Bullying-victimization problems and aggressive ... - Springer Link

Soc Psychol Educ (2011) 14:457–473 DOI 10.1007/s11218-011-9163-1

Bullying-victimization problems and aggressive tendencies in Spanish secondary school students: the role of gender stereotypical traits Raúl Navarro · Elisa Larrañaga · Santiago Yubero

Received: 24 September 2010 / Accepted: 16 May 2011 / Published online: 9 July 2011 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This paper presents data concerning culturally prescribed gender traits and their influence on bullying/victimization problems and aggressive tendencies from a wide sample of 1,654 Spanish adolescents. The aims of this study were to clarify the effect of masculine traits on male and female secondary students’ aggression, and also to explore the role of feminine traits in either the inhibition of aggression or the use of more covert forms. Results show that masculine stereotypical traits are related more strongly with bully perpetration, proneness to aggression and experience of anger and hostility in both sexes. In contrast, traditional feminine traits are negatively related with bullying perpetration and proneness to aggression. However, feminine traits are linked to male students’ victimization. Results are discussed in the light of previous findings and are taken into consideration in the design of intervention practices in secondary schools. Keywords

Bullying · Victimization · Aggression · Gender · Traits · Adolescence

1 Introduction In the past three decades, increasing interest has been shown in studying aggression problems in schools, especially those concerned with bullying. Bullying has been defined as any form of repeated psychological or physical aggression carried out by one or several individual(s) on a person who is not capable of defending himself/herself (Roland and Idsoe 2001). Much of the research on bullying has been fueled by a need to understand the root causes of aggression in its multidimensional factors (Cassidy

R. Navarro (B) · E. Larrañaga · S. Yubero Department of Psychology, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

123

458

R. Navarro et al.

2008; Georgiou 2008), although biological sex is among the most commonly studied individual factor. Studies on sex differences in bullying and victimization among school-age participants have provided similar results to those reported in studies about other aggressive behaviors. Extensive research has revealed that males are most frequently implicated in expressing aggression in schools, particularly through bullying, as an aggressor and/or as a victim (Juvonen et al. 2001; Ortega and Mora-Merchán 1999; Slee 2006). Females are also implicated in bullying behaviors, but different research findings show that, unlike males who use more direct forms of aggression, females tend to predominantly use indirect and relational strategies (Björkqvist et al. 1992; Crick and Grotpeter 1995). However, data are now available that contradict these differences and which state that while males significantly resort to overt forms of aggression, males and females use indirect and relational aggression at similar levels (Archer and Coyne 2005; Card et al. 2008; Toldos 2005). Independently of these possible differences in male and female aggression, contemporary theories argue that to speak of “sex” is to situate the origin of aggression in biology, thus disregarding the influence that contextual and cultural factors may have (Bussey and Bandura 2004; Eagly and Wood 1999). Such arguments allude to the need to focus on gender, and not on sex, as a critical social factor in analyzing differences in aggression. Gender has been defined as socially inferred information from which the observer forms his/her judgments about others and also chooses his/her own conduct (Deaux and Lewis 1984). Indeed, it has been posited that gender schemata guide individual preferences, knowledge, memory and behavioral interactions with others (Martin and Halverson 1981). Available evidence seems to support this assertion, and individuals have been found to use gender information to evaluate and guide their own as well as others’ aggressive behaviors (Giles and Heyman 2005; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). 1.1 Gender socialization and aggression Following the above arguments, it can be posited that differences in aggressive behaviors could partly emerge from the ways young people are socialized during childhood and adolescence. In most societies, traditional gender socialization tends to force young people into gender roles that sustain certain normative gender stereotypes and unhealthy practices (Blazina et al. 2005). Social Role Theory states that men and women’s social roles cause sex differences in aggressive behavior through the mediation of social and psychological processes (Eagly et al. 2004). One of these processes is the learning of masculine agentic traits and feminine communal traits by which males learn that aggression is useful for the maintenance of the masculine role, while females learn that inhibition of aggression or the display of more covert aggressive strategies fits the feminine role better (Underwood et al. 2001). Such cultural beliefs have long since been studied as widely shared gender stereotype traits that are representative of the masculinity-femininity social dimensions (Bem 1974). According to these dimensions, males are meant to be assertive, aggressive, courageous and independent, whereas females are seen as sensitive, reliant, emotional and people-oriented. Males and females differ in their self-concepts of masculinity and

