision predict bully-perpetrator role?” In order to determine
whether parenting style and level of parental supervision were predictors of bully-perpetrator
role, a simultaneous multiple regression was performed using three subscales of parenting style
(authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and one subscale of parental supervision as the
predictors with the criterion variable of bully-perpetrator role.
Results revealed that the overall prediction model was not significant (F (4, 68) = 1.79), p
= .142) as presented in Table 2. However, although the overall model was not significant,
parental supervision as a single predictor was found to be predictive of bully-perpetrator role.
Thus, the analysis was re-run as a simple regression with only parental supervision as a single
predictor, which was significant (F (1, 71) = 6.04), p < .016) and shown in Table 3. The findings
revealed an inverse relationship between the variables, where a lower level of parental
supervision predicted a higher likelihood of a child developing into a bully-perpetrator.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

47
Table 2
Simultaneous Multiple Regression of Parenting Style and Parental Supervision Predicting Bully-
Perpetrator Role
R
2
F B SE β p
Model .095 1.79

.142
Permissive .024 .134 .022 .857
Authoritarian -.020 .174 -.017 .907
Authoritative .176 .171 .138 .309
Supervision -.287 .126 -.327 .026

Table 3
Simple Regression of Only Parental Supervision Predicting Bully-Perpetrator Role
R
2
F B SE β p
Model .078 6.04

.016
Supervision -.246 .100 -.280 .016

Research Question Two asked, “Do parenting style (authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive) and parental supervision predict bully-victim role?” In order to determine whether
parenting style and level of parental supervision were predictors of bully-victim role, a
simultaneous multiple regression was performed using three subscales of parenting style
(authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and one subscale of parental supervision as the
predictors with the criterion variable of bully-victim role.
Results revealed that there was no overall significance for the prediction model (F (4, 68)
= 0.814), p = .520). None of the specific subscales were significant as individual predictors of
bully-victim role.
Research Question Three asked, “Are there differences by family composition type
(nuclear, single parent, divorced, and blended) within bully-perpetrator and bully-victim role?” A
A FAMILY AFFAIR

48
one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with family composition
as the independent variable for the two dependent variables of bully-perpetrator and bully-
victim. This analysis was conducted to investigate the differences by family composition type.
The MANOVA revealed no significant differences between family composition types in relation
to bully-perpetrator or bully-victim role.
Post-Hoc Analysis
A post-hoc analysis was also conducted to examine ethnic group differences between
Latino and Caucasian students. A one-way MANOVA was conducted with ethnicity as the
independent variable for the two dependent variables of bully-perpetrator and bully-victim.
There were no significant differences between ethnic groups for either the bully-perpetrator or
bully-victim role.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

49
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine if and how family-based factors predict
bullying behavior among high school students. Specifically, this study explored the role that
parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition play as explanatory factors for
becoming a bully-victim or bully-perpetrator. It was expected that children living in homes with
more permissive parenting styles would be more prone to developing into bully-perpetrators,
while households with restrictive parenting styles would be more inclined to produce bully-
victims. Lower levels of parental supervision as well as being raised in a non-nuclear family
composition were also factors expected to explain the development of bully-perpetrators and
bully-victims. The results of this quantitative, survey-based study indicate that a connection
does exist between certain familial characteristics and specific bullying roles. Chapter Five
summarizes and discusses the results of this study, presents limitations of the study, offers
suggestions for future research, and discusses implications for practice.
Summary and Discussion of Main Findings
The results of this study revealed that level of parental supervision—specifically a lesser
amount of supervision—served as a single factor in predicting bully-perpetrator role.
Additionally, authoritarian parenting style approached being significantly correlated with a
child’s developing into a bully-perpetrator. Neither authoritative nor permissive parenting styles
were found to be related to or significantly predict bullying role. No significant results were
found between family composition and bullying role.
The results from this study add support for existing research into bullying roles and the
influence of certain family-based factors. Previous studies have, in fact, found a connection
between the factors studied here and specific bullying roles. Fosco et al. (2012), for example,
A FAMILY AFFAIR

