Poster #222 - Education Majors’ Hypothetical Responses to Different Types of Bullying Between Prospective Students

• In Event: 1-061 - Poster Session 02
  In Poster Session: PS 02 Section - Social Relationships

Integrative Statement

For decades, bullying has been seen as a major concern in schools (Olweus, 2001; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Colleges of education have also identified the need for preemptive instructional interventions that better prepare education majors to identify and appropriately respond to bullying incidents between students, and first year educators seem to agree (Bauman & Hurley, 2005). Yet, a firm understanding of the factors that influence educators’ responses to bullying can guide these interventions. One of the factors that might influence how educators respond could be the type of bullying being addressed. Thus, the aim of the current study was to examine how education majors’ proposed responses to different types of bullying scenarios. Participants for this study (N = 441; Mage = 20.4 years; 81% female; 75% Caucasian/White) were drawn from 29 teacher education courses, representing 15 educational studies programs, which ranged from undergraduate education (n = 354) to graduate-level education programs (n = 87). Participants indicated how they would respond to five different conflict scenarios between prospective students, four of which depicted different types of bullying (i.e., physical, name-calling, social exclusion, and rumor mongering), and one which depicted a conflict (physical aggression) that was not characterized by repetition and the imbalance of power between bullies and their targets that are characteristic of bullying. Participants rating how likely they would confront the aggressor, encourage witnesses to help the target next time, comfort the target afterwards, seek advice or guidance from a colleague, review anti-bullying policies with the class, and ignore the conflict in response to each scenario. Participants rated the likelihood of responding in each way on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = “Not Likely At All” to 5 = “Very Likely.” Repeated measures analyses indicated that the likelihood of using all types of responses differed depending on the type of conflict that was observed. For example, findings indicated that education majors differed in the likelihood that they would encourage witnesses to help the victim across different types of conflicts F(4, 407) = 39.105, p < .001. More specifically, post hoc analyses indicated that participants were most likely to encourage witnesses to assist the victim the next time when the victim was the target of physical aggression, name-calling, and rumors. Also notable, education majors differed in the likelihood that they would comfort the victim across different types of conflicts F(4, 407) = 54.009, p < .001. For instance, post hoc analyses indicated that education majors were most likely to comfort the victim when the victim was the target of physical bullying and name-calling, but least likely to comfort the victim when the target of social exclusion, rumors, and non-bullying, physical aggression. Together these and other findings that will be presented in this poster suggest that education majors consider the type of conflict being observed when considering how to respond. The next step would be to examine the efficacy of these responses and to promote the context-specific educator responses that are the most effective at reducing future bullying incidents.

Authors

• Andrew M Terranova, Coastal Carolina University
  Presenting Author

• Malvin Porter, Coastal Carolina University
  Non-Presenting Author