Bir Grup Süreci Olarak Akran Zorbalığı: Katılımcı Rollerinin Cinsiyet ve Sosyal Statü Açısından İncelenmesi

Araştırmanın temel amacı akran zorbalığının bir grup süreci olduğu görüşünden hareketle geliştirilen katılımcı rolü yaklaşımının Türkiye örneklemi üzerinde sınanmasıdır. Bu bağlamda ergenlerin zorbalık sürecine katılma biçimleri ve bu süreçte kendi rollerinin ne ölçüde farkında oldukları incelenmiş ve ayrıca bu rollerin cinsiyet ve sosyal statü açısından farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığına bakılmıştır. Araştırmaya, Ankara’da 11 farklı ilköğretim okulunda 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflarda okuyan 384’ü kız ve 390’ı erkek toplam 774 öğrenci katılmıştır. Sonuçlar, ergenlerin %11.5’i zorba, %10.9’u yardımcı-destekleyici, %21.1’i savunucu, %20.9’u izleyici ve %9.7’si kurban olmak üzere toplam % 74’ünün katılımcı rollerinden birine girdiğini göstermiştir. Kendi bildirimleri ve akranlarının bildirimleri arasındaki ilişkiler incelendiğinde, ergenlerin, zorbalık durumunda kendi rollerinin farkında oldukları, ancak zorba ve yardımcı-destekleyici olarak davranma eğilimlerini gerçekte olduğundan daha düşük, savunucu ve izleyici olarak davranma eğilimlerini ise daha yüksek değerlendirdikleri görülmüştür. Bunun yanı sıra, erkeklerin zorbalık sürecine kızlardan daha etkin katıldığı; erkeklerin daha fazla zorba, yardımcı-destekleyici ve kurban, kızların ise savunucu ve izleyici rollerinden birine girdiği görülmüştür. Sosyal statü açısından bulgular, kurban grubundaki ergenlerin akranları arasında en az kabul edilen ve en fazla reddedilen (zorba ve yardımcı-destekleyicilerden farklılaşmamakla birlikte) grubu oluşturduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ek olarak kurbanlar, sosyal statü grupları içerisinde (popüler, reddedilmiş, ihmal edilmiş, tartışmalı ve ortalama) en fazla reddedilmiş statüde yer almışlardır.

Bullying as a Group Process: Investigation of Participant Roles in Terms of Social Status and Gender

This study mainly aims to test the participant roles approach on Turkish sample suggesting that bullying is a group process. In this regard, students’ ways of involving in bullying and the extent to which children are aware of their participant roles and whether these participant roles differentiate in terms of gender and social status was investigated. A total of 774 students (384 females and 390 males), from 6th, 7th and 8th grades of 11 different primary schools in Ankara participated in the study. The results showed that 74% of all children involved in one of the participant roles as bully (11.5%), assistant-reinforcer (10.9%), defender (21.1%), outsider (20.9%) and victim (9.7%). The examinations of the relations between self-reported and peer-reported scores of participant roles revealed that children were aware of their roles in the bullying situations, however, they significantly underestimated their roles in bully and assistant-reinforcer scales while overestimated their roles in the defender and outsider scales. Boys are more actively involved in bullying process than girls; boys participated most frequently in the roles of bully, assistant-reinforcer and victim while girls participated most frequently in the defender and outsider roles. In terms of the findings related to social status, victims were the least accepted and most rejected group among their peers although they did not differentiate from bullies and assistant-reinforcer in this sense. Besides, the victims were mostly in rejected status among all the status groups of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average.