123

Bullying-victimization problems and aggressive tendencies

459

femininity in relation to these psychological traits as a result of society’s gender-role distinctions (Witt 2000). Nonetheless, presumably, those who built their self-identity through masculine traits like self-assertion, self-expansion and dominance may behave in an aggressive manner. On the contrary, the construction of self-identity through feminine traits that emphasize self-sacrifice, concern with others, and the desire to be at one with others, may be related with the inhibition of aggression or the use of covert forms that are more stereotypically feminine. According to these arguments, aggression can be a way of demonstrating gender qualities and conforming to social expectations (Eagly et al. 2004). 1.2 The internalization of gender traits and aggressive behaviors Across cultures, research has found that the internalization of gender stereotype traits contributes to the origin of different gender patterns of aggressive behavior in adult samples. Studies have reported the positive effects of masculine stereotype traits, irrespectively of sex, on aggressive behaviors. Males and females whose gender selfdescription reveal higher rates of masculine traditional traits report more physical aggression in dating relationships (Thompson 1991), higher levels of provoked and unprovoked aggression (Hammock and Richardson 1992), and are more often involved in aggressive episodes as a part of the Type A behavior pattern (Dohi et al. 2001). Other studies, however, did not find a positive effect of masculine traits on women’s aggression (Muncer et al. 2001) or on women’s favorable attitudes about aggression (Smith et al. 2001); so the effect of masculine traits seems to be stronger for men. Research into the effect of feminine traditional traits on adults’ aggressive behaviors is not conclusive. Some studies have shown that people who describe themselves with more feminine traits are less involved in aggressive episodes than people with more masculine traits (Dohi et al. 2001), or that they display less anger tendencies and less verbal aggressiveness (Kinney et al. 2001); however, this tendency is not generally found worldwide. Although there is evidence of the relationship between internalization of gender traits and aggressive behavior, much of the previous research described above has focused on the influence of gender traits on proneness to aggression and not on specific acts of aggression like bullying. These studies normally use a self-report instrument that assess generalizations about a person’s own behavior, reflecting a disposition or tendency to act in a certain way, but do not measure particular acts of aggressive behavior. In fact, the role of masculine and feminine stereotypical traits on bullying and victimization has not received that much attention, although researchers have continuously suggested that bullying is used by males to affirm masculinity norms of toughness, strength and dominance (Phillips 2007). Conversely, research states that females are more implicated in relational and covert bullying which is consistent with femininity (Graves 2007). Unfortunately, very few studies have analyzed these relationships. Specifically, positive associations were found by Young and Sweeting (2004), irrespectively of sex, between masculine traits and being a bully in a large sample of 15-year-old secondary school students. They found that feminine traits were negatively associated with being a bully, but also with being a victim. Similarly, Gianluca and Pozzoli (2006)

123

460

R. Navarro et al.

discovered that, irrespectively of sex, masculine traits were related to being a bully in a sample of 6 to 10-year-old children. Feminine traits were related to victimization, but only for females. Nevertheless, these studies only explored the association between the gender traits and the direct forms (physical and verbal) of bullying behaviors, and dismissed the role of feminine traits in covert forms of bullying behavior. This relationship was addressed by Crothers et al. (2005), who studied the relationship between feminine traits and relational aggression in a sample of 15 year-old adolescents. These authors found that relational aggression was positively associated with feminine traits, but not with masculine traits. They concluded that, traditionally, feminine adolescents were more likely to engage in covert forms of aggression than nontraditional feminine adolescents. However, they did not replicate this finding in a large sample of college students (Kolbert et al. 2010). 1.3 The current study In short, research into the influence of gender stereotypical traits on aggressive behaviors, especially bullying, has demonstrated that masculine traits play an important role in understanding the social factors behind aggression, even when evidence for female aggression is mixed. Conversely, the results of feminine traits are more inconsistent. This study, built upon previous research, intends to clarify these incongruent findings by considering that, as gender roles have changed over the past three decades, the way in which people build their gender self-concept through masculine and feminine traits may have changed, and that the association between gender traits and aggression may also have altered. However, findings from studies about the internalization of gender traits conducted in North America reveal that, compared to past decades, women’s self-concepts show a degree of masculine traditional traits similar to men, but men do not display a similar degree of feminine traditional traits to women in their self-concepts (Auster and Ohm 2000; Spence and Buckner 2000). Similarly, research in Spain has also found that sex differences in the adherence to masculine traditional traits have decreased over time, while differences in the adherence to feminine traditional traits have become stable (López-Sáez et al. 2008). In the light of these changes, the analysis of the influence of gender traits on aggression is still relevant if we consider that women are currently defining themselves in gender terms with traits like dominance, aggressiveness, and coolness, which are considered to be more socially desirable for the opposite sex and have been found to lead to aggressive behaviors. Furthermore, although men still describe themselves mainly by using masculine traits, they have begun to include feminine traits in their gender self-concepts; evidently, the relationship between feminine traits and aggression is an area that requires further research. The aims of this study were to clarify the effect of masculine traits on male and female secondary students’ aggression, and to also explore the role of feminine traits in either the inhibition of aggression or the use of more covert forms. Additionally, this study revised previous findings that have established a positive effect of these traits on victimization processes. To that end, the effect of gender traits was tested on bullying

