Abstract
An increasing body of research is examining the effects of bullying among adolescents in elementary, middle, and high school settings. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement 2007, this study explores the impact of bullying victimization on school avoidance for 11,161 students between the ages of 12 and 18. More specifically, the authors investigate the likelihood of students avoiding locations in or around schools due to perceived or actual incidents of victimization. Results highlight the pervasiveness of peer aggression in schools and provide further encouragement for the development of prevention and intervention tactics to effectively mediate bully/victim issues.
An increasing body of research has examined the effects of bullying among adolescents in elementary, middle, and high school settings. Bullying occurs when an individual “is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more persons” (Olweus, 1991a, p. 47). Furthermore, it “entails an imbalance in strength (or an asymmetrical power relationship), meaning that students exposed to negative actions have difficulty defending themselves” (Olweus, 2003, p. 12). Boys who bully tend to use more overt or direct forms of peer harassment, such as hitting, punching, or kicking, while girls are more likely to use covert or indirect forms of harassment in the manipulation of friendships or relationships with peers, such as spreading rumors or malicious gossip (Greeff & Grobler, 2008). Covert bullying behaviors have been termed relational aggression or relational victimization and are defined by actions that aim to significantly hurt or harm another peer’s friendships or feelings of peer group inclusion (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Greeff & Grobler, 2008).
This phenomenon has drawn growing concern from parents, the school community, and legislators, particularly following recent bullying-related suicides and other highly publicized incidents in schools (Eckholm & Zezima, 2010). Adolescents who are targeted by peer bullying can suffer from a number of unfavorable outcomes, including academic, behavioral, and psychological problems (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Mahady Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 2000; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001; Slee, 1994; Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003; Townsend, Flisher, Chikobvu, Lombard, & King, 2008). Consequently, youth who experience bullying adopt largely negative coping strategies to combat the effects. Research has identified stunted academic progress, loneliness, depression, fear of school, school avoidance, school disengagement, and suicidal ideations and behaviors as factors that affect victimized adolescents (Arnette & Walsleben, 1998; Attwood & Croll, 2006; Glew et al., 2005; Kim, Koh, & Leventhal, 2005; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Nansel, Overpeck, Hayne, Ruan, & Scheidt, 2003; Newman, Holden, & Delville, 2005; Slee, 1994; Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003; Townsend et al., 2008).
In this study, we focus on one of these negative outcomes: avoidance behaviors in educational institutions. School avoidance refers to both the absence from school-related activities or other events that involve student interactions and the circumvention of various places in or around the school environment. Avoidance behaviors resulting from peer harassment can significantly hinder academic achievement (Nansel et al., 2001; Townsend et al., 2008). Furthermore, frequent school avoidance or absenteeism resulting from peer aggression may lead to dropping out of school altogether (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Townsend et al., 2008).
Bully-Prone Locations
Before school avoidance can be examined further, it is important to understand the nature of bully-prone locations or areas where research suggests students are most likely to be bullied. These findings provide a foundation for understanding the potential for students to avoid certain locations in and around schools. A limited number of studies have thoroughly investigated areas which are dangerous or bully-prone. The results of research addressing bully-prone locations indicated that many peer harassment episodes take place on the school playground or athletic field during recess and in the classroom when a supervising authority figure is not present (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Rapp-Paglicci, Dulmus, Sowers, & Theriot, 2004; Whitney & Smith, 1993). School corridors or hallways were also spaces identified as common places for bullying (Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999; Sapouna, 2008; Whitney & Smith, 1993). Other locations or hotspots where bullying occurred (but with less frequency) were the classroom when a teacher was present and the bus stop (Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004; Sapouna, 2008).
School Avoidance
Growing attention to bullying in schools has highlighted various unfavorable consequences for victims of peer harassment, including school avoidance. Avoidance behaviors are exemplified by the circumvention of social interactions or certain places in the school due to fear of attack or harm (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Juvonen et al., 2000; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Slee, 1994; Storch et al., 2003). Because avoidance behaviors can adversely impact academic achievement and the decision to drop out of school (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Nansel et al., 2001; Townsend et al., 2008), it is necessary to develop a better understanding of how this works in order to avoid these unfavorable outcomes.
