Girls and Bullying

Intricacies of girls bullying

Girls and Bullying - Text for Bullying Website


Girls and Bullying



(Source: Leckie, Barbara (1997), Girls, Bullying Behaviours and Peer Relationships: The Double Edged Sword of Exclusion and Rejection, University of South Australia / Flinders University. Full article at the following address:
http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/leckb284.htm )


Researchers have revealed that girls use indirect methods of aggression, such as spreading rumours and excluding and ostracising others; and Crick, Bigbee and Howes (1996) report that with relational aggression, girls' peer conflicts increase in frequency and become more common as they move from middle childhood to adolescence. Such socially manipulative strategies are also powerful tools often used by girls to protect and maintain their peer relationships and friendship dyads, which in turn reflect exclusivity, intensity and disclosure. These behaviours appear to serve a dual function: to protect existing friendships from the intrusion of others; and to deliberately harm target girls through rejection and isolation.

Bullying is recognised to be a stable, ongoing, intentional one-way
form of violent activity, involving a power relationship between a
victim who feels helpless and a perpetrator who has control (Olweus,
1978; Tattum, 1989; Smith, 1991; Slee, 1993; Rigby, 1996). Dodge,
Coie, Pettit and Price (1990) suggest that it can therefore be
considered to be a reliably identifiable sub type of children's
aggression.

Aggressive acts occurring between individuals involve a specific intent
to harm, but do not necessarily involve a power differential, nor
repeated negativity. These are distinctive characteristics of bullying
behaviours. It is therefore important to distinguish between aggressive
acts which occur between individuals/groups of equal
status/position/power, and bullying, where the victim generally feels
that they have less or no power. Acts of aggression can be considered
to involve a two-way process of attack and retaliation, whereby each
party has a relatively equal stake in the conflict. Bullying, however,
describes a one-way attack situation whereby the perpetrator has more
power and where the victim rarely retaliates or feels able to.
Whilst the key issues of: intent to harm; repeated and ongoing
negativity, and a power imbalance are generally agreed with, bullying
has however, been defined and conceptualised in many different ways by
researchers and educators. One of the earliest definitions was put
forward by Olweus who suggested that:
A bully is a boy who fairly often oppresses or harasses somebody else;
the target may be boys or girls, the harassment physical or mental
(Olweus, 1978).

Girls have, however, more recently been compared to boys in terms of
incidence and age differences with regard to bullying. Research into
bullying has demonstrated that boys are more likely to be perpetrators
and victims of bullying behaviours than are girls (Siann, Callaghan,
Glissov, Lockhart and Rawson, 1994; Olweus, 1991; Rigby, 1994). Olweus,
(1991) further reported that boys were responsible for the large part
of bullying that girls are subjected to.
The gender of the bully and victim would seem of some importance here.
Most of the earlier research concentrated on male:male or male:female
bullying. Bullying and gender harassment, however, are not the sole
domain of male:male or male:female encounters. Given that there are
single-sex schools, where there are no boys present to be either the
perpetrator or the victim, any bullying which occurs in these
environments must be female:female. The corollary of this then, is that
co-educational schools would also have female:female bullying
incidents. To date, these behaviours which occur between girls have
been easily dismissed as girls "just being bitchy", and have thus been
vastly underestimated due to the fact that the main focus of bullying
investigations has been predominantly overt bullying.
The negative, aggressive interactions known to occur between girls, and
often referred to as "bitchy behaviour", reflect more subtle,
relatively invisible acts of aggression. Female:female bullying has not
specifically been investigated, however most recently, research in the
related field of aggression, has indicated that girls use indirect
forms of aggression (Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen, 1988) or
relational aggression (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995) when aggressing
against each other and that these are distinct characteristics of
girls' negative behaviours. In order to understand girls' bullying
behaviours more fully, then, it is necessary to understand the larger
set of girls' aggressive behaviours. Recent writings in the field of
bullying seem to have adopted these indirect and relational forms of
aggression as girls' bullying behaviours, without exploring whether
girls perceive them to be.
This research aims to assess girls' understanding of the concept and
nature of bullying as it relates to them, along with their perceptions
of indirect aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours

Recent studies have further indicated that girls are
aggressive, but that they use qualitatively different methods of
aggression to those used by boys. Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen
(1988) identified indirect methods of aggression which are more common
to girls, such as spreading rumours, writing nasty notes, excluding and
ostracising others. These indirect behaviours are explained as being:
"socially sophisticated strategies of aggression whereby the
perpetrator can inflict harm on a target without being identified
(Bjorqvist, 1994, p179)".
Lagerspetz et al (1988) further suggested that girls' tighter social
structure made it easier for them to exploit relationships and
manipulate and harm others in these indirect ways. Bjorqvist, Osterman
and Kaukiainen (1992) referred to a type of
"social manipulation, whereby the aggressor makes use of the social
structure available to harm the target girl (p52)".
Whereas boys have been found to always be more physically aggressive
than girls, and both boys and girls have been found to engage in verbal
aggression to a similar extent, Lagerspetz, Bjorqvist and Peltonen
(1988) and Owens (1995) found that girls appear to adopt more indirect
methods as they get older.
Most recently, relational aggression (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995) has
been presented as being a form of aggression more typical of girls
which, like the work of Lagerspetz et al (1988) suggests that girls may
not be inherently less aggressive than boys, but instead express their
aggression differently. Defined as:
harming others through purposeful manipulation and damage of their peer
relationships (p 711)
relational aggression is concerned with such behaviours as:
purposefully withdrawing friendship or acceptance in order to control
or hurt the child; spreading rumours so that peers will reject her;
angry retaliation by excluding her from the play group (p711).
Further studies (Crick, Bigbee and Howes, 1996) assessed whether
children viewed relationally manipulative behaviours as "aggressive"
and found that relational aggression and verbal insults were the most
frequently cited harmful behaviours for girls. One reason that is
suggested for girls using relational aggression rather than overt
aggression, is because relationally aggressive behaviours damage goals
which are particularly important for girls (p 1003) and consequently
serve as effective means of gaining control or retaliating against
another girl.
Both indirect and relational aggression view the social structure as
the vehicle for these negative behaviours, due to the nature of girls'
peer relationships and friendships. Whilst little research has been
specifically conducted into girls' bullying behaviours, the current
research into the broader field of aggression: indirect and relational
aggression, sheds considerable light onto this field. The assumption
has been made, however, that these behaviours, because they are
predominantly found occurring amongst girls, are girls' bullying
behaviours

Friendship, Language, Acceptance and Rejection:
Since girls' aggressive behaviours appear to use the friendship and
peer relationship structure as a vehicle, it is of importance to
examine the nature of girls' friendships.
Research suggests that girls appear to have distinctive friendship
patterns that revolve around shifting, dyadic alliances which are
jealously guarded and reflect the notions of exclusivity, intensity,
intimacy and disclosure (Eder and Hallinan, 1978: cited in Adler, Kless
and Adler, 1992; Maccoby, 1990; Erwin, 1993; Thorne, 1993). These
fewer, but stronger friendships are suggested to contribute to girls
having better social skills, greater emotional intimacy and ease of
self-disclosure than do boys (Eder and Hallinan, 1978).
Traditionally, friendships are regarded as positive experiences for
children and are socially, cognitively and developmentally significant
(Bukowski, Hoza and Boivin, 1993; Parker and Asher, 1987; Parker and
Asher, 1993). The corollary of this then, is that girls who are not
accepted into friendships or the peer group, or who are rejected from
them, will suffer and be at risk for concurrent and long term
maladjustment (Kupersmidt, Coie and Dodge, 1990; Parker and Asher,
1987).
Communication between girls then, appears to be a central aspect of
their relationships. What is said, by whom, to whom and about whom
appears to assume increasing significance as budding friendships
develop, and girls' level of trust, loyalty and disclosure increases.
Once this bonding occurs, the relationship becomes something to be
jealously guarded and to be protected, which leaves the way open for
aggressive interactions between girls to occur when others try to
interfere in their relationships, take friends away, or cause these
relationships to falter.
Maltz and Borker (1983: cited in Maccoby 1990) report that among girls,
language is used as a social process, to either bind friendships, or to
reject others. Sheldon also found that when girls talk, they appear to
have a double agenda: to be "nice" and appear to sustain social
relationships, while at the same time are working to achieve their own
individual ends (1989: cited in Maccoby, 1990). This double agenda
then, raises questions of manipulation and intent: two of the key
factors in girls' aggressive behaviours.
Girls, then, use language more subtlely, manipulatively and indirectly
than boys, who have been found to use language more directively: to
command, threat or boast. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) suggest that girls
appear to have a higher level of verbal ability than boys and are
generally socialised to avoid overt, physically aggressive behaviours.
This may facilitate language being used as the central, manipulative
tool that serves to maintain, destroy or generally control
relationships in indirect ways. Bjorqvist, Osterman and Kaukiainen
(1992) suggest that when verbal skills develop, a rich amount of
possibilities for the expression of aggression is facilitated, thus
enabling girls to not have to resort to physical force (p 60). They
further posit that as social intelligence develops, so too does
indirect aggression. Rather than using overt, direct forms of
aggression and control, girls, with their higher level of verbal
ability and socialisation to avoid these behaviours, have developed
sharp tongues instead!
For the most part, girls' friendships represent positive and rewarding
experiences for those involved. Within this largely positive framework,
however, is a web of social complexity and manipulation that is
predominantly negative, not readily seen and is only just beginning to
be explored and understood by researchers. This negativity appears to
be part of the social fabric of girls' friendships and their peer
relationships as they go about accepting or rejecting others in the
peer group.
The negative interactions that occur between girls have often been
referred to as "bitchy behaviours" and are consequently often
trivialised and dismissed by parents and teachers without considering
the purpose, the impact or the ongoing effect on the target girl. If,
as it is now recognised that these behaviours form part of the
aggressive repertoire that girls have available to them, then they need
to be taken more seriously. Should girls perceive that these behaviours
are bullying, however, then they take on the mantle of being somewhat
more sinister than either mere bitchiness or outright aggression.