123


461

and victimization, and also on aggressive tendencies in a large sample of adolescents. The inclusion of these two ways of measuring aggression not only enables the results from this study to be compared with previous research results, but helps us to increase our knowledge about gender differences in aggression, particularly, about the potential influence of adhering to culturally prescribed gender traits not only in aggressive tendencies but also in specific aggressive behaviors, like bullying, during adolescence. On the basis of the research presented above, the following hypotheses were tested: 1. Adolescents who attribute to themselves more masculine traits will be more involved in bullying behaviors and will display more aggressive tendencies. This association is expected for male and female participants since females now define themselves with a larger amount of masculine traits. 2. Adolescents who identify themselves with feminine traits will be less implicated, irrespectively of sex, in bullying and will display less proneness to aggression. 3. A positive effect is expected between feminine traits and victimization. Given the mixed results, no predictions about sex are made. 2 Materials and methods 2.1 Participants Research data were collected in 15 randomly selected secondary schools located throughout the Castilla-La Mancha provinces in Spain in the 2007/08 academic year. The total number of respondents was 1,654 students (786 males and 868 females); their ages ranged from 12–18 years (with a mean age of 14.5 years; SD = 1.58). All the selected schools were coeducational and offered the same academically-oriented curricula. 2.2 Procedure Data were collected by means of self-reported, class-administered questionnaires a month before the end of the academic year. Upon approval of school authorities, participants were voluntarily asked to take part in a study on bullying. The students who returned signed forms with their own and their parents’ written consent participated in the survey. Questionnaires were administered anonymously with no information to identify individual respondents, other than the demographic data such as grade, ethnicity and gender. Two researchers administered questionnaires to the participants, clarified the meaning of certain items and answered questions when necessary. The procedure took approximately 30 min. 2.3 Instruments 2.3.1 The bullying/victimization questionnaire The bullying/victimization questions were devised by using items from the measure “Instrument to assess the incidence of involvement in bully/victim interaction at school” (Rigby and Bagshaw 2003). This measure included five items to assess

123

462

R. Navarro et al.

peer victimization by asking students “how often have you been bullied by your peers during the last year?” Students responded to the following items: “someone pushed, grabbed or hit me (direct physical aggression), someone broke or hid my belongings (indirect physical aggression), someone called me names or insulted me (direct verbal aggression), someone said mean things behind my back or spread rumors about me (indirect verbal aggression), someone ignored me or didn’t let me participate in games and other activities (social exclusion). Responders rated each item on a 4-point scale (0 = Never, 1 = Occasionally, 2 = Weekly, 3 = Daily). The same five items were given for the bullying scale as students were asked “how often have you bullied someone in the last year?”. Internal consistency was demonstrated in the current sample with alpha coefficients of .64 for the bully score and of .66 for the victim score. 2.3.2 The Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire [BPAQ: Buss and Perry 1992] The BPAQ is a 29-item, self-report instrument that assesses physical and verbal aggression, anger and hostility. However, it is a measure of people’s proneness to aggression, and does not measure the frequency of specific acts of aggression (Archer and Webb 2006). Using a 5-point scale (1 = never or hardly applies to me, 2 = usually does not apply to me, 3 = sometimes applies to me, 4 = often applies to me and 5 = very often applies to me), participants rated their tendency to behave in an aggressive manner or to experience anger and hostility. For this study, the Spanish version adapted by Andreu et al. (2002) was used, whose factor structure coincides with the conceptual and empirical structures suggested in the study of Buss and Perry (1992). The Cronbach alpha values in this study were: physical (.81), verbal (.66), hostility (.69) and anger (.68), which are similar values to those reported by Andreu et al. (2002). 2.3.3 The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem 1974) Bem’s Sex Role Inventory is the most frequently used tool to assess the extent to which men and women identify with the culturally prescribed traits expected of their sex: masculinity and femininity. The Spanish version, developed by López-sáez and Morales (1995), was used in this study. Of the original 60 items in the BSRI, 18 (9 for masculinity and 9 for femininity) appeared in the shortened form used in this study. Using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never to 7 = always), participants described themselves according to the descriptors that are considered stereotypically masculine (dominant, selfish, independent) or stereotypically feminine (affectionate, gentle, compassionate). Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) was .77 for the masculine scale and .79 for the feminine scale, and these values are acceptable and comparable to those found in previous studies conducted in Spain (López-Sáez et al. 2008). 3 Results The results are organized into three sections. First, Student’s t tests were conducted to examine sex differences in the independent variables (bullying-victimization behaviors, aggressive tendencies and experiences of hostility and anger) and the dependent