50
noted a connection between level of parental supervision and aggressive behaviors, and studies
by Haynie et al. (2001) specifically found that certain parenting styles were associated with
lower levels of both bullying and victimization. Similarly, Spriggs et al. (2007) discovered that
two-parent households and higher levels of parental communication were both factors that
minimized the potential for bullying behavior.
Level of Supervision and Bully-Perpetrators
It was expected that lower levels of parental supervision would result in the appearance
of certain bullying behaviors. The results of this study revealed that level of parental supervision
significantly predicted bully-perpetrator role. Specifically, the less supervision that parents or
guardians provide, the greater the likelihood that the factor will predict bully-perpetrator role.
The finding that supervision plays a role in predicting bullying-perpetrator roles indicates that
regardless of parenting style, the less aware parents are of their child’s whereabouts or behaviors,
the more likely that child is to develop into a bully-perpetrator.
Supervision typically involves being familiar with a child’s whereabouts and activities.
The survey questions asked in this study focused on children’s perceptions of how well their
parents were aware of their behaviors and activities. When parents are less aware of the types of
activities children are involved in, those children can feel less restricted in terms of the behavior
that their parents can monitor. Ultimately, children of parents who do not provide adequate
levels of supervision may be more willing to display behaviors characteristic of a bully-
perpetrator simply because they are aware of the fact that their parents cannot adequately
supervise them. The finding that, on its own, parental supervision can predict bully-perpetrator
role suggests that parenting style—whether it is authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive—is
less of a factor than the level of supervision provided.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

51
Previous research identified a connection between level of parental supervision and
bullying behaviors. Malete (2007) showed similar findings between supervision and aggressive
behaviors, noting that, as level of supervision decreases, aggressive behaviors increase. As
suggested in studies by Espelage et al. (2000), children who spent less time being supervised by
adults were apt to become involved in bullying behaviors. Laird et al. (2009) also found that
perception of supervision, an aspect also measured in this study, was negatively associated with
aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Their studies indicate a direct relationship between the
amount of parental supervision and the emergence of aggressive behaviors. In essence, less
parental monitoring results in the emergence of bullying behaviors.
The results of this study indeed support the connection between level of supervision and
bullying role. The finding that level of parental supervision significantly predicted bully-
perpetrator role lends support to the existing views on the importance of supervising and
monitoring children. While it may be acceptable for parents to involve children in developing
rules and boundaries, results suggest that, when it comes to the amount of supervision or where
that supervision takes place, parents must still maximize awareness of a child’s behaviors and
activities.
Parenting Style and Bully-Perpetrator
By analyzing authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles, it was expected
that bully-perpetrators were more likely to come from households that made use of permissive
parenting styles. The results illustrated that authoritarian parenting style approached significance
in predicting the emergence of bully-perpetrator role. By identifying a connection between
restrictive, non-democratic, controlling parenting and the development of bullying-perpetrator
A FAMILY AFFAIR

52
roles, the results suggest that, in their efforts to maintain authority over children, parents may
unknowingly be modeling the very behaviors that create bullying-perpetrators.
These results suggest that strict, authoritarian households may indeed promote bully-
perpetrators. As a result of its restrictive approach to discipline and childrearing, authoritarian
parenting styles may lead children to develop into bully-perpetrators. By being less flexible in
their childrearing approach, authoritarian parents may, in fact, impart the very behaviors that are
characteristic of bully-perpetrators, including the need to express control and dominance over
another individual.
Previous and existing research into the association between authoritarian parenting styles
on bully-perpetrators is further supported by this study. Research by Baumrind (1991) and
Baldry and Farrington (2000) found that, in using authority and valuing obedience, parents
increase the chances of their child’s becoming a bully-perpetrator. The findings also provide
strong support for Pontzer’s (2010) recent study, which noted that bully-perpetrators may
essentially mimic parenting behavior through the way they interact with peers.
Bullying role, Family, and Ecological Systems Theory
In his ecological systems theory, Bronfenbrenner (1997) argues that a person’s
development is connected to and affected by the systems to which that person belongs and with
which s/he interacts. In essence, an individual can be directly and indirectly influenced to
develop into a specific type of person by what s/he experiences in moving through the micro,
macro, meso, exo and chrono systems.
For children, school environment, peer relations, parenting style, supervision, and family
composition, as well as personalities, can all be considered representations of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1997) five ecological systems. Children move through and experience these systems almost on
A FAMILY AFFAIR