Similar to studies on bully-prone locations, there is limited research addressing peer aggression in relation to school avoidance and the results of these studies are inconclusive. A small number of studies do not find any relationship between bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors. Using a cross-sectional design, Glew et al. (2005) analyzed the behavior of 3,530 students in grades three through five in a public, West Coast school district and found no significant relationship between school avoidance behaviors and peer victimization experiences. Similarly, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, and Karstadt (2001a) used data from 1,639 students from 31 elementary schools and found no association between bullying victimization and school absenteeism. Thus, these studies used large samples of students enrolled in elementary or primary educational institutions and did not find a significant association between victimization experiences and school avoidance (Glew et al., 2005; Wolke et al., 2001a).
Other studies have mixed findings. Attwood and Croll (2006) assessed avoidance behaviors such as absenteeism and dropout. Data from a sample of 770 students ages 11 to 15, taken from the British Household Panel Survey, revealed little evidence supporting an association between peer victimization and school avoidance. However, a smaller sample of 17 individual student interviews suggested the opposite: Absenteeism from school may be precipitated by peer harassment incidents (Attwood & Croll, 2006). Similarly, using data from the 1999 School Crime Supplement, Addington, Ruddy, Miller, and DeVoe (1999) found that most students do not avoid extracurricular activities, class, or school because they were fearful about peer victimization experiences; however, victimized youth (i.e., students who self-reported peer victimization experiences) were more likely to report using one or more avoidance behaviors. Finally, Chandler, Nolin, and Davis (1995) analyzed data from 6,504 students in the 1993 National Household Education Survey and found that avoidance behaviors as a result of bullying victimization differed by school level, such that elementary and middle school students were more likely to avoid school than high school students.
A larger body of research, however, does demonstrate an association between bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors in schools. A few studies have exclusively examined social avoidance behaviors such as withdrawing from classroom interactions with peers (Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Storch et al., 2003). Analyzing videotapes of elementary school students as they interacted on the playground and in the classroom, Mahady Wilton et al. (2000) found that coping behaviors used by victimized youth can be divided into two dissimilar groups. Aggressive strategies, such as anger, are often adopted by high-conflict or aggressive victims; these methods tend to increase the severity of the bullying episode. By contrast, problem-solving strategies, such as acquiescence and social withdrawal, were frequently adopted by more passive and withdrawn victims of peer harassment and were related to the resolution of bullying incidents. Similarly, Storch et al. (2003) analyzed data from 383 high school students in the Northeastern United States and found that bullying victimization is “positively associated with significant distress including … social avoidance” (p. 13).
Other studies have solely focused on situational school avoidance, which includes the circumvention of places in or around the school as well as avoiding school altogether (Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Storch & Esposito, 2003; Townsend et al., 2008). Using data from 243 seventh- and eighth-grade middle school students in Los Angeles, California, Juvonen et al. (2000) reported that students who perceived themselves to be bullying victims often had psychological difficulties that led to poor school functioning, including school absenteeism. Similarly, Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996a, 1996b) analyzed a sample of 200 kindergarten students from three Midwestern United States communities and found that bullying victimization tends to increase avoidance behaviors because of feelings of loneliness in school. Examining the relationship between peer harassment and posttraumatic stress, Storch and Esposito (2003) analyzed data from 201 fifth- and sixth-grade students in the New York metropolitan area and found that repeated adverse interactions with peers can result in increased avoidance behaviors. Finally, Townsend et al. (2008) examined the relationship between bullying victimization and dropping out of high school, using data from a longitudinal cohort study of 1,470 high school students from 39 public schools in Cape Town, South Africa. They concluded that “continued involvement in bullying behavior means continued exposure to the negative effects of bullying, such as absenteeism” (Townsend et al., 2008, p. 29).
A final category of studies have found that both social and situational school avoidance are the result of bullying (DeVoe et al., 2005; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Parault, Davis, & Pellegrini, 2007; Slee, 1994). Using data from the 2001 School Crime Supplement, DeVoe et al. (2005) reported that victimized youth who feared harm or an attack were more likely to avoid school-related activities and certain locations in the school, such as certain routes to school, the parking lot, the school entrance, the cafeteria, restrooms, hallways or stairs, additional locations inside the school building, and other locations on school grounds. Similar results were seen in a sample of 5,153 Philadelphia middle school students (Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008), a sample of 136 sixth-grade students from a rural school district in Georgia (Parault et al., 2007), and a sample of 114 students in grade 4 through 7 in Adelaide, Australia (Slee, 1994).