123


463

Table 1 Means and standard deviations by sex on bullying, victim and aggressive tendencies scores Males (n = 786) Mean

Females (n = 868) SD

Mean

SD

Bullying Physical

0.190

0.32

0.088

0.26

Verbal

0.433

0.58

0.560

0.57

Exclusion

0.195

0.36

0.153

0.41

Victimization Physical

0.139

0.32

0.095

0.26

Verbal

0.392

0.58

0.399

0.52

Exclusion

0.091

0.36

0.095

0.34

Aggressive tendencies Physical aggression

2.786

0.81

2.230

0.78

Verbal aggression

2.771

0.75

2.647

0.78

Anger

2.777

0.69

2.737

0.73

Hostility

2.723

0.72

2.840

0.76

variables (stereotypical gender traits). Second, correlations for all the study variables were performed. Third, the effects of gender traits on bullying-victimization behaviors and aggressive tendencies were tested by ANOVA analyses. SPSS 17.0 was used for the whole analysis. 3.1 Sex differences The means and standard deviations, by sex, for the bullying, victimization and proneness to aggression items are presented in Table 1. In order to examine the sex differences in bullying-victimization behaviors, the original items about direct and indirect ways were grouped, and the categories of physical aggression, verbal aggression and exclusion were considered for the whole analysis. To test the sex differences in each aggressive form in relation to bullying and victimization (i.e., mean differences between sexes in physical bullying), t tests were conducted. The data collected in this study confirm that female and male youth are equally aggressive in their behavior, but consistently display different types of aggressive strategies. As expected, males display higher levels of physical bullying (t (1,652) = 6.189. p < .0001) and undergo greater physical victimization than females (t (1,652) = 3.085. p < .002). The means obtained for verbal bullying significantly differ for each sex. Female youth display more verbal aggression than males (t (1,652) = −4.575. p < .0001). No differences were found for bullying through social exclusion (t (1,652) = 1.846. p = .065), verbal victimization (t (1,652) = 0.226. p = .790) and victimization through social exclusion (t (1,652) = 0.231. p = .817). T tests for the tendency to physical and verbal aggression, anger and hostility show that male participants claim to be more prone to physical aggression

123

464

R. Navarro et al.

(t (1,542) = 13.683. p < .0001) and verbal aggression (t (1,549) = 3.171. p < .0001) than their female counterparts. Female participants report having expressed more anger (t (1,542) = −3.060. p < .0001); however, no differences were found in expressing hostility (t (1,548) = 1.101. p = .271). Follow-up t tests for sex indicated differences between male and female participants in self-adherence to masculine stereotype traits (t (1,630) = 14.264. p < .0001) and feminine stereotype traits (t (1,631) = 22.798. p < .0001). Males (M = 4.345, SD = 1.01) show higher levels of masculine stereotype traits than females (M = 3.656, SD = 0.90). On the other hand, females (M = 5.439, SD = 0.82) display significantly higher levels of feminine stereotype traits than males (M = 4.401, SD = 1.009).

3.2 Correlation analyses To examine the associations between gender stereotypical traits and adolescents’ involvement in bullying-victimization behaviors and aggressive tendencies, correlation analyses were initially performed. The results, reported in Table 2, show a weaker, yet significant, association between bullying behaviors and masculine traits for males and females. Masculine traits associate only with victimization in the verbal behaviors that females had to suffer. In contrast, feminine traits positively correlate with victimization, but only for males. Stronger relationships have been found, irrespectively of sex, between masculine traits and proneness to aggression, hostility and anger. Feminine traits, in both boys and girls, are negatively associated with proneness to physical aggression.