53
a daily basis. The factors that this study found to be significant and related to bullying role
coincide with three specific systems described in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory,
particularly the micro, meso, and macro systems. These systems are subsequently represented by
parenting style and level of parental supervision.
In the case of this study, the results show that a child can become a bully-perpetrator as a
result of the experiences that make up the environments in which s/he interacts and exists. By
experiencing lower levels of supervision, and by being raised using a restrictive parenting
philosophy, children can develop into the type of person who is likely to bully another. As
Bronfenbrenner found, the child’s environment, both at home and in school, can, indeed, have a
significant influence on individual development.
While this study did not find significant results relating to all five of Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems, the three systems that were present and found to be influential are systems
that children interact with and exist in on a daily basis. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is not
characteristic of a stage model. Consequently, his theory is more fluid, as individuals do not have
to pass through these systems as stages, but merely pass through them as they experience life.
The idea behind Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the notion that the environment plays a role in
development.
In their daily lives, children also exist in their own specific environment. They may live
at home and spend time with parents and siblings, and they may also spend significant amounts
of time at school and in peer-centered activities such as clubs and sports. For children who bully
or are bullied, this is the environment that they interact with and, thus, the environment that helps
shape them. Children interact with parents nearly every day of their life, and, as such, are
affected by the approach their parents take in raising them. Parental supervision and parenting
A FAMILY AFFAIR

54
style are representative of the institutions, interconnections, and cultures that Bronfenbrenner
represented as being influential to a child’s development. Given the results of this study, the
findings are clearly in line with Bronfenbrenner’s argument that environmental factors, be they
physical or psychological, play a major role in human development and in the case of this study,
in the development of bully-perpetrators and bully-victims.
Implications for Practice
The findings in this study hold significant implications for key stakeholders seeking to
better understand and address how family-based factors explain bullying role. The results
suggest that supervision, in particular, is important in the development of bully-perpetrators.
Considering the different individuals and groups who, on any given day, may provide
supervision to children—specifically parents and school staff—several recommendations can be
made. The knowledge of how parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition
explain bullying role can ultimately prove useful for those individuals who most often come in
contact with potential victims or perpetrators.
Recommendations for Parents
For parents, who arguably spend the most time with potential bully-perpetrators and
bully-victims, the recommendations regarding bullying role center on awareness. The results of
this study suggest that level of parental supervision can significantly predict bully-perpetrator
role. The more a parent supervises or monitors a child, the more of an impact s/he will have on
whether the child will bully or be bullied, primarily because this study shows that less parental
supervision equates to a greater likelihood of a child’s becoming a bully-perpetrator. Parents and
guardians, therefore, should try to make themselves more aware of their child’s whereabouts, and
they should try to always ask questions. Knowledge of where a child is, what that child is doing,
A FAMILY AFFAIR

55
and who that child is spending time with can be the key to preventing children from being
bullied or becoming bully-perpetrators.
Despite the importance of parental supervision, it is relevant to note that it is not always
possible for parents to be aware of a child’s time at school. Many of today’s households are
headed by parents who work multiple jobs or extended shifts, which may prevent them from
being effectively involved with their child’s school. As a result, schools must find ways to
connect with parents on their terms by using online reporting programs focused on child
behavior, encouraging teachers to reach out to parents during times that work for parents, and
working to become a resource center for parents rather than an organization that intimidates or
belittles.
Parents can also use supervision time as an opportunity to curb bully development.
Given the findings associated with supervision and bullying role, parents can find ways to teach
their children to see bullying from a different perspective in the context of supervision. Simple
conversations and discussions with children about placing themselves in the bully-victim’s role
and understanding what the bully-victim may be feeling may help discourage the development of
a bully-perpetrator, or at a minimum, lessen the spread of bullying. Since the data from this
study indicates that parental supervision is a key predictor of bullying role, time together can
serve as the ideal time for parents to instill in a child the idea of empathy and perspective.
Recommendations for School Staff
Teachers and school administrators—two groups charged with caring for children outside
of their home—must make deliberate efforts to increase supervision and monitoring by involving
parents, making creative use of limited staff, and encouraging students to participate in activities
that minimize idle time. Today’s K-12 schools, particularly those in inner city areas, struggle
A FAMILY AFFAIR

