Bullying and victimization experiences in elementary school students nominated by their teachers for Specific Learning Disabilities

Abstract

This study sought to investigate self-reported bullying and victimization experiences among students nominated by their teachers as meeting the criteria for Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). A total of 346 students attending the upper three grade-levels of Greek primary schools participated in the study. Fifty of them were identified by their teachers as meeting the SLD criteria. All participants completed self-report measures of bullying and victimization and also provided their demographic data. Results showed that SLD students were more likely to act as bully/victims in bullying episodes, by using more direct verbal aggression; whereas the frequency of exhibiting aggressive behaviours, either as passive victims or aggressive bullies, did not differ from that of their non-SLD counterparts. These findings contradict existing research indicating that SLD students are subject to victimization more frequently than their regular peers.

Keywords

Aggression bullying Greece SLD specific learning disabilities victimization

Bullying has attracted world-wide attention during the last decades due to its increasing prevalence and the serious effects it might have on participants (Carney, 2000; Larochette, Murphy, & Craig, 2010). Persistent bullying in particular has been associated with serious and long-term effects, such as poor grades and discipline infractions for bullies (Carlson & Cornell, 2008).

Bullying is characterized by: a) the infliction of psychological distress upon the victims; b) its intentional character; c) the repetition; and d) the perceived imbalance of power between the participants. It is considered a group process, and therefore children involved may assume various roles (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). The aggressive bully, or simply the bully, is the participant who intentionally, repeatedly, and without provocation, victimizes a student or group of students, in order to cause pain and physical and/or emotional suffering (Olweus, 1993). On the contrary, the passive or submissive victim, or simply the victim, is the target of the negative action and usually presents signs of fear, anxiety, and vulnerability, and does not provoke the victimization or retaliate. According to Olweus (1993), there is another type of victim, the provocative, or the bully-victim, who causes his/her own victimization by aggravating the bully with his/her behaviour. Although these are the most commonly reported roles, some researchers claim that actually more people take an active part in bullying incidences––including adults––by way of their tolerance and silent acceptance (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

Bullying behaviours can be both direct (i.e. physical and verbal actions of aggression) and indirect (i.e. social exclusion). Girls tend to favour indirect aggression (Besag, 2006), while direct bullying behaviours are usually executed by boys, or less skilled bullies (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000). Recent research also indicates a new emerging form of aggression, cyberbullying, which takes advantage of new communication technologies, primary mobile phones and the internet, with its specific means constantly changing due to the rapid advances in technology (Paul, Smith, & Blumberg, 2012). As research suggests, bullying exists in all countries regardless of the cultural, political, and religious background (Berger, 2007), with similar frequency and trends in most schools (Pereira, Mendonça, Neto, Valente, & Smith, 2004; Sapouna, 2008; Von Marées & Petermann, 2010).

The causal factors associated with bullying are multiple and interrelated, and have been investigated in several studies. Olweus (1993) proposes that aggressive behaviour can be attributed to factors related to: (a) The student; (b) the parents and adults involved in caregiving; and to (c) the group dynamics. In terms of the first group of factors, several studies have confirmed the role of student gender, age, as well as psychological and socio-cognitive factors, such as social skills and empathy (Choi & Cho, 2012), self-efficacy (Andreou, Vlachou, & Didaskalou, 2005), personality traits (Tani, Greenman, Schneider, & Fregoso, 2003), Machiavellian traits (Wei & Chen, 2012), attachment style (Kokkinos, 2007), as well as internalizing (i.e. depression, anxiety) and externalizing problems (i.e. substance abuse, conduct problems) (Berthold & Hoover, 2000). Students’ responses to potential threats or provocative events, such as coping strategies, have been also studied (Skrzypiec, Slee, Murray-Harvey, & Pereira, 2011). For example, research has indicated that students who are bullied in multiple ways are less likely to cope with the incident, while experiencing only one type of bullying (e.g. physical or verbal, or cyber) can have a less detrimental effect on the student’s adjustment (Skrzypiec et al., 2011). Factors related to the ‘important others’ in a child’s life, such as parents, teachers, and peers, are also well documented and it has been suggested that social and emotional support can positively influence students’ behaviour and views, or alternatively function as a risk factor for problematic behaviours (Chan, 2006). Accordingly, school and classroom factors (i.e. the school and classroom climate), as well as peer relations (Boulton, Smith, & Cowie, 2010; Mishna, Wiener, & Pepler, 2008) can have a preventing or damaging effect towards the victimization of the student (Bauman & Del Rio, 2005; Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2007; Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010).