3.3 ANOVA analysis Several of the analyses in this study compared groups of students classified as high, low or average in their adherence to gender stereotype traits. In line with past research (Kilpatrick and Kerres 2003), students were grouped in accordance with their levels of adherence to masculine or feminine traits considering the location of their scores in the 25, 50 and 75th percentiles, to examine the relationship between aggression variables and gender stereotype traits. The procedure of categorization was separately made for masculine and feminine gender stereotype traits. Specifically, students were categorized in the “higher level of adherence” for masculine or feminine traits if they obtained a score in the top 25th percentile of all the students (a score of more than 5 on masculine or feminine items). Similarly, students were categorized in the “lowest level of adherence” if they obtained a score in the lower 25th percentile of all the students (a score of less than 2 on masculine or feminine items). Finally, they were categorized in the “average level of adherence” if their score was over the lower 25th percentile of all the students and above the top 25th percentile of all the students (a score among 2 to 5 on masculine or feminine items). The cutoff by percentiles ensures the sample did not just include students who were showing high levels of adherence to masculine or feminine traits. This cutoff was used to include students with moderate levels of adherence.

123

.364∗∗ .153∗∗

.026

.022

.081∗

.132∗∗

.152∗∗

4. Verbal Bullyinga

5. Exclusion-bullyinga

.005

−.040

.051

.104∗∗

−.123∗∗

−.011

.065

−.073

.000

.032

.403∗∗

.300∗∗

.113∗∗

.296∗∗

7. Verbal victimizationa

8. Exclusion-bullyinga

9. Physical aggressionb

10. Verbal aggressionb

11. Hostiliityb

12. Angerb

.253∗∗

.234∗∗

.210∗∗

.260∗∗

.078∗

.294∗∗

.078∗

.482∗∗

−

.417∗∗

−.042

−

.113∗∗

.118∗∗

.146∗∗

.126∗∗

.065

.161∗∗

.083∗

.381∗∗

.238∗∗

−.046

.109∗∗

5

.489∗∗ .292∗∗

.037

.136∗∗

.036

−.022

−

.136∗∗

.176∗∗

.366∗∗

.001

.013

6

−

.075∗

.266∗∗

.074∗

.071

.162∗∗

.465∗∗

.232∗∗

.362∗∗

.290∗∗

.056

.101∗∗

7

Correlations for females are printed above the diagonal and correlations for males are printed below the diagonal MGT Masculine gender traits. FGT Feminine gender traits a Measure by bullying questionnaire b Measure by aggression questionnaire (Buss and Perry 1992) ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01

.207∗∗

.077∗

.176∗∗

.261∗∗

.222∗∗

.129∗∗

−.008

6. Physical victimizationa

.457∗∗

−

−

.146∗∗

.131∗∗

.112∗∗

2. FGT

.064

4

3

3. Physical bullyinga

−

1. MGT

2

.117∗∗

1

Variable

Table 2 Correlations between gender traits, bullying-victimization behaviors and aggressive tendencies

.273∗∗

.075∗

.173∗∗

.039

−.022

−

.225∗∗

.191∗∗

.099∗∗

.059

−.097∗∗

−.001

8 .327∗∗

−

.542∗∗

.315∗∗

.499∗∗

.081∗

.201∗∗

.144∗∗

.136∗∗

.267∗∗

.273∗∗

−.115∗∗

9 .335∗∗

− .517∗∗

.373∗∗

.530∗∗

.021

.175∗∗

.123∗∗

.143∗∗

.204∗∗

.144∗∗

−.053

10

.462∗∗

−

.444∗∗

.369∗∗

.111∗∗

.267∗∗

.209∗∗

.148∗∗

.197∗∗

.133∗∗

.024

.104∗∗

11

.333∗∗

−

.515∗∗

.678∗∗

.573∗∗

.004

.143∗∗

.120∗∗

.139∗∗

.229∗∗

.190∗∗

−.021

12

Bullying-victimization problems and aggressive tendencies 465

123

466

R. Navarro et al.

Table 3 Means, F Values, eta values and post hoc Bonferroni a procedure for the three levels of adherence to masculine gender traits across bullying and victimization experiences Masculine stereotype traits Males High level

Females Average Low level level

F (2,765)

η2

High level

Average Low level level

F (2,861)