56
with budgetary issues that have a significant impact on the services they can provide. Often,
schools do not have the staff necessary to supervise and monitor all parts of a campus. In these
instances, school administrators must find creative ways to maximize the effectiveness and
ability of their staff in supervising children. One approach can involve collecting data on
bullying and analyzing the areas of campus and times of the day when bullying incidents are
most likely to happen. With this data in hand, administrators can strategically place supervision
staff in the areas with the most need during the times when it is most needed.
When sufficient staff is not available, administrators and teachers must look to parents for
help. By reaching out to parents and involving them on campus as volunteers, school
administrators not only have a way to increase staff without affecting their budgets, but they also
create ways to raise parental investment in a child. In doing so, administrators and teachers not
only increase involvement and investment, but they also place parents in positions to monitor
and supervise children during the school day.
Teachers can also do their part in reducing bullying through the recommendations they
make to students, especially those that center on involvement in clubs, sports, and activities.
Teachers can be extremely influential, and, as such, they can suggest—and even develop—
events and activities that students can get involved in during and after school. In doing so,
teachers place students in supervised environments where they can be productive and avoid the
trouble often associated with idle time.
Limitations
This study was limited by several factors, specifically those related to design and validity.
The primary limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size. In all, 143 participants
took part in the study. While the sample size was large enough to yield some significant results,
A FAMILY AFFAIR

57
a larger sample size may have led to more variables reaching a level of significance, especially
given that at least one variable was already approaching significance using the original sample
size. The surprising lack of connection between permissive parenting style and bully-victim
role, as well as the non-existent relationship between authoritarian parenting style and bully-
perpetrator may have, in fact, resulted from low power due to the small sample size.
In addition to the limited sample size, a second limitation of this study was its
homogenous sample population. Initially, this study looked to explore how family-based factors
predict bullying behavior among high school students. While a sample of high school students
was secured, the sample lacked the diversity necessary to generalize the results to all high school
students. The sample was limited to Latino and Caucasian students with access to the internet.
An ideal sample would have included a more diverse population of participants, specifically one
that accurately represented the high school student population within the region under study.
Limiting the sample to only two ethnic or cultural groups prevented it from being generalized
beyond Latino and Caucasian students.
The use of self-reported data through a quantitative online survey represents an additional
limitation of this study. When individuals participate in surveys, there is a tendency for them to
respond in a manner that is most socially acceptable or representative of a neutral position.
Additionally, a portion of the survey asked questions that required participants to recall previous
bullying experiences, which, given errors in recall, may have resulted in incorrect or untrue
responses. Participants may have also been affected by the social desirability effect of not
wanting to present poorly or admit to the stigma of being a bully-victim or bully-perpetrator.
One final limiting factor in this study is self-selection bias, which may have affected an
individual’s willingness or ability to participate. Since the topic of the survey was bullying,
A FAMILY AFFAIR

