خوشه‌بندی رفتار قلدری دانش‌آموزان نوجوان بر پایه شایستگی اجتماعی و ترجیح اجتماعی
محورهای موضوعی : تکتونواستراتیگرافیسیماسادات کرسوی 1 , مجید صدوقی 2
1 - دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد روانشناسی تربیتی دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران.
2 - استادیار روانشناسی دانشگاه کاشان
کلید واژه: قلدری, قربانی, شایستگی اجتماعی, ترجیح اجتماعی, رفتار اجتماعی,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه و هدف: قلدری در مدرسه نوعی خشونت میان فردی است که می‌تواند پیامدهای کوتاه‌مدت و بلندمدت نامطلوبی به دنبال داشته باشد. هدف پژوهش حاضر، خوشه‌بندی دانش‌آموزان قلدر و قربانی بر اساس شایستگی اجتماعی و ترجیح اجتماعی بود.
مواد و روشها: پژوهش حاضر از نوع توصیفی با طرح خوشه‌بندی اکتشافی بود. جامعه آماری این پژوهش، نوجوانان 13 تا 15 ساله شهر کاشان بودند که از بین آن‌ها نمونه‌ای به حجم 414 نفر (202 دختر و 212 پسر) به روش نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای انتخاب شده و به پرسشنامه شایستگی اجتماعی اسمارت و سان سون (2003)، مقیاس رفتار اجتماعی واردن و همکاران (2003)، پرسشنامه قلدری ایلی نویز (2001) و آزمون گروه سنجی پاسخ دادند.
یافتهها: خوشه‌بندی داده‌ها به روش سلسله مراتبی حاکی از وجود چهار خوشه مجزا از دانش‌آموزان بود که روایی آماری و تجربی آن‌ها مورد تأیید قرار گرفت: محبوب (99/35 درصد)، قلدر (77/20 درصد)، شایسته اجتماعی (81/26 درصد)، قربانی (42/16 درصد). همچنین مقایسه خوشه‌ها در متغیرهای جنسیت، رفتار اجتماعی عملی و ارتباطی، رفتار ضداجتماعی آشکار و رابطه‌ای و رفتار قربانی نشان داد که خوشه‌بندی انجام شده از اعتبار کافی برخوردار است.
بحث و نتیجهگیری: نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد افراد قلدر و قربانی دارای نیمرخ رفتاری متفاوت با ویژگی‌های مختلفی هستند و تحلیل خوشه‌ای می‌تواند منجر به شناسایی این نیمرخ‌ها شده و مبنای طراحی و اجرای تمهیدات پیشگیری و درمانی لازم درباره پدیده آزار و اذیت و پیامدهای آن را فراهم نماید.
Introduction: Bullying at school is an interpersonal type of violence which could have serious short-term and long-term consequences for both the bullying and the victimized students. The present study aimed to cluster the bullying and victimized students based on their social competence and social preference.
Materials and Methods: This study was descriptive and exploratory Clustering. The statistical population included all 13-15 year old students in Kashan. Using cluster sampling, 414 students (202 females & 212 males) were chosen. The participants filled in Illinois Bullying Scale and Smart and Sanson Social Competence Questionnaire, The Warden and Mackinnon Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ), and Sociogram.
Findings: The data were clustered using hierarchical method, showing four distinct clusters of students. The statistical and empirical validity of the data were confirmed: social preferred (35.99%), bullying (20.77%), social competent (26.81%), and victimized (16.42%). In addition, comparison of the clusters by considering gender, practical prosocial behavior, relational prosocial behavior, overt antisocial behavior, relational antisocial behavior, victimization showed that our clustering was sufficiently valid. The findings indicate that the bullying and victimized students have different behavior profiles with different characteristics.
Conclusion: Cluster analysis could help identify these profiles and thereby be used as a basis for designing and taking necessary measures regarding the prevention and intervention of the bullying behavior and its consequences.
1. Romera E-M, Cano J-J, Garcia-Fernandez C-M, Ortega-Ruiz R. Cyberbullying: Social competence, motivation and peer relationships. Comunicar Media Education Research Journal. 2016; 24(2).
2. Raskauskas JL, Gregory J, Harvey ST, Rifshana F, Evans IM. Bullying among primary school children in New Zealand: Relationships with prosocial behaviour and classroom climate. Educational Research. 2010; 52(1): 1-13.