Limitations of Previous Research
Although these studies provide valuable insight into the specific locations of bullying and highlight the pervasiveness of peer aggression in educational institutions, they suffer from several limitations. First, the majority of studies were conducted in only one geographic location (Astor et al., 1999; Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig & Pepler, 1998; Craig et al., 2000; Glew et al., 2005; Greeff & Grobler, 2008; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Parault et al., 2007; Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004; Seals & Young, 2003; Slee, 1994; Storch & Esposito, 2003; Storch et al., 2003; Townsend et al., 2008; Whitney & Smith, 1993). As such, the ability to generalize findings to other areas within a particular country or abroad is limited. Similarly, a number of studies utilized a small sample size, also limiting the ability to generalize study results to other populations (Astor et al., 1999; Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig & Pepler, 1998; Craig et al., 2000; Greeff & Grobler, 2008; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Parault et al., 2007; Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004; Seals & Young, 2003; Slee, 1994; Storch & Esposito, 2003; Storch et al., 2003). An additional limitation pertains to research conducted in locations that are demographically, culturally, and otherwise dissimilar from the United States (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Attwood & Croll, 2006; Craig & Pepler, 1998; Craig et al., 2000; Greeff & Grobler, 2008; Sapouna, 2008; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Slee, 1994; Townsend et al., 2008; Whitney & Smith, 1993). Due to differences associated with geographic variation, it is possible that findings from these studies limit generalizability and may not apply to schools in the United States.
The Current Study
Research on bully-prone locations and avoidance behaviors highlights the injustice experienced by adolescents in academic settings. Because previous studies have identified lasting academic, psychological, and behavioral problems resulting from peer victimization (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Glew et al., 2005; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Nansel et al., 2001; Slee, 1994; Storch et al., 2003; Townsend et al., 2008), it is necessary to develop a better understanding of where bullying most frequently transpires. Research on bully-prone locations suggest that victimization experiences are likely to occur in the classroom, on the playground, and in spaces where an authority figure is not present (Astor et al., 1999; Craig et al., 2000; Greeff & Grobler, 2008; Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004). Our study examines student avoidance of these school settings due to fear of attack or harm. Additionally, because current research is limited by a number of factors such as sample size or geographic location, there is a need for more expansive research.
In this study, we address those limitations by assessing school bullying and avoidance behaviors on a national level, utilizing a large representative sample of students, thus increasing the generalizability of our findings. Ultimately, our findings provide information about peer victimization and school avoidance so “policymakers, academic researchers, practitioners at the Federal, state and local levels, and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009, p. 5). Specifically, we test the following hypothesis: (1) Students who have experienced overall bullying are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools. In addition, because different bullying experiences may influence school avoidance differently, we test the following hypotheses as well: (1a) Students who have been made fun of, called names, or insulted are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools; (1b) Students who have had rumors spread about them are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools; (1c) Students who have been excluded from activities on purpose are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools; (1d) Students who have been threatened with harm are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools; (1e) Students who have been pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools.
Method
Sample
The data for these analyses come from the National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, which were collected in 2007 by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The School Crime Supplement (SCS) is an occasional addendum to the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that gathers specific information from individual students regarding school-related disorder and victimization on a national level (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). Data measuring students’ perceptions of safety and crime at school were collected (e.g., students’ perceptions of bullying incidents), in order to make more informed policy and program decisions regarding student victimizations in educational settings (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). The U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Justice Statistics employed a cross-sectional design that comprised a random sample of 11,161 students. The 2007 SCS questionnaire was administered to 5,751 males (51.5%) and 5,410 females (48.5%) between the ages of 12 and 18. A racial breakdown of the sample shows that it includes 8,706 White (78.0%), 1,591 Black (14.3%), 472 Asian (4.2%), and 392 Other (3.5%).