The present study focuses on students with special educational needs (SEN) and their involvement in bullying/victimization. These individuals are particularly vulnerable to experiences of aggression, since they are perceived as different, and usually have fewer supportive friendly relationships, in addition to their potential cognitive, emotional, or social limitations (e.g. Symes & Humphrey, 2010). In recent years, a number of studies have focused on the social interactions of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and their peers (e.g. Nabuzoka, 2000). SLD students were found to have limited or insufficient social information processing skills (i.e. difficulties in interpreting verbal and non-verbal social cues) (Kaukiainen et al., 2002). As a result, they are frequently less able to develop and maintain positive relationships and cooperation (Nabuzoka, 2000). There are fewer studies examining the relationship between SLD and bullying (Mishna, 2003). In the case of SLD students, research findings are inconclusive regarding the participant role they may assume in a bullying incident. Some studies indicate that they are at increased risk for victimization (e.g. Nabuzoka, 2003), while others for bullying (e.g. Casey, Levy, Brown, & Brooks-Gunn, 1992; Nabuzoka, 2000). However, Kaukiainen et al. (2002) reported that SLD students can also behave as bully/victims. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to examine the relationship between SLD and bullying/victimization in a sample of Greek elementary school students nominated by their teachers as meeting the SLD criteria by examining the role they adopt, the forms of aggression they endorse, as well as the impact of certain socio-demographic characteristics on these behaviours.

SLD students in the victim role

Research has recently attempted to examine whether SLD students face greater danger for victimization than their non-disabled peers when attending mainstream inclusive classrooms, which generally aim at enhancing social skills acquisition and improving overall social and academic development (Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2010). Luciano and Savage (2007) found that SLD students in inclusive classrooms reported more victimization than their non-SLD counterparts, whereas their vulnerability was due to poor academic performance and communicational deficiency. As the authors argue, inclusion alone may not protect students with disabilities from being bullied.

Carlson, Flannert, and Kral, (2005) conducted a study with a sample of 54 6th to 8th graders, four of whom had SLD. No students were identified as bullies, while eight were classified as victims and three as bully/victims. Researchers argued that the absence of bullies in their study could be attributed to students’ feelings of guilt, the presence of their teachers during the survey, the unawareness of their actions, or even the questionnaire used.

In an earlier study, Nabuzoka (2003) used peer nominations and teacher ratings in a mainstream school in Sheffield, England, with a sample of 121 students, aged 8–12. Twenty of them were classified with moderate learning disabilities (LD). Students were asked to nominate three of their peers in behavioural categories (cooperates, disrupts, fights, seeks help, leader, bully, victim), while teachers were asked to rate the behaviour of each student on the same categories after one week of observation. Both peers and teachers rated LD students as being more frequently victims of bullying than their non-LD classmates. However, teachers rated LD students as being the victims of bullying who were more likely to start fights.

In another study Nabuzoka and Smith (1993), examined the sociometric status and social behaviour of 36 students aged between 8–12, with and without LD. The former attended mainstream classroom regularly, but had also the option of special classrooms. Results showed that teachers and students had discrepant opinions regarding the nature of bullying and victimization, probably because they were unable to observe students in more complex settings than the classroom (i.e. recess, or the way to and from school), where LD students may encounter difficulties manifesting the expected social behaviour, or decoding more complex signals.

Research also shows that incidents of victimization usually occur when the disability is revealed in public. Hellendoorn and Ruijssenaars (2000) interviewed adult dyslexics at the age of 29, in order to examine the way they had coped with their disability earlier in their life. Participants expressed negative and sometimes mixed feelings about their school life and reported being regularly humiliated and made fun of. Their victimization was a result of their inability to read and write well, while surprisingly, they reported that both their peers and teachers took an active part.

Singer (2005) investigated bullying experiences in 60 Dutch mainstream 9- to 12-year-old students diagnosed with dyslexia and found that most of them protected themselves against teasing and feelings of worthlessness by concealing both their emotions and academic failures, while others concentrated on their academic progress in an effort to surpass their problems. Participants responded to a number of questions after they had read a fictitious situation where a dyslexic student had to read aloud in front of the classroom and was verbally assaulted by his peers. Results indicated that 83% of the total sample had been teased because of their dyslexia, while 25% reported being teased or bullied once or more in a week.

The notion that victimization among SLD students is frequently linked to their difficulties is also supported by a study conducted by Norwick and Kelly (2004), with 101 LD students (51 from mainstream, and 50 from special schools). Researchers used a semi-structured interview to investigate their views regarding inclusion and a variety of issues such as feelings about the school, the teacher, and the assistance they had received. Regarding bullying, 68% of the sample reported experiencing some form of mixed victimization (physical, verbal, and teasing), while verbal assault was the next frequent behaviour (24%). No significant differences were found in terms of age, gender, and school type.

All the above studies indicate that students with LD are more likely to report victimization related to their social status and peer acceptance than their non-disabled peers, regardless of their placement (inclusive/mainstream classroom). On the contrary, there are only a handful of studies which found these students acted as bullies in an aggressive incident.

SLD students in the bully role

There exists research evidence to suggest that SLD students appear to be more impulsive and hyperactive, and are more frequently rated as immature and as having adjustment difficulies compared to their non-SLD counterparts (Flicek & Landau 1985 as cited in Nabuzoka, 2003). Aggression and other behaviour problems are often encountered in children with SLD as a reaction to the constant academic failures they face (Casey et al., 1992). Thus, students use provocative behaviours in an attempt to distract others’ attention from their academic failure (e.g. Kaukiainen et al., 2002).