58
potential participants may have elected to not take part in the survey because of the nature of the
subject. Both bully-victims and bully-perpetrators may have been unwilling to disclose such
experiences or admit to any involvement in bullying, despite any assurances of confidentiality.
Suggestions for Future Research
Given that at least one of the variables analyzed in this study was found to be significant
in the prediction of assumed bullying roles, further research may reveal whether additional
family-based factors can explain or predict if an individual will develop into a bully-perpetrator
or a bully-victim. Future research should focus on collecting larger samples and administering
more streamlined surveys, analyzing additional and specific forms of bullying behavior, and
determining if there is a more complex connection between family, culture, and bullying role.
The results in this study emerged from a sample of 143 participants, a sample size large
enough to reveal that certain family-based factors can explain the emergence of specific bullying
roles. Low sample sizes can often reduce the power of a survey, making it difficult to obtain
significant results. Future research into the role of family and bullying roles should seek to
obtain a larger sample size in order to maximize responses and minimize both the number of
students who do not participate and the number of untrue or socially-acceptable answers that
often plague survey-based research. The measure used to collect data on bullying role consisted
of 28 items, which may have been too lengthy and may have discouraged students from
participating or completing the survey. While seeking a larger sample size, future researchers
may wish to develop a more streamlined measure or develop an approach that is less daunting to
students who may already feel uncomfortable participating in such a study.
This study analyzed bullying in its most common form, that of physical aggression. Over
time, various other forms of bullying have emerged and have affected students across grade
A FAMILY AFFAIR

59
levels. With the growth in accessibility of social media and the proliferation of portable devices
such as cell phones and tablets, additional research in the field could analyze whether specific
types of bullying, including social bullying, cyberbullying, and bullying on a psychological level,
can be explained by similar family-based variables like parenting style, level of supervision, and
family composition.
Finally, the major focus of this study was to examine how certain aspects of families may
explain specific bully behavior. However, participants from just two distinct cultural or ethnic
groups took part in the study. Given that certain aspects of family, such as parenting style, are
different in different cultures, researchers looking to build on the results of this study may want
to consider looking deeper into the connections between bullying role and culturally based
aspects of family life. In addition, because data for this study did not consider demographic
information, future studies should look to collect responses and disaggregate them based on
various categories, specifically gender. Since existing research supports the fact that both girls
and boys experience childrearing and bullying differently, and given the current discussion
around gender identity, future studies may seek to collect and analyze data on bullying role and
gender identity.
Conclusion
As bullying evolves from its more traditional physical form to one that now involves the
cyber world, and from one that once resulted in bruises to one that can now lead to suicide, it is
evident that various aspects of society will have to work together to address and resolve the
issue. The purpose of this study was to investigate specific aspects of family life as explanatory
factors for bullying role. At its core, this study sought to discover and understand whether
parenting style, level of parental supervision, and family composition serve to predict the
A FAMILY AFFAIR

60
development of bully-perpetrator and bully-victim. The data obtained through a quantitative
survey revealed that level of parental supervision significantly predicted bully-perpetrator role.
Authoritarian parenting style also approached significance in predicting bully-perpetrator role.
Families, regardless of their form or composition, must work toward developing better
ways of supervising children throughout the entirety of their day and across the activities in
which they are involved. Friends, environment, and media may significantly sway the actions
and behaviors of children, but today’s families must understand that the ultimate responsibility
for a child becoming a bully-perpetrator rests more with them than with any other factors. The
key is for families to be able to find the right balance between childrearing and supervision.
Individually, parental supervision has been shown, through this study, to significantly
predict bullying role and, in the case of authoritarian parents, to potentially be correlated to
bullying role. If parents are able to gauge their level of supervision and better understand their
parenting style, they can anticipate whether a child will become a bully-perpetrator or a bully-
victim. Given that understanding, parents can effectively tackle the issue of bullying by
providing greater supervision through a style of parenting that is not as restrictive or controlling.

A FAMILY AFFAIR

61
References
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for concern for both
families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1), 35-54.
Allen, Kathleen P. "Classroom Management, Bullying, and Teacher Practices."Professional
Educator 34.1 (2010): n1.Anderson, Kaufman, Simon, Barrios, Paulozzi, Ryan,
Hammond, Modzeleski, Feucht, and Potter (2001)
Arora, C. M. (1996). Defining Bullying Towards a Clearer General Understanding and More
Effective Intervention Strategies. School Psychology International,17(4), 317-329.Ary,
D. V., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem behavior: The
influence of parents and peers. Behaviour research and therapy, 37(3), 217-230.
Ary, D. V., Duncan, T. E., Biglan, A., Metzler, C. W., Noell, J. W., & Smolkowski, K. (1999).
Development of adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
27(2), 141-150.
Bacchini, D., Miranda, M. C., & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental monitoring and exposure
to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among
adolescents. Journal of interpersonal violence,26(2), 269-292.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and
victimization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(2), 237-254.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and
parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 17-31.
Barbarin, O. A., & Soler, R. E. (1993). Behavioral, emotional, and academic adjustment in a
national probability sample of African American children: Effects of age, gender, and
family structure. Journal of Black Psychology,19(4), 423-446.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