3. Berger KS. Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental review. 2007; 27(1): 90-126.
4. Garcia B. How to Decrease Bullying Among Elementary School Students? 2019.
5. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Crago RV, Theodorakis N. School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation. School psychology quarterly. 2016; 31(1): 8.
6. Lagerspetz KM, Björkqvist K, Peltonen T. Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11‐to 12‐year‐old children. Aggressive behavior. 1988; 14(6): 403-14.
7. Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, health & medicine. 2017; 22(sup1): 240-53.
8. Carney JV, Liu Y, Hazler RJ. A path analysis on school bullying and critical school environment variables: A social capital perspective. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018; 93: 231-9.
9. Hosseini SA, Ahmadrash R. Study of the effectiveness of anti-bullying training program on the perception of elementary students from school and classroom management. Journal of school administration. 2020; 8(1): 115-35.
10. Turner MG, Exum ML, Brame R, Holt TJ. Bullying victimization and adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2013; 41(1): 53-9.
11. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera-Felix E-M, Ortega-Ruiz R. Multidimensionality of social competence: Measurement of the construct and its relationship with bullying roles. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Ed). 2017; 22(1): 37-44.
12. Sentse M, Kretschmer T, Salmivalli C. The longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status: Age‐related and gender differences. Social Development. 2015; 24(3): 659-77.
13. Caravita SC, Di Blasio P, Salmivalli C. Early adolescents’ participation in bullying: Is ToM involved? The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2010; 30(1): 138-70.
14. Camodeca M, Goossens FA. Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005; 46(2): 186-97.
15. Pozzoli T, Gini G. Active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of abnormal child psychology. 2010; 38(6): 815-27.
16. Pellegrini AD, Long JD. A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British journal of developmental psychology. 2002; 20(2): 259-80.
17. Griffin RS, Gross AM. Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and violent behavior. 2004; 9(4): 379-400.
18. Saracho ON. Bullying: young children's roles, social status, and prevention programmes. Early child development and care. 2017; 187(1): 68-79.
19. Leduc C, Bouffard T. The impact of biased self-evaluations of school and social competence on academic and social functioning. Learning and Individual Differences. 2017; 55: 193-201.
20. Zych I, Beltrán-Catalán M, Ortega-Ruiz R, Llorent VJ. Social and emotional competencies in adolescents involved in different bullying and cyberbullying roles. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Ed). 2018; 23(2): 86-93.
21. Boor-Klip HJ, Segers E, Hendrickx MM, Cillessen AH. The moderating role of classroom descriptive norms in the association of student behavior with social preference and popularity. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2017; 37(3): 387-413.
22. Zhang F, You Z, Fan C, Gao C, Cohen R, Hsueh Y, et al. Friendship quality, social preference, proximity prestige, and self-perceived social competence: Interactive influences on children's loneliness. Journal of School Psychology. 2014; 52(5): 511-26.
23. van den Berg YH, Burk WJ, Cillessen AH. Identifying subtypes of peer status by combining popularity and preference: A cohort-sequential approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2015; 35(8): 1108-37.
24. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R. The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta‐analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 2011; 21(2): 80-9.
25. Salmivalli C, Isaacs J. Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and children's self‐and peer‐perceptions. Child development. 2005; 76(6): 1161-71.
26. Holt MK, Espelage DL. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2007; 36(8): 984-94.
27. Chalmeh R. Psychometrics Properties of the Illinois bullying scale (IBS) in Iranian students: validity, reliability and factor structure. 2013.
28. Smart D, Sanson A. Social competence in young adulthood, its nature and antecedents. Family Matters. 2003(64): 4.
29. Warden D, Mackinnon S. Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem‐solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2003; 21(3): 367-85.
30. Akbari-Balootbangan A, Vaezfar S, Rezaei A. Psychometric characteristics of child social behavior scale. Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 8(4): 339-45.
31. Dodge KA, Coie JD, Pettit GS, Price JM. Peer status and aggression in boys' groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child development. 1990; 61(5): 1289-309.
32. Amiri s. A study of educational achievement in sociometric groups. Jornal of psychology. 2005; 9(2(34)): 139-50.
33. de Bruyn EH, Cillessen AH, Wissink IB. Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2010; 3 0(4): 543-66.