If this is the case, it could be argued that other low-achieving non-SLD students present the same social problems and problem behaviour. Nabuzoka and Walker (2007) examined this hypothesis, trying to discern whether problems in social relations are generally related to poor academic achievement or whether they represent a specific symptom of SLD. Their findings indicated that academic performance and social functioning are indeed linked, but, significant differences were found in terms of bullying, since SLD students were more frequently nominated by their peers as bullies and fight-starters.

Students with language deficits were found to present difficulties in understanding and interpreting verbal and non-verbal social signs, which consequently lead them to falsely interpret social situations, and misunderstand the intentions of their peers as hostile. The findings of the study by Kaukiainen et al. (2002) with 141 Finnish mainstream 5th graders, 28 of whom with SLD, are in line with these assumptions, since they found that SLD students had greater problems with their peers and were more likely to assume the role of bully than their classmates. Researchers explain that SLD children may act out as socially unskilled bullies, and since they do not have enough social intelligence to apply more ‘sophisticated’ strategies in bullying situations, they adopt more direct and physical forms, such as hitting.

The results of the above studies suggest that aggressive behaviour is likely to be linked to inherited cognitive deficits which in turn affect social skills and interpersonal relationships. However, there is only one study which found that SLD students may adopt a more complicated role in their social interaction, that of the bully/victim.

SLD students in the bully/victim role

In their review, Flynt and Morton (2004) stated that SLD children can act out as victims, bullies, or both. According to Olweus (2001), SLD students share many common features with the bully/victim; both groups present reactive and impulsive behaviour, have adjustment problems, and a high peer rejection rate. Meanwhile, they have a negative self-concept, manifest signs of depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders that are also frequently present in bully/victims (e.g. Haynie et al., 2001). Similarly, Kaukiainen et al. (2002) argue that SLD students fit in the role of the bully/victim quite well, since their characteristics put them at greater risk of acting out as victims and perpetrators of bullying at the same time. In their study, two students scored high on bullying, and also tended to be victimized by others, a finding that warrants further confirmation with a larger sample. In all, researchers agree that children assuming the bully/victim role seem to be socially-unskilled, are likely to misinterpret their peers’ behaviour as aggressive, cannot handle relational bullying, and express aggression mainly through physical attack (e.g. Camodeca, Goossens, Schuengel, & Meerum Terwogt, 2003). SLD students present the same cognitive deficits, which make them unable to address their victimization properly, but at the same time may cause their aggressive behaviour.

Overall, the studies reviewed indicate that SLD students appear to be subjected to victimization more frequently than their regular peers. Their victimization is linked to their negative social status, the peer rejection they face, the language and communicational difficulties they present, and finally their social skill deficits. However, the studies regarding the participation of SLD students in bullying incidents are limited in number and sampling and further investigation is needed in order to explicate this association.

The present study

The present study investigated self-reported bullying and victimization experiences among SLD children identified by their teachers. In addition, it was intended to find out the role these students assume during a bullying episode compared to their non-SLD peers. It was hypothesized that SLD children would be more likely victimized. A secondary aim of the study was to examine whether students’ gender and age (grade level) will be associated with self-reported participation in bullying. Boys were expected to use more direct forms of bullying (e.g. Rappaport & Thomas, 2004), whereas in terms of participant roles it was hypothesized that boys would take the bully role more frequently compared to girls (e.g. Swearer, 2008). In terms of age, it was expected that older students would report less frequent involvement in aggressive incidents (Olweus, 1993).

Method

Participants

A convenient sample of 346 schoolchildren, 165 boys and 178 girls (three with missing gender data) aged between 10- to 12-years-old, attending the upper three grade levels of public elementary schools (21, 4th grade; 137, 5th grade; 188, 6th grade) from the broader region of Northern Greece participated in the study. Almost half of them (48.3%) came from high socioeconomic status (SES), whereas almost all (90%) were native speakers.

Measures

Students completed a self-report questionnaire and their teachers completed the SLD criteria checklist.

Students

Bullying

The Bullying and Victimization Scale (BVS; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012) was used to measure bullying and victimization. The questionnaire consisted of two 21-item subscales; 13 of them were bullying/victimization items, grouped into direct (eight items) and indirect (five items) bullying/victimization forms. The other eight items, selected from Arora and Thompson’s (1987) ‘Life in School’ Checklist, assessed children’s prosocial behaviour. A three-point scale (‘not at all’, ‘once’, or ‘more than once’) was used to rate the frequency of each behaviour during the past week. Bullying and victimization scores were computed, without the addition of the eight prosocial items which were not used in the analyses. Construct validation of the scale is reported elsewhere (Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012), whereas Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were 0.83, for the victimization, and 0.85 for the bullying scale. Socio-demographic information was also provided by the students.