Measures
Bullying victimization is measured by a series of questions which ask whether another student has bullied the respondent during this school year. There were five binary variables measuring both overt and covert bullying that the final scale was constructed from: “Has another student: (1) made fun of you, called you names, or insulted you; (2) spread rumors about you; (3) excluded you from activities on purpose; (4) threatened you with harm; (5) pushed you, shoved you, tripped you, or spit on you?” Possible responses to each item were “yes” and “no.” Descriptive statistics for these measures can be seen in Table 1. A factor analysis of these variables resulted in a one-factor solution explaining 48.05% of the variance for bullying victimization, with factor loadings ranging from .584 to .773 (Table 2). The resulting factor score was saved as a total Bullying Victimization scale.
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
Bullying Victimization Factor Loadings
School avoidance is measured by a series of questions which ask whether a student has avoided specific situations or locations in and around the school environment because they were fearful of being attacked or harmed in that area. Avoidance behaviors are measured by a scale created from six binary variables. Variables constructing the final scale included avoidance of: (1) the entrance into school; (2) hallways or stairs; (3) the school cafeteria; (4) school restrooms; (5) other places inside the school building; and (6) the school parking lot. Possible responses to these items were “yes” and “no.” Descriptive statistics for these measures can be seen in Table 1. A factor analysis of these variables resulted in a one factor solution explaining 43.45% of the variance for school avoidance, with factor loadings ranging from .590 to .729 (Table 3). The resulting factor score was saved as a total School Avoidance scale.
School Avoidance Factor Loadings
Control variables in this study include six self-report measures used as individual-level control variables; the descriptive statistics for these measures can be seen in Table 1. Variables were selected based on previous findings that have reported an association between bullying victimization, avoidance behaviors, and one or more of these individual-level factors. Including these variables in the present analyses guards against the possibility that the relationship between bullying victimization and school avoidance is spurious.
Previous research has identified a relationship between bullying victimization and gender (Craig et al., 2000; Craig & Pepler, 1998; Greeff & Grobler, 2008; Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1991; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Olweus, 1994; Peguero, 2008; Rigby, 1999; Rigby & Slee, 1991) as well as avoidance behaviors and gender (Slee, 1994; Townsend et al., 2008). Males were more likely to be victimized than females, often significantly so (Craig & Pepler, 1998; Craig et al., 2000; Greeff & Grobler, 2008; Hazler et al., 1991; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Olweus, 1994; Peguero, 2008; Rigby, 1999; Rigby & Slee, 1991). While male bullying victims largely experienced direct forms of peer harassment (e.g., hitting, punching, or kicking), females victims often reported more covert or indirect victimization episodes (e.g., intentional peer group exclusion or social isolation; Olweus, 1994; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Rigby, 1999). In addition, research suggests that bullying victimization, particularly for females, is associated with higher levels of school avoidance and a greater risk of school dropout (Slee, 1994; Townsend et al., 2008).
Age has also been associated with bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors (Addington, Ruddy, Miller, & DeVoe, 2002; Chandler, Nolin, & Davis, 1995; DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Hazler et al., 1991; Olweus, 1994; Rigby & Slee, 1991; Seals & Young, 2003). Research suggests that victimization (either indirectly or directly) decreases with age (Addington et al., 2002; DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Hazler et al., 1991; Olweus, 1994; Rigby & Slee, 1991; Seals & Young, 2003). In addition, while some studies concluded that avoidance behaviors decrease with age (Chandler et al., 1995), other research has reported that older students were more likely avoid school or certain places in and around schools (Addington et al., 2002).
Researchers have explored race and ethnicity, as it relates to bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors (Addington et al., 2002; Chandler et al., 1995; DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Nansel et al., 2001; Peguero, 2008; Townsend et al., 2008; Wolke et al., 2001b). Although this research is limited, some findings indicated that ethnic minorities had a greater likelihood to be victims of bullying than their peers who belonged to the ethnic majority (Wolke et al., 2001b). Differently, other studies suggested that non-Hispanic White students were likely to report bullying victimization (either indirect or direct) more than any other racial or ethnic category (Addington et al., 2002; DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Peguero, 2008). Research also indicated that racial minorities were more likely to engage in avoidance strategies and drop out of school altogether compared to other racial groups (Addington et al., 2002; Chandler et al., 1995; Townsend et al., 2008).