62
Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive
problem in the schools. School psychology review, 23(2), 165-174.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental psychology,
4(1p2), 1.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School,
neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children's bullying involvement: A
nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child
& Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(5), 545-553.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1992). Cohesion and power in the families of children
involved in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Family Therapy, 14(4), 371-387.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims
and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11(2), 215-232.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the
development of children, 5.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of personality assessment, 57(1),
110-119.
Carbone-Lopez, K., Esbensen, F. A., & Brick, B. T. (2010). Correlates and consequences of peer
victimization: Gender differences in direct and indirect forms of bullying. Youth violence
and juvenile justice, 8(4), 332-350.
Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in schools Perspectives on understanding and
A FAMILY AFFAIR

63
preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22(3), 364-382.
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in
the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22-36.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at
school. Journal of school health, 73(5), 173-180.
Dietz, B. (1994, January). Effects on subsequent heterosexual shyness and depression of peer
victimization at school. In Children’s Peer Relations Conference.
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and
adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical child and
family psychology review, 1(1), 61-75
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent
disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem
behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 515-530.
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). The family check-up with high-risk young
adolescents: Preventing early-onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behavior
Therapy, 34(4), 553-571.
Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and victims. Bullying
in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention,
227-244.
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying
behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD, 78(3),
326-333. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/219021014?accountid=14749
A FAMILY AFFAIR

64
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2001). Short-term stability and prospective
correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of potential
demographic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16(4),
411-426.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and justice, 381-458.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., Fredriks, A. M., Vogels, T., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Do
bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the
relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117(5), 1568-
1574.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The moderating role of
father involvement and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 28(2), 126-133.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of mother involvement and father involvement in
adolescent bullying behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,18(6), 634-644.
Fosco, G. M., Stormshak, E. A., Dishion, T. J., & Winter, C. E. (2012). Family relationships and
parental monitoring during middle school as predictors of early adolescent problem
behavior. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(2), 202-213.
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998).
Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style
and marital linkages. Developmental psychology,34(4), 687.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B.
(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at risk youth. The Journal
of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-49.
Hazler, R. J., Carney, J. V., & Green, P. Jolly (1997). Areas of expert agreement on
A FAMILY AFFAIR

65
identification of school bullies and victims. School Psychology International, 18(1), 3-11.
Hilton, J. M., Anngela-Cole, L., & Wakita, J. (2010). A cross-cultural comparison of factors
associated with school bullying in Japan and the United States. The Family
Journal, 18(4), 413-422.
Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences
of victimization by peers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(4), 677.
Hokoda, A., Lu, H. H. A., & Angeles, M. (2006). School bullying in Taiwanese
adolescents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6(4), 69-90.
Holt, M. K., Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). Parent/child concordance about
bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer
victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 42-63.
Hooper, L. M., L’Abate, L., Sweeney, L. G., Gianesini, G., & Jankowski, P. J. (2014). Bullying.
In Models of Psychopathology (pp. 75-98). Springer New York.
Hussian, A., & Sharma, S. Anger expression and mental health of bully perpetrators. FWU
Journal of Social Sciences, Summer 2014, 8(1), 17-23.
Hymel, S., Rocke-Henderson, N., & Bonanno, R. A. (2005). Moral disengagement: A framework
for understanding bullying among adolescents. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 1-11.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying
involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and
differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283-293.
Jablonska, B., & Lindberg, L. (2007). Risk behaviours, victimisation and mental distress among
adolescents in different family structures. Social psychiatry and psychiatric
epidemiology, 42(8), 656-663.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