Teachers

Teachers were asked to complete a checklist constructed for the purposes of the study based on Hammill’s definition for SLD (1993), for each student in their class they judged as meeting the SLD referral criteria, due to the scarcity of standardized tests for academic performance and learning disabilities in Greece. Teacher ratings have a significant contribution in LD screening and early identification purposes (Souroulla-Vrahimi, Panayiotou, & Kokkinos, 2009). In all, 50 children (33 boys and 16 girls; one had missing data) were nominated by their teachers as presenting SLD symptoms; three attended the 4th, 16 the 5th, and 31 the 6th grades.

Procedure and data analysis

Questionnaires were group administered during a class period in the presence of class teachers, who had already nominated those students who met the SLD referral criteria. Analyses were performed at two levels: First, in terms of bullying and victimization form scores, and secondly in terms of specific bullying/victimization behaviours. Chi-square and non parametric tests (data were not normally distributed) were used to examine the effects of participants’ socio-demographic data, participant role, and SLD nomination on bullying and victimization.

Results

Bully/victim grouping

Students were classified into groups according to their role in a bullying incident based on the upper and lower quartiles of bullying/victimization total scores. Four groups were formed: Bully/victims (70, 20.2%; high on both aggression and victimization), passive victims (37, 10.7%; high on victimization and low on aggression), aggressive bullies (58, 16.8%; high on aggression and low on victimization), and neutrals (85, 24.6%; low on both aggression and victimization). Ninety-six (96) students (27.7%) did not meet the criteria for classification in any of the groups. SLD students were more likely to behave as bully/victims compared to their non-SLD peers, whereas the latter were more likely to abstain (i.e. neutrals) from such aggressive episodes (χ²= 18.29, p= 0.000). In addition, boys were more likely to be classified as bully/victims and aggressive bullies, whereas girls as bully/victims and neutrals (χ²= 8.06, p < 0.05). Grade level was not found to be significantly related to student participant roles.

Group differences in bullying and victimization forms and specific behaviours

Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis non parametric tests were used to test median differences both in bullying/victimization forms and specific behaviours. In terms of SLD status, the Mann–Whitney test was found to be significant for direct [U(N= 50) = −4.82, p < 0.00], and indirect victimization [U(N= 50) = −3.17, p < 0.01], as well as for direct bullying [U(N = 50) = −3.17, p < 0.01]. SLD students reported greater frequency of the aforementioned behaviours than the non-SLD students. In terms of gender, the Mann– Whitney test was found to be significant for direct bullying [U(N = 165) = −1.96, p < 0.50] and victimization [U(N = 162) = −2.94, p < 0.01], with boys reporting both forms more frequently than girls. No significant differences were observed in terms of grade level. In terms of SLD status, Mann–Whitney tests showed significant median differences in six victimization and five bullying behaviours between the SLD and non-SLD students. In all cases, SLD students reported significantly more occurrence of these behaviours than their non-SLD peers. Specifically, SLD students were more likely to be called names because of their ethnicity [U(N = 49) = −3.7, p < 0.01] (further analysis determined that it was the native-Greek SLD students who reported being name-called about their ethnicity significantly more frequently than non-SLD students [U(N = 41) = −2.27, p < 0.05], whereas on the contrary non-native SLD students did not report this behaviour more frequently [U(N = 5) = −2.35, p > 0.05]), family [U(N = 48) = −2.15, p < 0.05], appearance [U(N = 47) = −2.36, p < 0.05], and poor educational record [U(N = 48) = −4.03, p < 0.01], as well as for being excluded from play [U(N = 49) = −2.45, p < 0.05], and being subjected to name-calling through note sending [U(N = 49) = −2.75, p < 0.01]. In terms of bullying behaviours, SLD students were more likely to call the victim names because of ethnicity [U(N = 48) = −2.41, p < 0.05], family [U(N = 47) = −2.8, p < 0.01], and outstanding educational record [U(N = 48) = −2.23, p < 0.05], as well as to steal [U(N = 49) = −3.94, p < 0.01], and bad-mouth the victim through note-sending [U(N = 49) = −3.24, p < 0.01].

In terms of gender, the Mann–Whitney test showed that boys were more likely than girls to be called names because of their ethnicity [U(N = 164) = −2.21, p < 0.05], to have malicious rumours spread about them [U(N = 164) = −2.21, p < 0.05], and to be kicked/hit [U(N = 165) = −2.02, p < 0.05]. In terms of specific bullying behaviours, boys were more likely than girls to call the victims names because of their ethnicity [U(N = 159) = −2.55, p < 0.05], and to kick/hit them [U(N = 162) = −2.85, p < 0.01].

