Bullying profiles from kindergarten to third grade: How do they differ on teacher-student relationships?

• In Event: Bullying Victimization: New Directions

Abstract

Bullying exists as early as preschool and early school years (Baker et al., 2008) and can have serious consequences for both victims and bullies (Arseneault et al., 2017). Still, most research focuses on older youth, even though as much as 75 % of preschool- or early-school-aged children are involved one way or the other (Saracho, 2016). Research on older children and adolescents has notably shown that they can be classified in four profiles: victim, aggressor, aggressor-victim, and non-involved (Lovegrove et Cornell, 2014, Pan et al., 2017), but these profiles have not been validated in younger children using latent profil analysis (LPA). This technic should however be prioritised as others (e.g.: questionnaires with predetermined cut-off, sociometric nomination) can neglect children presenting subclinical problems (Lovegrove et Cornell, 2014). Furthermore, inclusion of prosocial behaviours could help separate non-involved children from potential prosocial defenders. As close and conflictual teacher-student relationships (TSR) have been linked to bullying in both positive (Hendrickx et al., 2017) and negative (Leflot et al., 2011) ways, studying the link between bullying profiles and TSRs could help understand these associations as well as how children differ between profiles and offer a possible intervention target. Thus, this study aims to identify profiles related to bullying from kindergarten to third grade and validate if significant differences in TSRs exist between them.
The sample includes 377 children from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, an urban sample followed from birth to adulthood. During elementary school, teachers answered validated questionnaires about the chidren’s relational and physical aggression, victimization, and prosocial behaviours, as well as Pianta’s teacher-student relationship questionnaire (two scales : closeness and conflict). Children with teacher data at least once between kindergarten and third grade were included in the analyses. LPAs were conducted within each grade using Mplus 8.4. ANOVAs (one-way and two-way repeated-measure) were used to compare TSR means between profiles.
LPA results revealed that a three-profile model provided the best fit in kindergarten and first grade: prosocial (lowest aggression/victimization, highest prosociality), normative (average scores everywhere) and aggressor-victim (highest aggression/victimization, lowest prosociality). A fourth social aggressor profile (high indirect aggression/prosociality) emerged in second grade as well as a victim profile (highest victimization, lowest aggression/prosociality) in third grade (see figure 1 pour all profiles). TSRs differed between profiles with prosocial children showing the best relationships (low conflict, high closeness), aggressor-victims the most ambivalent (high conflict/closeness), and victims being the most neglected (low closeness/conflict; see figure 2). These results show a differentiation of profiles as children age and underline the critical role of bullying behaviours in the development of a quality relationships with teachers.

Authors

• Sophie Chaput-Langlois, Université de Montréal (UdeM)
  Presenting Author

• Sophie Parent, Université de Montréal
  Non-Presenting Author

• Natalie Castellanos Ryan, Université de Montréal
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jean Richard Seguin, Université de Montréal
  Non-Presenting Author

• Richard E. Tremblay, University of Montreal
  Non-Presenting Author