Academic achievement has also been associated with bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Juvonen et al., 2000; Nansel et al., 2001; Peguero, 2008; Townsend et al., 2008). Studies suggest that student achievement is negatively impacted by peer harassment experiences (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Juvonen et al., 2000; Nansel et al., 2001; Peguero, 2008; Townsend et al., 2008). Victimized students frequently perform poorly on standardized tests (Peguero, 2008), report lower grades (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Juvonen et al., 2000), and exhibit stunted academic progress (Townsend et al., 2008) when compared with nonbullied peers. In addition, research has reported that low or failing grades are related to school absenteeism and dropping out (Juvonen et al., 2000; Townsend et al., 2008).
Finally, previous research has identified a relationship between bullying victimization and school type (Addington et al., 2002; Nolin, Davies, & Chandler, 1995; Ringwalt, Messerschmidt, Graham, & Collins, 1992; Smith, Cousins, & Stewart, 2005) as well as avoidance behaviors and school type (Chandler et al., 1995). Public school students are more likely than private school students to experience both bullying victim (Addington et al., 2002; Nolin et al., 1995; Ringwalt et al., 1992; Smith et al., 2005) and school avoidance (Chandler et al., 1995).
Analysis Strategy
In order to test the hypotheses for this research, we employ statistical package for social sciences version 18 to conduct ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis to examine the relationships between bullying victimization and school avoidance. We estimate a series of equations where the avoidance scale is regressed on the bullying victimization scale as well as each of the individual bullying victimization items. Individual-level control factors (i.e., gender, age, race and ethnicity, academic achievement, and school type) are also included in each equation. For all equations, tolerance values and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were examined in order to test for multicollinearity. No tolerance values were smaller than .1, and no VIFs were larger than 2.5; thus, multicollinearity is not an apparent problem (Freund & Littell, 2000).
Results
Table 4 shows the results from all OLS regression models. Hypothesis 1 predicted that students who have experienced overall bullying are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools. After controlling for gender, age, race and ethnicity, academic achievement, and school type, the Bullying Victimization scale was found to significantly predict avoidance behaviors (b = .211, p < .001). This demonstrates that students who report some type of bullying victimization are more likely to avoid locations in or around the school due to fear of attack or harm. Academic achievement (b = −.058, p < .001), school type (b = .125, p < .01), and ethnicity (b = −.096, p. < .01) were also significantly related to avoidance behaviors. This indicates that that students with poor academic achievement, students who attend public school, and non-Hispanic students are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors.
OLS Regression Results for School Avoidance on Bullying Victimization Indicators (Standard Errors in Parentheses)
The Avoidance Factor scale was then regressed on the independent variable “made fun of you, called you names, or insulted you,” as well as the six control variables. As predicted, when the Avoidance scale was regressed on this bullying victimization item, “made fun of you, called you names, or insulted you” was significantly related to avoidance behaviors (b = .326, p < .001). This indicates that students who report this type of bullying victimization are more likely to avoid locations in or around the school than students who did not experience this type of bullying. Again, academic achievement (b = −.080, p < .001), school type, (b = .136, p < .01), and ethnicity (b = −.080, p < .05) were also significantly related to avoidance behaviors, demonstrating that students with poor academic achievement, students who attend public school, and non-Hispanic students are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1b predicted that students who have had rumors spread about them are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools. After controlling for gender, age, race and ethnicity, academic achievement, and school type, the independent variable “spread rumors about you,” was found to be significantly related to avoidance behaviors (b = .307, p < .001). This demonstrates that students who report this type of bullying victimization are more likely than those who did not to avoid locations in or around schools. Student age (b = −.018, p < .05), academic achievement (b = −.077, p < .001), school type (b = .138, p < .01), and ethnicity (b = −.070, p < .01) were also significantly related to avoidance behaviors. This indicates that younger students, students with poor academic achievement, students who attend public school, and non-Hispanic students are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors.
The Avoidance Factor scale was then regressed on the independent variable “excluded you from activities on purpose,” as well as the six control variables. As predicted, when the Avoidance Factor scale was regressed on this bullying victimization item, “excluded you from activities on purpose” was significantly related to avoidance behaviors (b = .637, p < .001), suggesting that students who report this type of bullying victimization are more likely to avoid locations in or around the school than students who do not. Other variables related to avoidance behaviors were age (b = −.016, p < .05), academic achievement (b = −.088, p < .001), and school type (b = .144, p < .01), such that younger students, students with poor academic achievement, and students who attend public school are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors.