In terms of grade level, the results of Kruskal–Wallis tests showed significant median differences in calling the victim names about his family [χ²(2, N = 342) = 12.12, p < 0.01], excellent academic record [χ²(2, N = 344) = 10.07, p < .01], as well as of being excluded from play [χ²(2, N = 340) = 9.69, p < 0.01]. In terms of specific bullying behaviours, there were significant median differences in the behaviours of threatening [χ²(2,N = 341) = 9.3, p < 0.01], and lying about the victim [χ²(2,N = 338) = 9.73, p < 0.01]. Post hoc pair wise comparisons using the Mann–Whitney test showed that 4th graders reported more frequently being excluded from play than 5th [U (N = 20) = −2.75, p < 0.05] and 6th graders [U (N = 20) = −3, p < 0.01]. In terms of verbal victimization, 4th graders were more frequently called names about their family than 5th [U (N = 19) = −2.00, p < 0.05] and 6th graders [U (N = 19) = −3.49, p < 0.01], and were more frequently called names regarding their outstanding academic record than 6th graders [U (N = 20) = −3.00, p < 0.05]. Fifth graders reported the latter behaviour more frequently than 6th graders [U (N = 136) = −2.21, p < 0.05]. In terms of specific bullying behaviours, 6th graders reported threatening [U (N = 187) = −2.97, p < 0.01] and lying about the victim [U (N = 184) = −3.06, p < 0.01] more frequently than 5th graders.

Discussion

The main purpose of the study was to investigate self-reported bullying and victimization experiences in children identified by their teachers as meeting the SLD assessment criteria and their non-identified peers, as well as the role these students assume during an aggressive episode. A secondary aim was to examine whether students’ gender and age was associated with self-reported bullying/ victimization involvement.

Regarding the participation of students in bullying/victimization incidents, it was hypothesized that SLD-nominated students were more likely to be victimized, but, results indicated that they were more likely to behave as bully/victims compared to their non-nominated counterparts, whereas the two groups did not differ in terms of the frequency of participation in aggressive incidents, as passive victims or aggressive bullies. These findings are in line with Kaukiainen and colleagues’ study (2002), which indicated that SLD students were more likely to participate in bullying and victimization incidents as bully/victims. According to Nabuzoka (2000), this may be the result of their difficulties in effectively managing social relationships. As Camodeca et al. (2003) demonstrated, SLD students exhibit difficulties in interpreting social cues, and in selecting appropriate conflict resolution strategies, which leads them to falsely interpret social situations as hostile, and react in an aggressive manner. The findings of the present study also contradict previous research showing that SLD students more frequently act as passive victims (e.g. Carlson et al., 2005; Luciano & Savage, 2007; Singer, 2005).

In terms of bullying and victimization forms, the fact that SLD students reported more frequently both direct and indirect victimization, as well as direct but not indirect bullying, is also in line with existing research. The use of direct aggression was somewhat expected by SLD students since their cognitive and social deficiencies are more likely to render them as ‘unskilled bullies’, who would rather use their physical power and other direct non-skilled aggressive acts rather than more cognitively and socially demanding ones, such as social exclusion (Kaukiainen et al., 2002). In contrast, their non-nominated peers were more likely to use indirect bullying, presumably as they do not wish to maintain close relations with SLD students due to their difficult social behaviour, and because they seem more capable of using indirect bullying.

In terms of specific victimization behaviours, SLD students were more likely to report victimization behaviours more frequently, a finding that was supported by the existing empirical literature. For example, the social exclusion of SLD students was in line with similar research evidence suggesting that SLD students have difficulties in creating and maintaining positive social relationships (Nabuzoka, 2000), and are generally less accepted by their peers (Kavale & Forness, 1996). Also when victimized once, their lack of social skills do not allow them to defend themselves, therefore increasing the chances of the victimization becoming chronic. Another means of being victimized, which SLD students reported more frequently, was by receiving insults regarding their poor educational record. This finding is in line with research by Hellendoorn and Ruijssenaars (2000) and Singer (2005) which indicated that the victimization of SLD students is due to their inadequate learning ability, especially when it becomes visible.

In terms of self-reported bullying, SLD students were more likely to engage in direct verbal bullying, such as name calling the victim because of his/her outstanding educational record, ethnicity, and family. They also reported more frequently stealing from the victim, and only a single indirect behaviour, that of bad-mouthing the victim through note-sending. It is interesting to note that SLD students were likely to devalue another’s excellent academic record, as a way of compensating for their own academic weaknesses.

According to our hypotheses, students’ gender and age would influence bullying and victimization participation. Regarding gender, as it was hypothesized, boys were more likely to be classified as bully/victims and bullies, whereas girls as bully/victims and neutrals. In terms of bullying/victimization forms, boys were expected to use more direct forms of bullying while girls indirect ones (e.g. Rappaport & Thomas, 2004). The hypothesis regarding boys was supported, but girls did not report indirect bullying/victimization forms more frequently than boys. The latter were also more likely to frequently report direct specific bullying/victimization behaviours, compared to girls.

In terms of age, it was expected that older students would report less frequent involvement in aggressive incidences (Olweus, 1993), a hypothesis which was not supported, since 6th graders reported more frequently bullying behaviours than younger students who reported being victimized more frequently.

In all, the results of the present study showed that the SLD nominated students were more likely to report both bullying and victimization compared to their non-nominated counterparts by using verbal aggression more frequently than other forms. These findings are in line with Flynt and Morton’s (2004) conclusions that SLD children can act out as bully/victims due to their social and cognitive deficits.