η2

Bullying Physical

0.231a 0.171b

0.106b 6.350∗∗

Verbal

0.522a

0.348b

.12

0.135a 0.091a

0.055b 8.796∗∗∗

.14

4.325∗∗∗

.10

0.725a

0.473b 4.217∗

.09

Exclusion

0.283a 0.142b

0.121b 7.114∗∗∗

.13

0.200a 0.183a

0.073b 7.182∗∗∗

.12

0.133

0.151

.01

0.075

0.112

0.075

2.157

.07

0.449a

0.298b

7.219∗∗∗

.12

0.112

0.080

1.379

.05

0.389b

0.562b


0.139

0.124

Verbal

0.376

0.402

0.399

0.172

.04

0.425a

Exclusion

0.096

0.072

0.121

0.828

.02

0.064

a α = .05; a > b > c/∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001

Once the students had been categorized into the aforementioned groups, a series of 2 (sex: male, female) × 3 (gender traits: low, average and high adherence to masculine and feminine traits) factorial ANOVAs for each dependent measure in bullying behaviors (physical, verbal and exclusion bullying; physical, verbal and exclusion victimizations) and proneness to aggression (physical and verbal aggression, anger and hostility) were conducted to examine the relationship between aggression scores and the degree of gender stereotypes traits. Significant results in the univariate test were followed with Bonferroni’s comparisons between means of the three levels of adherence to gender stereotype traits. 3.3.1 Gender stereotypical traits effects on the bullying and victimization processes As seen in Table 3, male participants with a high adherence to masculine stereotype traits were more implicated in the perpetration of physical bullying, verbal bullying and social exclusion than those with lower levels of masculine traits. The female participants who reported a higher adherence to masculine traits stated they perpetrated more physical bullying that those who reported a low adherence to the same traits. In verbal bullying, significant differences appeared between the three groups of adherence to masculine traits. Females with higher scores in masculine traits reported more verbal bullying than females with low or average levels of the same traits. For social exclusion, females with high and average levels of adherence to masculine traits reported participating more in the exclusion of others. Only one effect was found among students who had undergone victimization. Females with high and average self-ratings of masculine traits experienced more verbal victimization than females with a lower level of adherence to these traits. The results obtained for adherence to feminine stereotypes traits are shown in Table 4. Regarding bullying behaviors, we detected significant effects for the feminine

123


467

Table 4 Means, f values, eta values and post hoc Bonferroni a procedure for the three levels of adherence to feminine gender traits across bullying and victimization experiences Feminine stereotype traits Males

Females η2

High level

.697

.03

0.068a 0.112b

0.117b 3.111∗

0.424

.421

.04

0.546

0.563

0.617

.414

.03

0.207

2.163

.07

0.127

0.164

0.203

1.304

.05

.09

0.103

0.087

0.109

.441

.03 .09 .06

High level


Physical

0.194

0.175

0.203

Verbal

0.516

0.436

Exclusion

0.322

0.172

F (2,766)


F (2,861)

η2

Bullying .08


0.167a 0.135b

0.100b 3.827∗

Verbal

0.601a

0.318b

Exclusion

0.220a 0.090b

0.417b

6.569∗∗∗

0.062b 4.631∗∗

.13

0.463

0.367

0.335

3.766∗

.10

0.079

0.096

0.171

1.952

a α = .05; a > b > c/∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < 001

Table 5 Means, F values, eta values and post hoc Bonferroni a procedure for the three levels of adherence to masculine gender traits across aggressive tendencies, hostility and anger Masculine stereotype traits Males High level


F

η2

High level


η2

F

Physical 3.113a aggression

2.636b

2.301b 50.866∗∗∗

.35

2.709a 2.221b

1.972b

42.040∗∗∗

.30

Verbal 2.962a aggression

2.705b

2.436b 20.553∗∗∗

.23

3.041a 2.690b

2.336b

39.675∗∗∗

.29

Hostility

2.904a

2.691b

2.740b 7.660∗∗∗

.14

2.817a 2.765b

2.637b

3.394∗

.09

Anger

2.945a

2.600b

2.477b 24.965∗∗∗

.25

3.220a 2.882b

2.542b

38.727∗∗∗

.29

a α = .05; a > b > c/∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001

traits on physical bullying displayed by females. Nonetheless, we found no significant effects on bullying displayed by males. Females with a high level of adherence to feminine traits reported perpetrating less physical bullying than the females for the rest of the levels. For victimization experienced by students, we detected a significant effect on physical, verbal victimization and social exclusion experienced by male participants. Those with a high adherence to feminine traits were more victimized by their peers than the rest of the groups. 3.3.2 Gender stereotypical traits effects on aggressive tendencies Several significant effects were found between masculine traits and proneness to physical, verbal aggression, anger and hostility (Table 5). As their level of adherence