___

  • Andreou, E. ve Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of aca- demic and social cognition to behavior in bullying situa- tions among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 27-41.
  • Atik, G. (2006). The role of locus of control, self-esteem, pa- renting style, loneliness, and academic achievement in predicting bullying among middle school students. Yayın- lanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, ODTÜ, Ankara.
  • Burnukara, P. ve Uçanok, Z. (2012). İlk ve orta ergenlikte akran zorbalığı: Gerçekleştiği yerler ve baş etme yolları. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 15(29), 68-82.
  • Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D. ve Gariepy, J-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive be- havior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815-823.
  • Camodeca, M. ve Goossens, F. A. (2005a). Aggression, soci- al cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(2), 186- 197.
  • Camodeca, M. ve Goossens, F. A. (2005b). Children’s opinions on effective strategies to cope with bullying: The impor- tance of bullying role and perspective. Educational Rese- arch, 47(1), 93-105.
  • Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Terwogt, M. M. ve Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive agg- ression. Social Development, 11(3), 332-345.
  • Coie, J. D. ve Cillessen, A. H. N. (1993). Peer rejection: Origins and effects on children’s development. Current Directi- ons in Psychological Science, 2(3), 89-92.
  • Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R. ve Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of agg- ression episodes in boys play groups. Child Develop- ment, 62, 812-826.
  • Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. ve Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimension and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Deve- lopmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
  • Collins, K., McAleavy, G. ve Adamson, G. (2004). Bullying in schools: A Northern Ireland study. Educational Research, 46(1), 55-71.
  • Crick, N. R. ve Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 337-347.
  • Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R. ve Price, J. M. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the develop- ment of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74(2), 374-393.
  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A soci- al-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H. ve Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psycholo- gical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 309-330.
  • French, D. C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Agg- ressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Development, 59(4), 976-985.
  • Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B. ve Altoe, G. (2007). Does em- pathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending beha- vior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476.
  • Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T. ve Dekker, P. H. (2006). New partici- pant role scales: Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggres- sive Behavior, 32, 343-357.
  • Gültekin, Z. ve Sayıl, M. (2005). Akran Zorbalığını Belirleme Ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 15, 47-61.
  • Hawker, D. S. J. ve Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ rese- arch on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjust- ment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441- 455.
  • Juvonen, J., Graham, S. ve Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112(6), 1231-1237.
  • Kapçı, E. G. (2004). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin zorbalığa maruz kalma türünün ve sıklığının depresyon, kaygı ve benlik saygısıyla ilişkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 1-13.
  • Karaman-Kepenekci, Y. ve Çınkır, Ş. (2006). Bullying among Turkish high school students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 193-204.
  • Koç, Z. (2006). Lise öğrencilerinin zorbalık düzeylerinin yor- danması. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kutlu, F. ve Aydın, G. (2010). Akran zorbalığı ölçek geliştirme ön çalışması: Kendini bildirim formu. Türk Psikoloji Ya- zıları, 13(25), 1-16.
  • Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J. D., Maumary-Gremaud, A., Lochman, J. ve Terry, R. (1999). Relationship between childhood peer rejection and aggression and adolescent delinquency severity and type among African American youth. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 7, 137-146.
  • Mynard, H. ve Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the Multidi- mensional Peer-Victimization Scale. Aggressive Behavi- or, 26(2), 169-178.
  • Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchild- ren: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. D. Pepler ve K.H. Rubin, (Ed.), The develop- ment and treatment of childhood aggression içinde (411- 446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Jo- urnal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171- 1190.
  • Österman K., Björkqvist K., Lagerspetz K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A. Huesmann, L. R. ve Fraczek, A. (1994). Peer and self-estimated aggression and victimization in 8-year-old children from five ethnic groups. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 411-428.
  • Pekel-Uludağlı, N. ve Uçanok, Z. (2005). Akran zorbalığı grup- larında yalnızlık ve akademik başarı ile sosyometrik sta- tüye göre zorba/kurban davranış türleri. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 20(56), 77-92.
  • Perren, S. ve Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kin- dergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 45-57.
  • Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J. ve Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 807-814.
  • Pişkin, M. (2010). Examination of peer bullying among primary and middle school children in Ankara. Education and Sci- ence, 35(156), 175-189.
  • Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadi- an Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583-590.
  • Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bull- ying: Implications for interventions. Journal of Adoles- cence, 22(4), 453-459.
  • Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L. ve Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evalu- ated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’ participation in bullying situations. Persona- lity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268-1278.
  • Salmivalli, C. ve Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between atti- tudes group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(3), 246-258.
  • Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A. ve Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997). Peer Networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Jo- urnal of Psychology, 38(4), 305-312.
  • Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K. ve Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Par- ticipant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.
  • Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M. ve Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bull- ying in schools: A two year follow-up. Aggressive Beha- vior, 24(3), 205-218.
  • Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112-120.
  • Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J. ve Salmivalli, C. (2012).Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Deve- lopment, 21(4), 722-741.
  • Seals, D. ve Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Pre- valence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38(152), 735- 747.
  • Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S. ve Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavi- or, 35(1), 57-67.
  • Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullying: Recent developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9(3), 98-103.
  • Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P. ve Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, conti- nuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565-581.
  • Sutton, J. ve Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach. Aggressi- ve Behavior, 25(2), 97-111.
  • Sutton, J., Smith, P. K. ve Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cog- nition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled mani- pulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 435-450.
  • Şirvanlı-Özen, D. (2006). Ergenlerde akran zorbalığına maruz kalmanın yaş, çocuk yetiştirme stilleri ve benlik imgesi ile ilişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 21(58), 77-94.
  • Şirvanlı-Özen, D. ve Aktan, T. (2010). Bağlanma ve zorbalık sisteminde yer alma: Başa çıkma stratejilerinin aracı rolü. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 25(65), 101-113.
  • Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A. ve Sears, D. O. (2007). Sosyal psiko- loji (Çev. Ali Dönmez). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • Turgut, A. (2005). The Relationship between bullying tendency, parental acceptance-rejection, and self-concept among seventh grade students. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri, İstanbul.
  • Warden, D. ve MacKinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bul- lies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367-385.
  • Yıldırım, S. (2001). The Relationships of bullying, family en- vironment and popularity. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, ODTÜ, Ankara.