Limitations

The current study is not without limitations. As has been repeatedly noted, the use of self-report measures of bullying could be problematic due to the elevated risk of socially desired answers. Also, although the administered measure used simple and explicit language, especially in the case of SLD students, there is always the possibility that they might have experienced difficulties and ended up giving random answers.

The sample of the study was small and convenient. Student eligibility for inclusion in the SLD group was determined by teachers’ nomination. Regarding the SLD sample, students were selected by teachers’ informal screening and not by an official authority or standardized assessment procedure. Thus, although the SLD criteria for the student selection were stressed to the teachers, there is always the possibility they had selected students who were for other reasons falling behind with their academic tasks. However, international statistics indicate that the percentage of children and adolescents who qualify for an SLD diagnosis ranges between 5% and 10% (NCES, 2011), whereas 14.5% of the study’s sample was nominated as SLD, a discrepancy that could be attributed to teachers’ willingness to assist in the research by indicating students who met some criteria, but would be ineligible for formal diagnosis. Although the use of teacher rating scales is not a standard practice for SLD assessment, they can provide valuable information about students’ performance (Souroulla-Vrahimi et al., 2009). Certainly, future studies with larger samples of formally diagnosed participants could provide more constructive information regarding the social behaviour of SLD students, allowing for better comparisons and therefore safer conclusions.

Implications

The present findings have important implications for practice. Numerous prevention and intervention programs have been developed based on major theoretical perspectives (Rigby, 2004) regarding the causes of bullying. According to Rigby and Griffiths (2011), some of the most common practices which have been demonstrated as generally successful are the traditional disciplinary approach, the use of assertiveness training for victims, mediation between bullies and victims, restorative practices, the Support Group Method, and the Method of Shared Concern. In most cases, intervention programs focus on the individual student and aim at reducing the aggressive behaviour of the bully, or empowering the victim with social, emotional, and coping skills (e.g. Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth, & Lendrum, 2010).

Research suggests that in the case of SEN students the same programs can be applied, but with accommodations or modifications according to the student’s needs. Generally, it is assumed that in every intervention it is important to identify the type of victim or bully involved, in order to work on the specific problems or weaknesses of the student (Carney & Merrell, 2001).

In the case of SLD students, priority should be given to improving their social functioning (Mishna, 2003), especially if they assume the provocative victim role, and in addressing their self-esteem, assertiveness, and confidence if they assume the passive victim role. For SLD students who are being victimized, prevention programs could help towards increasing their self-esteem and empathy, their understanding of others’ behaviour and the reasons behind it, and also in boosting their social and conflict resolution skills, so that they will be better equipped to face the bully before the incident occurs (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000). Assertiveness training and problem-solving strategies can be taught through social skills groups and role playing. Problem solving strategies and self-control techniques have been proved to be useful to students who misinterpret social situations or overreact.

In the case of non-skilled bullies, or provocative victims, action should be taken in order to help them become able to express and fulfil their social needs in more appropriate manners in their interactions. Following the Whole School Approach intervention programs, the role of the peer group and the other members of the school community are equally important to the work done with the individual student. Research has indicated that peer acceptance and a positive social climate in the school reduces the likelihood of victimization (Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2012).

School psychologists can play a significant role in helping SLD students by conducting comprehensive assessments which should include risks for harassment, social functioning, and behavioural problems, in order to determine the origin of the difficulty, and furthermore designing intervention strategies which will help them manage their aggression or better cope with their victimization (Beran & Lupart, 2009). Thus, apart from assessing the frequency and characteristics of the bullying problem in the particular school (Beran & Lupart, 2009), school psychologists should raise awareness among students, parents, and school personnel (Boulton, 1997); encourage and support the development of a comprehensive approach; and finally evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs (Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2012).

The role of school staff, especially teachers, is also crucial; school personnel should maintain positive relationships with students, provide positive models of social relations, and send clear messages that bullying is not tolerated. School counselors and school psychologists have a key position in bringing bullying to the attention of school personnel who are frequently unaware of the problem or dismisses its importance (Humphrey et al., 2010). Research has shown that students prefer that their teachers (rather than other school personnel) intervene in bullying incidents (Crothers, Kolbertb, & Barker, 2006), but teachers are often either unaware of the magnitude of bullying problems, or they are not trained to address them. In these cases, school psychologists can assist them in addressing bullying, after analysing the dynamics of the situation (e.g. identify the typical roles in bullying interactions, and the social status of students, social groups, or cliques) (Cunningham & Whitten, 2007; Wei & Chen, 2012).

Footnotes

Author biographies

Constantinos M. Kokkinos is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at the Department of Primary Education, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece. His research interests include children's disruptive and antisocial behaviours, classroom psychosocial climate, psychological assessment, and teachers' stress and burnout.

Nafsika Antoniadou, MEd (School Pedagogy, Diversity in Education), is a Doctoral Candidate at the Department of Primary Education, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece. Her research interests include the study of cyberbullying, and traditional bullying/victimization among children with and without special educational needs.