Age Related Trends:
These results indicate the girls' perceptions of indirect aggressive
behaviours changed over time, thus providing support for previous
research. Rigby, (1996) reported that bullying peaked around the
beginning of secondary school and was followed by a decline over the
next couple of years. Bjorqvist et al (1992; p126) in their studies of
indirect aggression, reported that of three age groups examined: 8yrs;
11yrs; 15yrs; "aggressive behaviour has its highest "peak" at age 11"
and Crick, Bigbee and Howes (1996) reported that relational aggression
was viewed as a more normative angry behaviour by older girls, compared
with younger girls (p1007) where her sample focused on ages 9-12.
As more girls in Year 8 reported that spreading rumours; writing nasty
notes; telling bad/false stories; and deliberately ignoring others were
bullying behaviours than in other years, there are clear implications
for schools. The transition from primary to secondary school is a time
of rapid emotional, physical and psychological growth and development.
Girls may be particularly sensitive to these behaviours at this time,
or they may be more socially intelligent and thus more adept at using
these behaviours in the negative, harmful manner.
Shutting Others Out was perceived by more Year 10s to be bullying,
indicating that this behaviour may have more valence in these years as
a bullying activity than in earlier years.
Taken together, these findings suggest that over time, girls' views of
indirect aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours change and that
these behaviours may be more impactful at different times, or are
employed more negatively at different times.
In sum, then, this study sheds new light on girls' bullying behaviours
by allowing the girls themselves to articulate their perceptions of
indirect aggressive behaviours as bullying behaviours. Findings suggest
that indirect behaviours may serve a dual purpose. Where the intent to
harm is evident, then they are considered to be intentionally
aggressive. Where the added dimensions of a power imbalance and
repeated negativity are present, then they can be construed as bullying
behaviours. Where girls do not perceive that they are bullying
behaviours, however, raises the suggestion that these behaviours can
serve different purposes. Where the intent is to protect, defend or
preserve existing friendships or relationships, then these behaviours
may in fact be construed as positive defensive mechanisms which keep
others away from the important friendship/relationship.
This paper has focused on indirect aggression, but mention needs to be
made concerning the implications these findings may have for relational
aggression.
Whilst both make use of the peer network, and imcorporate similar
behaviours, indirect aggressive behaviours suggest that a third party
must be engaged or other girls must be mobilised and rallied in
support, with attention thus deflected away from the protagonist. One
of its purposes therefore seems to be to disguise the perpetrator's
role in the action. This study has also suggested that these behaviours
may not necessarily be perceived as aggressive, and subsequently
bullying either, if the intent is perceived to be protective of
existing relationships.
Relational aggression, with its intent defined as being purposeful
damage of the child's peer relationships, implies that the girls always
have a negative intent, and are deliberately being aggressive.
Relational aggression also seems to imply that the behaviours can be
both direct (You can't play!) or indirect (Spreading rumours). With
direct relationally aggressive behaviours, the purpose is clear, and
the protagonist is readily identifiable. With indirect relationally
aggressive behaviours, the findings from this study, suggests that
there may be two different motivations and intentions of the behaviour:
to protect or defend an existing friendship/relationship; and to
deliberately aggress. If this is the case, then these indirect
behaviours cannot always be assumed to be aggressive, and thus can not
be considered to be bullying.