123

468

R. Navarro et al.

Table 6 Means, F values, eta values and post hoc Bonferronia procedure for the three levels of adherence to feminine gender traits across aggressive tendencies, hostility and anger Feminine stereotype traits Males High level


F

η2

High level


F

η2

Physical 2.636a aggression

2.744b

2.878b 3.283∗

.09

2.215b 2.196b

2.617a

7.617∗∗∗

.13

Verbal 2.778 aggression

2.767

2.791

0.079

.02

2.629

2.636

2.831

1.721

.06

Hostility

2.797

2.741

1.630

.06

2.768

2.720

2.743

0.389

.03

.06

2.878b 2.787b

3.064a

4.021∗

.09

Anger

2.917 2.691

2.683

2.785

1.668

a α = .05; a > b > c/∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001

to masculine traits was greater, male participants claimed more proneness to physical and verbal aggression. Male participants with higher levels of masculine traits reported higher hostility and more anger. As their level of masculine traits was higher, female participants reported greater proneness to physical aggression, verbal aggression, and anger. For hostility, females with an average or high level of masculine traits reported higher proneness to hostility. The data on adhesion to feminine traits and aggressive tendencies are shown in Table 6. Significant effects were found in proneness to physical aggression for both male and female participants. A physical aggressive tendency was greater for those who reported a low level of adherence to feminine traits, and for both males and females. One significant effect found was the anger experienced by female participants. Those with a low level of feminine traits reported more anger. 4 Discussion This study intends to offer insights into understanding the potential influence of masculine and feminine traits on adolescent aggression. The results confirm that Spanish adolescents share stereotypes as to what they believe are prototypical men and women, and they use these stereotypes as self-descriptors (Hoffman 2001). Male participants identify themselves more with masculine traits, and female participants do likewise with feminine traits. However, despite the identification with masculine traits being stronger in male students, the data collected in this research support the hypothesis which posits a greater influence of masculine traits on aggressive behaviors for both sexes. Regarding the relationship between bullying behaviors and gender stereotype traits, the data obtained indicate that male and female youth who bully others obtain higher scores for masculine gender traits. This result was found for physical, verbal and social exclusion bullying. Conversely, adolescents who obtain a higher score in feminine gendered traits report less implication in bullying behaviors. This result does not support the research indicating a relationship between feminine traits and relational aggression

123


469

in female youth (Crothers et al. 2005). However, an effect was found between feminine traits and physical bullying. Female participants with lower levels of feminine traits show a higher tendency to bully through physical ways. All in all, these results collectively sustain the hypothesis about less bullying among youth who identify themselves with feminine gender traits, and confirm other studies which have revealed that adherence to masculinity gender traits is positively associated with being a bully, and for males and females alike (Gianluca and Pozzoli 2006; Young and Sweeting 2004). The results of the relationship between gender traits and victimization processes reveal that adherence to the traditional notions of femininity is a predictor of victimization experienced by males, but not by females. Previous research has found this effect in females, but not in males (Gianluca and Pozzoli 2006). This result may relate with stronger gender typification for males (Hughes and Seta 2003). Males who fail to attach to traditional notions of masculinity (i.e., be strong, don’t show your emotions) and are called “queer or sissy” because they do not act in the same way as other males, can be more rejected and exposed to victimization by other students. Similarly, an effect was found between the masculine traits and verbal victimization experienced by female participants. Verbal victimization suffered by females with masculine traits may be the way in which peers punish their identification with gender traits that are not prototypical for their sex (Crick 1997). In relation to aggressive tendencies and experiencing anger and hostility, the results obtained support the influence of masculine stereotypical traits on aggression. Indeed, the relationship is stronger than that found for bullying. This stronger effect may relate to the fact that attitudes do not always link with behaviors. People with high adherence to masculine traits may be oriented to dominance and aggressiveness, but this does not mean they act in this way through bullying or other aggressive behaviors. However, they can show a tendency to behave aggressively by expressing more proneness to aggression than to real behavior (Archer and Webb 2006). A strong association was also found between masculine traits and anger and hostility, irrespective of sex. This finding is consistent with previous research and with the idea that people with aggressive tendencies experience anger and hostility. From this viewpoint, it seems logical that if masculine traits are related to proneness to aggression, then these traits also relate with anger and hostility (Kinney et al. 2001; Kogut et al. 1992). The second hypothesis posited in this study is also supported by the finding of few aggressive tendencies among the male and female students who identify themselves with traditional feminine traits. Another connection was found between these traits and the anger felt by females. Anger was low among those females with a higher adherence to feminine traits. This finding may relate to previous findings that explain how anger management is characteristic of feminine traits like emotionality, delicacy or affection (Kinney et al. 2001). In short, masculine stereotypical traits seem to be a significant risk factor for getting involved in aggressive behaviors since traditional masculine traits have been seen to relate more strongly with bully perpetration, proneness to aggression and the experience of anger and hostility for both sexes. In contrast, traditional feminine traits seem to reduce and protect adolescents who share feminine values, and who are not involved