References

Andreou

Vlachou

Didaskalou

(2005) The roles of self-efficacy, peer interactions and attitudes in bully-victim incidents: Implications for intervention policy-practices. School Psychology International 26: 545–562. doi: 10.1177/0143034305060789.

Arora

C. M. J.

Thompson

D. A.

(1987) Defining bullying for a secondary school. Educational Child Psychology 4: 110–120.

Bauman

Del Rio

(2005) Knowledge and beliefs about bullying in schools: Comparing pre-service teachers in the United States and the United Kingdom. School Psychology International 26: 428– 442. doi: 10.1177/0143034305059019.

Beran

Τ. Ν.

Lupart

(2009) The relationship between school achievement and peer harassment in Canadian adolescents: The importance of mediating factors. School Psychology International 30: 75–91. doi: 10.1177/0143034308101851.

Berger

K. S.

(2007) Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review 27: 90–126.

Berthold

K. A.

Hoover

J. H.

(2000) Correlates of bullying and victimization among intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International 21: 65–78. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211005.

Besag

V. E.

(2006) Bullying among girls friends or foes? School Psychology International 27: 535–551. doi: 10.1177/0143034306073401.

Boulton

M. J.

(1997) Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 223–233.

Boulton

M. J.

Smith

P. K.

Cowie

(2010) Short-term longitudinal relationships between children’s peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions: Evidence for reciprocity. School Psychology International 31: 296–311. doi: 10.1177/0143034310362329.

10.

Camodeca

Goossens

F. A.

Schuengel

Meerum Terwogt

(2003) Links between social information processing in middle childhood and involvement in bullying. Aggressive Behavior 29: 116–127. doi: 10.1002/ab.10043.

11.

Carlson

L. W.

Cornell

D. G.

(2008) Differences between persistent and desistent middle school bullies. School Psychology International 29: 442– 451. doi: 10.1177/0143034308096433.

12.

Carlson, J., Flannert, M. S., & Kral, M. S. (2005). Differences in bully/ victim problems between early adolescents with learning disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED490374).

13.

Carney

J. V.

(2000) Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse and suicidal behaviour during adolescence. School Psychology International 21: 213–223. doi: 10.1177/0143034300212007.

14.

Carney

A. G.

Merrell

K. W.

(2001) Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International 22: 364–382. doi: 10.1177/0143034301223011.

15.

Casey

Levy

Brown

Brooks-Gunn

(1992) Impaired emotional health in children with mild reading disability. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 13: 256–260.

16.

Chan

J. H. F.

(2006) Systemic patterns in bullying and victimization. School Psychology International 27: 352–369. doi: 10.1177/0143034306067289.

17.

Choi, S., & Cho, Y. I. (2013). Influence of psychological and social factors on bystanders’ roles in school bullying among Korean-American students in the United States. School Psychology International, 34, 67–81, doi: 10.1177/0143034311430406.

18.

Coyne

Seigne

Randall

(2000) Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 9: 335–349. doi: 10.1080/135943200417957.

19.

Craig

W. M.

Henderson

Murphy

J. G.

(2000) Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International 21: 5–21. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211001.

20.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

Atlas

(2000) Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International 21: 22–36. doi: 10.1177/0143034300211002.

21.

Crothers

L. M.

Kolbert

J. B.

Barker

W. F.

(2006) Middle school students’ preferences for anti-bullying interventions. School Psychology International 27: 475–487. doi: 10.1177/0143034306070435.

22.

Cunningham, N. J., & Whitten, M. (2007). The role of the middle school counselor in preventing bullying. Journal of School Counseling, 5. Retrieved from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v5n1.pdf.

23.

Flynt

S. W.

Morton

R. C.

(2004) Bullying and children with disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology 31: 331–333.

24.

Hammill

D. D.

(1993) A brief look at the learning disabilities movement in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26: 295–310. doi: 10.1177/002221949302600502.

25.

Haynie

D. L.

Nansel

Eitel

Crump

A. D.

Saylor

Simons-Morton

(2001) Bullies, victims, and bully-victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence 21: 29–49. doi: 10.1177/0272431601021001002.

26.

Hellendoorn

Ruijssenaars

A. J.

(2000) Personal experiences and adjustment of Dutch adults with dyslexia. Remedial and special education 21: 227–239. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100405.

27.

Humphrey

Kalambouka

Wigelsworth

Lendrum

(2010) Going for goals: An evaluation of a short, social-emotional intervention for primary school children. School Psychology International 31: 250–270. doi: 10.1177/0143034309352578.

28.

Kaukiainen

Salmivalli

Lagerspetz

K. M. J.

Tamminen

Vauras

Mäki

Poskiparta

(2002) Learning difficulties, social intelligence and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43: 269–278. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00295.

29.

Kavale

K. A.

Forness

S. R.

(1996) Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 29: 226–257.

30.