As predicted by Hypothesis 1d, when the Avoidance Factor scale was regressed on the independent variable “threatened you with harm” and the control variables, this bullying victimization item was significantly related to avoidance behaviors (b = .783, p < .001). This suggests that students who report this type of bullying victimization are more likely to avoid locations in or around the school due to fear of attack or harm. Additionally, student age, (b = −.017, p < .05), academic achievement, (b = −.062, p < .001), school type, (b = .111, p < .05), and ethnicity (b = −.073, p < .05). were significant, demonstrating that younger students, students with poor academic achievement, students who attend public school, and non-Hispanic students are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors.
Finally, Hypothesis 1e stated that students who have been pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools. After controlling for gender, age, race, and academic achievement, the independent variable “pushed you, shoved you, tripped you, or spit on you,” was found to be significantly related to avoidance behaviors, (b = .487, p < .001), indicating that students who report this type of bullying victimization are more likely to avoid locations in or around the school due to fear of attack or harm. Academic achievement (b = −.073, p < .001) and school type (b = .119, p < .05) were also significantly related to avoidance behaviors. This indicates that that students with poor academic achievement and students who attend public school are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors.
Discussion
This study examined the impact of bullying victimization on school avoidance in educational settings. Specifically, we tested six hypotheses which stated that students who have (1) experienced overall bullying, (1a) been made fun of, called names, or insulted, (1b) had rumors spread about them, (1c) been excluded from activities on purpose, (1d) been threatened with harm, and (1e) been pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on are more likely to avoid locations in or around schools than students who did not experience bullying victimization. We anticipated that students who identified themselves as victims of school bullying would also be likely to report avoidance behaviors. Contrary to findings from Glew et al. (2005) and Wolke et al. (2001a), our results indicate support for all hypotheses. These results parallel some previous research that has found an association between bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors in schools (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Parault et al., 2007; Slee, 1994; Storch & Esposito, 2003; Storch et al., 2003; Townsend et al., 2008). However, we improve upon previous research by analyzing a nationally representative sample of students attending schools in the United States.
Because previous literature has reported an association between avoidance behaviors and the included control variables, we also anticipated that the association between avoidance behaviors and each control would display significant effects. In many cases, student age, academic achievement, and school type were significantly related avoidance behaviors, such that younger students with poor academic achievement in public schools are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors, echoing previous work (Chandler et al., 1995; Juvonen et al., 2000; Townsend et al., 2008). The lack of a relationship between avoidance behaviors and the controls of gender and race was unexpected, given previous research (Addington et al., 2002; Chandler et al., 1995; Slee, 1994; Townsend et al., 2008). It is possible that this is a result of the survey wording: Questions assessing victimization and avoidance relied on the subjective understanding of these behaviors among respondents, which may differ as a function of gender and race.
Limitations and Future Research
One limitation of our study is the absence of data to control for certain key constructs. While controls such as gender, age, race, and academic achievement were included, additional individual-level controls and school-level factors were not available. Other research suggests that student relationships with teachers, including perceived unfair or disrespectful treatment, and school characteristics such as climate and urbanicity influence avoidance behaviors (Chandler et al., 1995; Kinder, Wakefield, & Wilkin, 1996). School-level factors such as disorder, security, size, and urbanicity certainly impact student deviance (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005; Payne, 2008; Payne, Gottfredson, Gottfredson, 2003) and it is likely that they affect avoidance as well. Future studies should be multilevel in nature and include additional control variables such as these. In addition, future research should focus on student factors such as gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation to further investigate how bullying victimization and school avoidance are stratified by these characteristics.
The self-report nature of the data poses another possible limitation: As with all research that uses self-report measures, students may underreport or overreport bullying victimization or avoidance experiences. Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996a) discuss previous research that has attempted to minimize these issues by employing peer nomination procedures to distinguish between students who are victimized and those who are not (see Alsaker, 1993; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988), but suggest that self-report measures may be a more reliable estimation of victimization experiences when collecting information from young students.