34. Pouwels JL, Lansu TA, Cillessen AH. Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: Status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria. Aggressive behavior. 2016; 42(3): 239-53.
35. Reijntjes A, Vermande M, Olthof T, Goossens FA, Van De Schoot R, Aleva L, et al. Costs and benefits of bullying in the context of the peer group: A three wave longitudinal analysis. Journal of abnormal child psychology. 2013; 41(8): 1217-29.
36. Sentse M, Dijkstra JK, Salmivalli C, Cillessen AH. The dynamics of friendships and victimization in adolescence: A longitudinal social network perspective. Aggressive behavior. 2013; 39(3): 229-38.
37. Thornberg R, Delby H. How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational Research. 2019; 61(2): 142-60.
38. Martín Babarro J, Díaz-Aguado MJ, Martínez Arias R, Steglich C. Power structure in the peer group: The role of classroom cohesion and hierarchy in peer acceptance and rejection of victimized and aggressive students. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2017; 37(9): 1197-220.
39. Niu L, Jin S, Li L, French DC. Popularity and Social Preference in C hinese Adolescents: Associations with Social and Behavioral Adjustment. Social Development. 2016; 25(4): 828-45.
40. Crick NR, Dodge KA. Social information‐processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child development. 1996; 67(3): 993-1002.
41. Guo Q, Zhou J, Feng L. Pro-social behavior is predictive of academic success via peer acceptance: A study of Chinese primary school children. Learning and Individual Differences. 2018; 65: 187-94.
42. Nel AJ. The relationship between direct and indirect aggression and social competence among three cultural groups in South Africa: Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch; 2006.
43. Frey KS, Hirschstein MK, Guzzo BA. Second Step: Preventing aggression by promoting social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2000; 8(2): 102-12.
44. Halberstadt AG, Denham SA, Dunsmore JC. Affective social competence. Social development. 2001; 10(1): 79-119.
45. Prinstein MJ, Rancourt D, Guerry JD, Browne CB. Peer reputations and psychological adjustment. 2009.
46. Hukkelberg S, Keles S, Ogden T, Hammerstrøm K. The relation between behavioral problems and social competence: A correlational Meta-analysis. BMC psychiatry. 2019; 19(1): 354.
47. Cook CR, Williams KR, Guerra NG, Kim TE, Sadek S. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School psychology quarterly. 2010; 25(2): 65.
48. Denham SA, Blair KA, DeMulder E, Levitas J, Sawyer K, Auerbach–Major S, et al. Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child development. 2003; 74(1): 238-56.
49. Vaughn BE, Shin N, Kim M, Coppola G, Krzysik L, Santos AJ, et al. Hierarchical models of social competence in preschool children: A multisite, multinational study. Child development. 2009; 80(6): 1775-96.
50. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological bulletin. 2014; 140(4): 1073.
51. Legkauskas V, Magelinskaitė-Legkauskienė Š, Kepalaitė A. The role of student-teacher relationship in the link between social competence and involvement in bullying in the 1st grade. SOCIAL WELFARE: INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH. 2017; 1(7): 8-18.
52. Saarento S, Kärnä A, Hodges EV, Salmivalli C. Student-, classroom-, and school-level risk factors for victimization. Journal of school psychology. 2013; 51(3): 421-34.
53. Merten DE. Visibility and vulnerability: Responses to rejection by nonaggressive junior high school boys. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 1996; 16(1): 5-26.
54. Salmivalli C, Kaukiainen A, Lagerspetz K. Aggression and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter? Scandinavian journal of psychology. 2000; 41(1): 17-24.
55. Ickes W, Gesn PR, Graham T. Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships. 2000; 7(1): 95-109.
56. Maccoby EE. The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together: Harvard University Press; 1999.
57. Carlo G, Mestre MV, McGinley MM, Tur-Porcar A, Samper P, Opal D. The protective role of prosocial behaviors on antisocial behaviors: The mediating effects of deviant peer affiliation. Journal of Adolescence. 2014; 37(4): 359-66.
58. Cebula KR, Wishart JG. Social cognition in children with Down syndrome. International review of research in mental retardation. 2008; 35: 43-86.
_||_