Kokkinos

C. M.

(2007) Elementary school children’s involvement in bullying and victimization: The role of attachment style and internalizing and externalizing symptomatology. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, XLIV 1: 33–49.

31.

Kokkinos

C. M.

Kipritsi

Eir.

(2012) The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education 15: 41–58. doi 10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9.

32.

Larochette

Murphy

A. N.

Craig

W. M.

(2010) Racial bullying and victimization in Canadian school-aged children: Individual and school level effects. School Psychology International 31: 389–408. doi: 10.1177/0143034310377150.

33.

Luciano

Savage

R. S.

(2007) Bullying risk in children with learning difficulties in inclusive educational settings. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 22: 14–31. doi: 10.1177/0829573507301039.

34.

Marachi

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishty

(2007) Effects of teacher avoidance of school policies on student victimization. School Psychology International 28: 501–518. doi: 10.1177/0143034307084138.

35.

Mishna

(2003) Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of Learning Disabilities 36: 336–347. doi: 10.1177/00222194030360040501.

36.

Mishna

Wiener

Pepler

(2008) Some of my best friends- experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology International 29: 549–573. doi: 10.1177/0143034308099201.

37.

Murray-Harvey

Slee

P. T.

(2010) School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International 31: 271–295. doi: 10.1177/0143034310366206.

38.

Nabuzoka, D. (2000). Children with learning disabilities: Social functioning and adjustment. Leicester: BPS Blackwell.

39.

Nabuzoka

(2003) Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational Psychology 23: 307–321. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000060147.

40.

Nabuzoka

Smith

P. K.

(1993) Sociometric status and social behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43: 1435–1448. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb02101.x.

41.

Nabuzoka

Walker

(2007) Academic achievement and social functioning of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational Psychology 27: 635–654. doi: 10.1080/01443410701309175.

42.

NCES (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011–015). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64.

43.

Norwick

Kelly

(2004) Pupil’s views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal 30: 43–65.

44.

Olweus

(1993) Bullying in school: What we know and what we can do. Psychology in the Schools 40: 699–711.

45.

Olweus

(2001) Olweus’ core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook, Bergen: Author.

46.

Paul

Smith

P. K.

Blumberg

H. H.

(2012) Revisiting cyberbullying in schools using the quality circle approach. School Psychology International 33: 492–504. doi: 10.1177/0143034312445243.

47.

Pereira

Mendonça

Neto

Valente

Smith

P. K.

(2004) Bullying in Portuguese schools. School Psychology International 25: 241–254. doi: 10.1177/0143034304043690.

48.

Rappaport

Thomas

(2004) Recent research findings on aggressive and violent behavior in youth: Implications for clinical assessment and intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health 35: 260–277. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.10.009.

49.

Richard

J. F.

Schneider

B. H.

Mallet

(2012) Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International 33: 263–284. doi: 10.1177/0143034311415906.

50.

Rigby

(2004) Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their implications. School Psychology International 25: 287–300. doi: 10.1177/0143034304046902.

51.

Rigby

Griffiths

(2011) Addressing cases of bullying through the Method of Shared Concern. School Psychology International 32: 345–357. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402148.

52.

Rose

C. A.

Monda-Amaya

L. E.

Espelage

D. L.

(2010) Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education 32: 114–130. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361247.

53.

Salmivalli

Lagerspetz

Bjorkqvist

Osterman

Kaukiainen

(1996) Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior 22: 1–15. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996) 22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T.

54.

Sapouna

(2008) Bullying in Greek primary and secondary schools. School Psychology International 29: 199– 213. doi: 10.1177/0143034308090060.

55.

Singer

(2005) The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their self-esteem when teased at school. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38: 411–423. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380050401.

56.

Skrzypiec

Slee

Murray-Harvey

Pereira

(2011) School bullying by one or more ways: Does it matter and how do students cope? School Psychology International 32: 288– 311. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402308.

57.

Souroulla-Vrahimi

Panayiotou

Kokkinos

C. M.

(2009) The role of the teacher in identifying learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 42: 483–493. doi: 10.1177/0022219409335217.

58.

Swearer

S. M.

(2008) Relational aggression: Not just a female issue. Journal of School Psychology 46: 611–616. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.08.001.

59.

Symes

Humphrey

(2010) Peer-group indicators of social inclusion among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools: A comparative study. School Psychology International 31: 478–494. doi: 10.1177/0143034310382496.

60.

Tani

Greenman

P. S.

Schneider

B. H.

Fregoso

(2003) Bullying and the Big Five: A study of childhood personality and participant roles in bullying incidents. School Psychology International 24: 131–146. doi: 10.1177/0143034303024002001.

61.

Von Marées

Petermann

(2010) Bullying in German primary schools: Gender differences, age trends and influence of parents’ migration and educational backgrounds. School Psychology International 31: 178–198. doi: 10.1177/0143034309352416.

62.

Wei

H. S.

Chen

J. K.

(2012) The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the relationships between bullying, peer acceptance, and school adjustment in adolescents. School Psychology International 33: 345–363.