66
Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships,
antisocial peers, and adolescents' externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type
differences. Child Development, 70(5), 1209-1230.
Knutson, J. F., DeGarmo, D., Koeppl, G., & Reid, J. B. (2005). Care neglect, supervisory
neglect, and harsh parenting in the development of children’s aggression: A replication
and extension. Child maltreatment, 10(2), 92-107.
Lagerspetz, K. M., Björkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school
children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23(1), 45-52.
Laird, R. D., Marrero, M. D., & Sentse, M. (2010). Revisiting parental monitoring: Evidence that
parental solicitation can be effective when needed most. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39(12), 1431-1441.
Li, Q., Cross, D., & Smith, P. K. (Eds.). (2011). Cyberbullying in the global playground
Research from international perspectives. John Wiley & Sons.
Ma, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims?. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 351-370.
Malete, L. (2007). Aggressive and antisocial behaviours among secondary school students in
Botswana: The influence of family and school based factors.School Psychology
International, 28(1), 90-109.
Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (2007). School violence and disruption revisited: Equity and safety
in the school house. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(1), 1-28.
Meyer-Adams, N., & Conner, B. T. (2008). School violence: Bullying behaviors and the
psychosocial school environment in middle schools. Children & Schools, 30(4), 211-221.
Myron-Wilson, R. (1999). Parental Style: And How It May Influence a Child's Role in Bullying.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

67
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Jama, 285(16), 2094-2100.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Haynie, D. L., Ruan, W. J., & Scheidt, P. C. (2003).
Relationships between bullying and violence among US youth. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine, 157(4), 348-353.
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). Digest of
educational statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001). Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Natvig, G. K., Albrektsen, G., & Qvarnstrøm, U. (2001). School-related stress experience as a
risk factor for bullying behavior. Journal of youth and adolescence, 30(5), 561-575.
Nickerson, A. B., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attachment and empathy as predictors of
roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School
Psychology, 46(6), 687-703.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a
school based intervention program. The development and treatment of childhood
aggression, 17, 411-448.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. Social
withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood, 315, 341.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school (pp. 97-130). Springer US.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. University of Bergen,
Research Center for Health Promotion.
A FAMILY AFFAIR

68
O’Moore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self ‐esteem and its relationship to bullying
behaviour. Aggressive behavior, 27(4), 269-283.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents'
experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly (1982-), 242-266.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 165-176.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to
middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 151-163.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and
victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school.
British journal of developmental psychology, 20(2), 259-280.
Perren, S., & Alexander, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims,
bully ‐victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of child psychology and
psychiatry, 47(1), 45-57.
Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J., & Hanson, T. (2010). What Characteristics of
Bullying, Bullying Victims, and Schools Are Associated with Increased Reporting of
Bullying to School Officials? Issues & Answers. REL 2010-No. 092. Regional
Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting, personality, and the
bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25(3), 259-273.
Poteat, V. P., & DiGiovanni, C. D. (2010). When biased language use is associated with bullying
and dominance behavior: The moderating effect of prejudice. Journal of youth and
A FAMILY AFFAIR

69
adolescence, 39(10), 1123-1133.
Psalti, A. (2012). Bullies, victims, and bully-victims in Greek schools: research data and
implications for practice. Hellenic journal of Psychology, 9, 132-157.
Ram, B., & Hou, F. (2003). Changes in family structure and child outcomes: Roles of economic
and familial resources. Policy Studies Journal, 31(3), 309-330.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among
adolescents. Developmental psychology, 43(3), 564.
Rigby, K. (1998). Gender and bullying in schools (Doctoral dissertation, Routledge).
Rigby, K. (2005). Why do some children bully at school? The contributions of negative attitudes
towards victims and the perceived expectations of friends, parents and teachers. School
Psychology International, 26(2), 147-161.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive
behavior, 20(5), 359-368.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Acker, R. V. (2006). They’re cool: Social status and
peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15(2), 175-204.
Rudatsikira, E., Siziya, S., Kazembe, L. N., & Muula, A. S. (2007). Prevalence and associated
factors of physical fighting among school-going adolescents in Namibia. Ann Gen
Psychiatry, 6(7), 18.
Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., Petermann, F., & Jugert, G. (2006). Physical, verbal, and relational
forms of bullying among German students: Age trends, gender differences, and
correlates. Aggressive behavior, 32(3), 261-275.
Shaw, T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R., & Waters, S. (2013). The Forms of Bullying
Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying victimization
A FAMILY AFFAIR