The cross-sectional nature of the data is another limitation of this study. Because data were collected at a single point in time, it is not possible to unequivocally determine the causal direction of the relationships identified in this research. For example, students who experience bullying could engage in avoidance behaviors in order to prevent further victimization, as predicted. However, it is also possible that the avoidance of social activities or locations could have preceded the peer harassment incidents, suggesting that students were bullied because they avoided social situations or places in and around the school setting. These behaviors could also be symptomatic of a general problem behavior syndrome, which is characterized by a wide variety of reckless, deviant, and delinquent acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Future research should be longitudinal in nature to assess the problem of proper temporal ordering, gathering data on bullying victimization experiences and avoidance behaviors at multiple points in time.
Policy Implications
Despite these limitations, the pervasiveness of bullying victimization in relation to school avoidance suggests that these areas should be explored further. In addition, because a limited number of studies have thoroughly investigated bully-prone locations as well as avoidance of these places, it is necessary for future research to expand on these subjects. Our study accords with previous research that supports the development of prevention and intervention strategies to effectively mediate bully/victim issues in educational settings.
Rapp-Paglicci et al. (2004) present a cost-effective and efficient method for academic institutions to detect bully-prone locations, proposing that the majority of bullying incidents occur at two or three places in or around the school setting (e.g., playgrounds or classrooms when an authority figure is not present) and that the identification of these spaces will aid in the effective utilization of school officials or security guards. Furthermore, educating school personnel on the locations where bullying is most likely to occur allows teachers and administrators to be more cognizant of bully-prone areas (Rapp-Paglicci et al., 2004).
Developing evidence-based policy initiatives to reduce school bullying continues to be of great importance as research consistently highlights academic, psychological, and behavioral problems that affect victimized adolescents (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Glew et al., 2005; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Nansel et al., 2001; Slee, 1994; Storch et al., 2003; Townsend et al., 2008). Bullying prevention can be accomplished through a number of strategies such as implementing preventive interventions early in the school year (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996b; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008), educating school personnel on the signs of peer victimization (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996b; Storch & Esposito, 2003), propagating firm and clear rules that specify limits to undesirable behaviors (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008), enforcing disciplinary methods for such behaviors (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008), and parent and peer training (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009).
Traditional programs designed to mediate bully/victim problems generally follow the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program model (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999), which was first implemented in Norway in 1983. The program builds on four principles derived from research on the identification of problem behaviors to be used at the individual, classroom, and school levels (Olweus, 1993, 2001, 2003). These principles involve establishing a school environment, and ideally a home environment, characterized by (1) involvement from adults, positive interest, and warmth, (2) firm limits on behaviors that are unacceptable, (3) consistent application of nonphysical and nonpunitive sanctions for violation of rules or unacceptable behavior, and (4) adults who act as positive role models and authorities (Olweus, 2003). In a recent evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program among approximately 21,000 students, substantial reductions in bullying (by 32–49 percent) were found (Olweus, 2005). In addition, in a meta-analytic review exploring the effectiveness of various bullying prevention programs, Farrington and Ttofi (2009) suggest that programs inspired by the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program worked best to mediate bully/victim issues.
More contemporary bullying prevention initiatives implemented in schools have approached this type of violence from a restorative justice perspective. These initiatives seek to “restore the relationship between the victim and the offender by using the reintegrative shaming techniques proposed by Braithwaite (1989), as well as forgiveness and reconciliation, to reduce incidents of bullying” (Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007, p. 403). Ahmed and Braithwaite (2006) found that forgiveness, reconciliation, and shame acknowledgment predicted fewer incidents of bullying among 1,875 students in grades 7 through 10, suggesting that prevention efforts developed from a restorative justice framework are meaningful and hold important implications for reducing bullying in schools.
Conclusion
The results of our study clearly show an association between bullying victimization and avoidance behaviors in schools, suggesting that there continues to be an urgent need to address children’s safety at school. Schools can prevent bullying problems or intercede more effectively if they are able to detect bully-prone locations and implement a comprehensive intervention strategy, thus it is essential for future research to engage in a more expansive investigation of bully-prone locations as well as avoidance behaviors. Ultimately, programs and policies that can reduce bullying victimization may have a strong impact on student avoidance behaviors as well, which can lead to a more positive experience for all members of the school community.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend a special thank you to Kelly Welch for her comments and suggestions on previous versions of this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.