Bullying and Victimization Among Native and

The Journal of Early Adolescence http://jea.sagepub.com

Bullying and Victimization Among Native and Immigrant Adolescents in Norway: The Role of Proactive and Reactive Aggressiveness Hildegunn Fandrem, Dagmar Strohmeier and Erling Roland The Journal of Early Adolescence 2009; 29; 898 originally published online Mar 6, 2009; DOI: 10.1177/0272431609332935 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/6/898

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Journal of Early Adolescence can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/6/898

Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com at AUBURN UNIV on November 17, 2009

Bullying and Victimization Among Native and Immigrant Adolescents in Norway

Journal of Early Adolescence Volume 29 Number 6 December 2009 898-923 © 2009 Sage Publications 10.1177/0272431609332935 http://jea.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

The Role of Proactive and Reactive Aggressiveness Hildegunn Fandrem University of Stavanger, Norway

Dagmar Strohmeier University of Vienna, Austria

Erling Roland University of Stavanger, Norway This study compares levels of bullying others, victimization, and aggressiveness in native Norwegian and immigrant adolescents living in Norway and shows how bullying is related to proactive and reactive aggressiveness. The sample consists of 2,938 native Norwegians (1,521 girls, 1,417 boys) and 189 immigrant adolescents (97 girls, 92 boys) in school grades 8, 9, and 10. Data were collected via self-assessments. Structural equation models were conducted separately for girls and boys in both groups. The levels of victimization, reactive and proactive aggressiveness were the same for both native Norwegians and immigrant adolescents but there was a significant difference in the levels of bullying others. Compared with the native Norwegians, immigrant adolescents were found to be at higher risk of bullying others. Structural models revealed significantly stronger relations between affiliation-related proactive aggressiveness and bullying others in immigrant boys compared with the other groups. This indicates that the wish for affiliation is an important mechanism of bullying others in immigrant boys. We also suggest further research and the practical importance of the findings for prevention of targeting immigrant adolescents. Keywords: immigrants; bullying; proactive aggressiveness; reactive aggressiveness; victimization; antibullying work Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Hildegunn Fandrem, Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway; e-mail: [email protected]. 898 Downloaded from http://jea.sagepub.com at AUBURN UNIV on November 17, 2009

Fandrem et al. / Bullying in Immigrant Adolescents 899

A

lthough a huge body of evidence shows that bullying is a serious issue in schools (e.g., Smith, 2003; Smith et al., 1999; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004) systematic investigations in multicultural contexts are quite limited. To date, cultural diversity in schools has only seldom been translated into research and pupils with immigrant backgrounds have not been systematically investigated. This lack of research is unfortunate, because immigration has led to a permanent increase of ethnically diverse schools in many countries all over the world. Moreover, growing up in a multicultural society and dealing with diversity in a positive way is considered to be a new developmental task for children and adolescents (e.g., Larson, 2002; Reinders, Greb, & Grimm, 2006; Strohmeier, Nestler, & Spiel, 2006). For this reason, it is crucial that we find out whether immigrant pupils are more or less at risk of bullying others or being victimized, and that we better understand the processes underlying these negative behaviors. Therefore, the main goals of this article are twofold: First, we compare prevalence rates of bullying others, victimization, and aggressiveness in native Norwegians and in immigrant adolescents living in Norway. Second, we explore differences between the two groups with regard to reactive and proactive aggressiveness as underlying mechanisms for bullying behavior.

Bullying in Immigrant Adolescents Usually, bullying is considered to be a complex relationship problem (e.g., Pepler, 2006) and is classified as a subset of aggressive behavior including (a) intentional harm doing, (b) repetition, and (c) imbalance of power (e.g., Olweus, 1991; Roland, 1989). Bullying is also often seen as a group phenomenon determined not only by characteristics of bullies and victims but also by social relationships within the group where pupils take different roles (e.g., Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996; Sutton & Smith, 1999). In general, bullying includes a variety of negative acts, which can be delivered face-to-face or by indirect means. Physical or verbal insults are mostly visible and are therefore categorized as direct bullying. Hidden behavior, such as social exclusion, spreading rumors, or manipulating relationships, is considered to be indirect or relational bullying. Usually, a gender difference is found between these two behavior clusters: Whereas boys are more likely to score higher in direct forms compared to indirect forms of bullying, the opposite is the case for girls (e.g., Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz & Bjorkqvist, 1994; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Rys & Bear, 1997). However, there is conflicting evidence on gender