70
and perpetration in adolescence. Psychological assessment, 25(4), 1045.
Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer
victimisation. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,25(2), 97-107.
Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects,
family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27(2), 101-110.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying
involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: commonalities and
differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283-293.
Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying,
Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3),
443-456.
Tani, F., Greenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso, M. (2003). Bullying and the Big Five A
Study of Childhood Personality and Participant Roles in Bullying Incidents. School
Psychology International, 24(2), 131-146.
Trinkner, R., Cohn, E. S., Rebellon, C. J., & Gundy, K. V. (2012). Don't trust anyone over 30:
Parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent
behavior over time. Journal of adolescence, 35(1), 119-132.
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2007). Family structure variations in patterns and
predictors of child victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(2), 282-295.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Services. (2014, August). National
School Lunch Program (NSPL) income eligibility. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research
A FAMILY AFFAIR

71
into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J.
(2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: a comparison of bullies,
victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents.Developmental psychology, 41(4),
672.
Viding, E., Simmonds, E., Petrides, K. V., & Frederickson, N. (2009). The contribution of
callous ‐unemotional traits and conduct problems to bullying in early
adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(4), 471-481.
Von Marées, N., & Petermann, F. (2010). Bullying in German Primary Schools Gender
Differences, Age Trends and Influence of Parents’ Migration and Educational
Backgrounds. School Psychology International, 31(2), 178-198.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent health, 45(4),
368-375.
Warden, D., & Mackinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of
their sociometric status, empathy and social problem ‐solving strategies. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367-385.
Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in
understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 24(3), 315-330.
Yu, Jeong Jin (2010). Reciprocal influences between parental knowledge and adolescent self
control: A cross-sequential nationwide study of Korean youth.
Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 24(4), 458467. doi:10.1037/a0020425

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Promising practices of anti-bullying: safe and supportive environments for all students

PDF

Connectedness and distance learning: a study of student, teacher, and parent perceptions

PDF

Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family

PDF

The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans

PDF

The experiences of successful higher education Latino administrators and educational leaders in selected western United States community colleges

PDF

Stories of persistence and courage: undocumented students' educational experience enrolled at a 4-year institution

PDF

Parenting during a pandemic: how stress and supports influence parental perceptions of child behaviors

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Low-socioeconomic status families: the role of parental involvement and its association with early childhood academic achievement trajectories

PDF

The role of dyadic and triadic factors on psychosocial wellbeing and healthcare interactions among childhood cancer survivors, parents, and medical providers

PDF

Intergenerational transmission of values and behaviors over the family life course

PDF

A mixed method examination of available supports for secondary school students’ college and military aspirations

PDF

Cultivating strategies for success: How mid-level women leaders of color in student affairs navigate the balance of work and family

Asset Metadata

Creator Jauregui, Yolanda M. (author)

Core Title A family affair: the role of parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition as explanatory factors for bullying

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/03/2015

Defense Date 07/21/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adolescents,authoritarian,authoritative,Bronfenbrenner,bully,bully behavior,bully characteristics,bully roles,bullying,bully-perpetrator,bully-victim,Caucasian,ecological systems theory,environment,family composition,family factors,High School,K-12,Latino,OAI-PMH Harvest,parental supervision,parenting style,permissive,public high school,School,Urban

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Clark, Ginger (committee member)

Creator Email ymrodrig@usc.edu,yolandajauregui@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-175456

Unique identifier UC11275580

Identifier etd-JaureguiYo-3878.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-175456 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JaureguiYo-3878.pdf

Dmrecord 175456

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jauregui, Yolanda M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA