Bullying in the family: sibling bullying.

Sibling relationships have a substantial and lasting effect on children's development. Many siblings experience some occasional conflict, however, up to 40% are exposed to sibling bullying every week, a repeated and harmful form of intrafamilial aggression. We review evidence on the precursors, factors relating to peer bullying, and mental health consequences of sibling bullying. Parenting quality and behaviour are the intrafamilial factors most strongly associated with bullying between siblings. Sibling bullying increases the risk of being involved in peer bullying, and is independently associated with concurrent and early adult emotional problems, including distress, depression, and self-harm. The effects appear to be cumulative, with those children bullied by both siblings and peers having highly increased emotional problems compared with those bullied by siblings or peers only, probably because they have no safe place to escape from bullying. The link between sibling and peer bullying suggests interventions need to start at home. Health professionals should ask about sibling bullying and interventions are needed for families to prevent and reduce the health burden associated with sibling bullying.

Aggression between siblings: Associations with the home environment and peer bullying.

Sibling aggression is a common form of intra-familial aggression, yet has been largely neglected by research. Using an inclusive measure of sibling aggression, this study investigated, firstly, prevalence of sibling aggression and associations with family and household characteristics, and secondly, the relationship between sibling aggression and peer bullying. Participants were 4,237 adolescents from Wave 1 of Understanding Society. Four types of sibling aggression were measured: physical, verbal, stealing and teasing, and combined into composite measures of victimization and perpetration. Regression analysis identified associations with demographic characteristics, family and sibling composition, parent-child relationships and socioeconomic status and explored the link between sibling aggression and involvement in peer bullying. Using a broad definition, sibling aggression was found to be widespread, with 46% of all participants being victimized and 36% perpetrating aggression. Household and family characteristics, including a large family size, male siblings, and financial difficulties were associated with greater rates of sibling aggression. Parenting behavior showed the strongest relationship: harsh parenting increased the risk of sibling aggression while positive parenting protected against it. Sibling aggression was also homotypically related to involvement in peer bullying. Victimization by siblings significantly increased the odds of being a victim of peer bullying, and perpetrators of sibling aggression were more likely to be both peer bullies and bully-victims. Considering the adverse effects of sibling aggression on physical and mental health, the study provides pointers for efforts to reduce the risk of sibling aggression. Furthermore, the link with peer bullying suggests that school anti-bullying efforts should also take account of children's sibling relationships. Aggr. Behav. 41:14-24, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Socioeconomic status and bullying: a meta-analysis.

We examined whether socioeconomic status (SES) could be used to identify which schools or children are at greatest risk of bullying, which can adversely affect children's health and life. We conducted a review of published literature on school bullying and SES. We identified 28 studies that reported an association between roles in school bullying (victim, bully, and bully-victim) and measures of SES. Random effects models showed SES was weakly related to bullying roles. Adjusting for publication bias, victims (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24, 1.58) and bully-victims (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.36, 1.74) were more likely to come from low socioeconomic households. Bullies (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.97, 0.99) and victims (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.94, 0.97) were slightly less likely to come from high socioeconomic backgrounds. SES provides little guidance for targeted intervention, and all schools and children, not just those with more socioeconomic deprivation, should be targeted to reduce the adverse effects of bullying.

Ethnicity and bullying involvement in a national UK youth sample.

This study investigated ethnic differences in bullying involvement (as victim and bully) among a UK wide sample of adolescents, controlling for potential confounders, including age, gender, economic situation, family structure and parent-adolescent relationships. 4668 youths, aged 10 to 15, who participate in the UK Household Longitudinal Study were assessed for bullying involvement. Binary logistic regression models were used to estimate ethnic differences across bullying roles while controlling for potential confounders. Overall, ethnic minority youths were not more likely to be victims; African boys and girls were significantly less likely to be victimised than same sex White youths. Pakistani and Caribbean girls were significantly more likely to have bullied others compared to White girls. Further research is necessary to explore why Pakistani and Caribbean girls may be more often perpetrators of bullying than girls in other ethnic groups.

The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: a European cross-national study.

Past research has demonstrated the effects of bullying can be severe and long term for the individuals involved. The main aim of this study is to analyze the emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying, both direct and indirect forms, and of cyberbullying through mobile phones and the Internet. A sample of 5,862 adolescents from three different countries, Italy (N = 1,964), Spain (N = 1,671), and England (N = 2,227), responded to a questionnaire that asked if they had experience of various forms of bullying, and the consequent emotional impact. The results show that both traditional bullying and cyberbullying have a significant prevalence in the samples. Emotional responses are linked to types of bullying. Analysis of answers identified specific emotional profiles for the different types of bullying and cyberbullying. Direct bullying and cyberbullying via mobile phone showed similar profiles, and also indirect bullying and cyberbullying using the Internet. Similarities and differences between profiles are discussed and some hypotheses are presented to explain the results. In addition, school grade, gender, country, and severity of bullying episodes were related to the specific emotional profiles of each type of bullying.

Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils.

BACKGROUND: Cyberbullying describes bullying using mobile phones and the internet. Most previous studies have focused on the prevalence of text message and email bullying. METHODS: Two surveys with pupils aged 11-16 years: (1) 92 pupils from 14 schools, supplemented by focus groups; (2) 533 pupils from 5 schools, to assess the generalisability of findings from the first study, and investigate relationships of cyberbullying to general internet use. Both studies differentiated cyberbullying inside and outside of school, and 7 media of cyberbullying. RESULTS: Both studies found cyberbullying less frequent than traditional bullying, but appreciable, and reported more outside of school than inside. Phone call and text message bullying were most prevalent, with instant messaging bullying in the second study; their impact was perceived as comparable to traditional bullying. Mobile phone/video clip bullying, while rarer, was perceived to have more negative impact. Age and gender differences varied between the two studies. Study 1 found that most cyberbullying was done by one or a few students, usually from the same year group. It often just lasted about a week, but sometimes much longer. The second study found that being a cybervictim, but not a cyberbully, correlated with internet use; many cybervictims were traditional 'bully-victims'. Pupils recommended blocking/avoiding messages, and telling someone, as the best coping strategies; but many cybervictims had told nobody about it. CONCLUSIONS: Cyberbullying is an important new kind of bullying, with some different characteristics from traditional bullying. Much happens outside school. Implications for research and practical action are discussed.