900 Journal of Early Adolescence

differences (e.g., Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001) and a debate aiming to understand the complex relationship between gender and aggressive behavior in children and adolescents is still on (e.g., Espelage, Mebane, & Swearer, 2004). In general, prevalence rates of bullying and victimization vary according to samples investigated, definitions, and methods used. In Norway, slightly less than 5% of pupils bully their peers weekly or more often and about 5 % of pupils are victims of harassment on a regular basis (Roland & Idsøe, 2001). Gender differences are also found: Boys are three to four times more likely to bully their peers compared with girls, and slightly more boys than girls are victims of bullying (Olweus, 1978, 1991; Roland, 1999; Roland & Idsøe, 2001; Roland & Munthe, 1989, 1997). In multicultural contexts, bullying might be conceptualized as an even more complex social phenomenon because specific ethnic, cultural, or immigrant groups, as well as racially motivated forms of behavior, have to be considered. For the immigrant group establishing relationships is one of the most important tasks to be integrated in the new society (Berry, 2001; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). Until now, only very few studies have compared prevalence rates of bullying between pupils belonging to different ethnic, cultural, or immigrant groups. The studies, which considered bullying and victimization, are not consistent in their findings. Many of these studies measure bullying and victimization in general. Some of the studies also, or only, focus on ethnic victimization (e.g., McKenney, Pepler, Craig, & Connolly, 2006), racial bullying (e.g., Rigby, 2002), or racist victimization (e.g., Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). Racist victimization, racial bullying, or ethnic victimization is usually measured by asking students how often they are victimized (e.g., verbally harassed or socially excluded) because of their ethnicity, race, or cultural group. Usually, in these studies other reasons for bullying or victimization are not covered, which means that prevalence rates for victimization or bullying might be underestimated. Research that compares bullying and victimization between natives and immigrants is quite limited and reveal inconsistent results. Most studies find no differences between natives and immigrants (Boulton, 1995; Eslea & Mukhtar, 2000, McKenney et al., 2006; Moran, Smith, Thompson, & Whitney, 1993; Verkuyten & Thjis, 2002, 2006). Some studies find natives to be at a higher risk for bullying others (Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Strohmeier & Spiel, 2003) and/or being victimized (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Strohmeier & Spiel, 2003). Also, one study found immigrants to be at a higher risk for



victimization (Graham & Juvonen, 2002); none of the studies found immigrants to be at higher risk for bullying others. Based on these heterogeneous results, it is obviously difficult to draw conclusive hypotheses for the Norwegian sample concerning the levels of bullying and victimization. There are reasons to expect higher victimization and lower bullying rates in immigrant pupils compared with native Norwegians, because the immigrant adolescents in this sample are the numerical minority in their class or school. In the study of Graham and Juvonen (2002) to be the numerical minority was found to be a risk factor for being victimized by peers whereas to be the numerical majority was found to be a risk factor for bullying others. This hypothesis is also consistent with the findings of Bakken and Nordahl (2003) where minority pupils were found to be at higher risk for victimization compared with native Norwegians. Obviously, it is very important to describe differences between native Norwegians and immigrant adolescents by comparing the level of bullying others and victimization. However, this descriptive approach can only be seen as a first step. Another important step, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been carried out so far, is to investigate underlying mechanisms1 of bullying behavior for both native and immigrant pupils.

Two Mechanisms of Aggressive Behavior: Reactive and Proactive Aggressiveness Mechanisms of aggressive behavior refer to the motive systems that predict such behavior. In the literature, two concepts are described as underlying mechanisms for aggressive behavior: reactive and proactive aggressiveness2 (e.g., Card & Little, 2006; Dodge, 1991; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Vitaro & Brendgen, 2005; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006). The concept of reactive aggressiveness has its roots in frustration-anger theory (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989, 1993; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). It occurs as a consequence of a (perceived) provocation, threat, or frustration and is usually accompanied by strong feelings of anger. This type of aggressiveness is therefore also called “hot-blooded,” “angry,” “retaliatory,” or “impulsive.” In contrast, the concept of proactive aggressiveness is based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1973, 1983) and is described as a planned behavior to reach a particular goal by using aggressive means. The dominant emotions involved with this type of aggressiveness are pleasure and stimulation. Synonyms for this type of aggressiveness are “cold-blooded,” “instrumental,” or “offensive,” aggressiveness.



These two types of aggressiveness have usually been measured via teacher-questionnaires using six items originally developed by Dodge and Coie (1987). Based on these items, reactive aggressiveness and proactive aggressiveness were found to be highly correlated but distinct constructs (e.g., Poulin & Boivin, 2000). About half of the children who display aggressive behavior were found to be both reactively and proactively aggressive, about one third were usually found to be only reactively aggressive, and only a minority (about 15%) of children were found to be only proactively aggressive (e.g., Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997; Pulkkinen, 1996; Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, & Oligny, 1998). Usually, boys score higher in both proactive and reactive aggressiveness compared with girls (e.g., Little, 2002). In a more recent study (Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley, 2003), self-report questionnaires were developed to disentangle the underlying mechanisms (proactive vs. reactive) and the different forms (overt vs. relational) of aggressive behavior. In this study, the two different mechanisms of aggression (reactive vs. proactive) were found to be uncorrelated. This is also, to the best of our knowledge, the only study that investigated differences in the level of proactive and reactive aggressive ness between native and immigrant pupils. In Little et al.’s (2003) study, 1,723 pupils in Grades 5 to 10 (82% native Germans, 12% ethnic Turks, 6% others) were studied. Compared with the native Germans, immigrant pupils (mostly Turkish) reported higher levels of reactive aggressiveness. No differences were found between groups of pupils in proactive aggressiveness.

The Underlying Mechanisms of Bullying Behavior Bullying behavior is usually considered to be a subcategory of aggressive behavior and proactive aggressiveness is considered to be the underlying mechanism by several researchers (e.g., Berkowitz, 1993; Dodge, 1991; Olweus, 1993; Sutton & Smith, 1999). However, only very few studies empirically investigated the associations between reactive and proactive aggressiveness and bullying behavior (e.g., Roland & Idsøe, 2001; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Roland and Idsøe (2001) developed a self-report questionnaire to measure proactive and reactive aggressiveness. In this study, proactive aggressiveness was also distinguished according to the goals that the bullies wanted to achieve by aggressive means: either power or affiliation. Whereas the main aim of power-related proactive aggressiveness is to dominate and humiliate the victim, the main aim of affiliation-related proactive aggressiveness is to establish good aggressor-aggressor relationships. In total, 1,801 fifth grade



pupils and 2,083 eighth grade pupils in Norway were studied. The two subtypes of proactive aggressiveness, power and affiliation, were found to be related but distinct constructs. Card and Little (2006) also found reactive and proactive aggressiveness to be distinct but related constructs. Using structural equation modeling, Roland and Idsøe (2001) found that among eighth graders, bullying others was highly correlated with both types of proactive aggressiveness, but not with reactive aggressiveness. Among fifth graders, both reactive aggressiveness and proactive aggressiveness were correlated with bullying others. This latter finding is in line with Salmivalli and Nieminen (2002) who also found high levels of proactive and reactive aggression in bully-victims and bullies of the same age group (10 to 12 years). Roland and Idsøe (2001) also reported gender differences indicating higher associations between bullying others and affiliation-related proactive aggressiveness in girls compared with boys in both fifth and eighth graders. Among eighth graders, power-related proactive aggressiveness was found to be more important for boys than for girls. Given these findings, the second major goal of this study is to explore the associations between bullying others, affiliation-related proactive aggressiveness, power-related proactive aggressiveness, and reactive aggressiveness in both native Norwegian and immigrant pupils. Because our sample consists of eighth to tenth grade pupils, we predict strong associations between bullying others and both power-related and affiliation-related aggressiveness but no, or weak, associations with reactive aggressiveness. We expect to find these patterns in both native Norwegians and immigrant pupils, and also expect differences between girls and boys. To sum up, the aim of this article is to (a) compare the levels of bullying, victimization, reactive and proactive aggressiveness in girls and boys and in native Norwegians and immigrant pupils living in Norway, and (b) to explore the underlying mechanisms of bullying behavior for boys and girls in each of the two groups.

Method Participants The sample in this study is composed of 3,127 adolescents, both Norwegian and immigrants living in Norway. The immigrant group consists of 189 pupils, and consists of pupils who wrote down a country other than Norway in the statement I’m from . . . . The participants were pupils from



26 secondary schools3 in 22 municipalities in Norway. In each of the 22 municipalities, one secondary school was randomly selected. Exceptions were made for the capital, Oslo, and Stavanger, with approximately 500,000 and 100,000 inhabitants, respectively. In these two cities, three schools were chosen. All pupils in all classes of the selected schools were invited to participate. Participation was voluntary and based on written parental consent. The participation rate of eligible pupils in the study was 82%. The sample is regarded as representative for secondary schools and municipalities in Norway according to the classification system of municipalities recommended by the Norwegian Bureau of Statistics. The structure of this classification is built on three dimensions: industry, population density in the municipality as a whole, and the municipality’s centrality (Statistics Norway, 1994). The sample is also regarded as roughly representative according to gender, number of immigrant pupils in Norway, and their country of origin. As shown in Table 1, the immigrant pupils stem from 55 different countries of origin. It should be noted that, in this sample, all immigrant pupils studied represent the numerical minority in their respective classes. We acknowledge that treating immigrant pupils as one single group may result in the loss of important information about cultural variation (Oppedal, 2003). However, we argue that the best way to categorize immigrants depends on the aim of the study and can be done in different ways. Therefore, before categorizing the immigrants as one single group, we conducted a series of preliminary analyses. Using t tests and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) we checked for differences in our main variables (bullying others, victimization, and the three different mechanisms of aggressiveness) depending on cultural orientation of the country of origin (individualistic/collectivistic), economic status of the country of origin (low/middle/high), generational status of the immigrants (first vs. second), and reasons for immigration (refugees vs. not refugees). To classify the countries of origin as either individualistic or collectivistic, the classification system based on Hofstede (2001) was used. Countries with an Individualism Index >50 were categorized as individualistic, countries with an Individualism Index .95 indicating good, values >.90 indicating adequate fit. RMSEA ranges from 0 to ∞, with values