123

470

R. Navarro et al.

in bullying and experience less proneness to aggression. However, feminine traits do not protect male students from victimization. 5 Limitations and future research The results obtained in this work should be regarded with caution and its limitations should be considered. One initial group of limitations has to do with the study sample itself. First, although the study sample is large enough to represent Spanish secondary schools, the results may be influenced by certain characteristics in the region, so caution should be taken when generalizing the results to wider adolescent populations. Second, it is clear that most of the research reviewed and used to discuss the study data corresponds to cultures and social contexts that differ from Spanish ones, so comparisons should be carefully made. Another limitation to be considered is the fact that, although the effects found in our research as a result of the statistical tests are significant, those relating to bullying and victimization are weaker than the findings for aggressive tendencies. This fact requires having to analyze the robustness of the results. A second set of limitations relate to the methodology with which the data were obtained. Although self-report instruments are an effective, reliable method to collect data, the accuracy of the data obtained is subject to interpretation, and responses may be influenced by social desirability. Along these lines, it is also important to note that the recollection of information using standardized scales may contribute to gender norms not operating in the same way they would in an interview or a discussion group where participants speak directly with the researcher. Finally, another limitation of this study is the measure of school bullying and victimization. Although the instrument used includes direct and indirect forms of bullying and victimization, the latter have not been taken into account in the data analysis, except for exclusionary conduct which may be considered an indirect form of bullying. Future research should inquire how the internalization of specific masculine or feminine stereotypical traits may produce different effects on adolescent aggression, depending on each trait’s social desirability. In this sense, it would be interesting to replicate the studies done in the United States which have examined how the internalization of stereotypical traits of both dimensions (masculinity and femininity) has a positive impact on individuals in terms of increased psychological well-being and social adjustment. However, when some features are internalized in the absence of others, and the individual mostly adheres to socially undesirable traits, there are a number of negative effects of both an individual and interpersonal kind involved (Ghaed and Gallo 2006; Helgeson and Fritz 1999). The analysis done of the differences between the subjects who internalize some traits or others will improve our understanding of the influence of stereotypes on participants, and will also allow us to identify the more social maladaptive gender beliefs. 6 Implications for intervention The findings and conclusions of this study reveal several aspects that may be considered when designing intervention practices for bullying in schools. Among these aspects we note:

123


471

(1) The usefulness of adopting a “gender perspective” in the study of aggressive behaviors, particularly the importance of considering gender-related aspects in order to understand processes underlying bullying. (2) Bullying prevention and intervention programs should focus on students’ gender, considering that the number of boys and girls who engage in and are victimized by bullying partly depends on the strong adherence to traditional masculine traits that boost aggressiveness, dominance and independence. This further supports the idea that bullying prevention efforts may have more effect if they will focus on gender issues. Additionally, interventions should address the overt and covert nature of aggression in schools since boys and girls with masculine gender selfconcepts engage in both types of bullying. (3) The need for educators and other professionals in educational settings to be aware and to respond to these issues if they wish to create positive interventions that improve, eradicate or reduce aggression in schools. More importantly, this study is an attempt to analyze the complexity of the gender relationships in schools in one area of the world, central Spain, and to highlight the role of bullying in relation to the gender identity negotiation process during adolescence. This study alludes to the persistence of gender attitudes in our society, which may trigger inappropriate behaviors based on traditional values and sexist practices at many levels. We consider that our findings can help schools work in tandem with parents to promote a wide range of activities and initiatives with students’ experiences with a view to fostering nontraditional gender roles and diminishing bullying behaviors. Given that psychologists and educators are often in the best position to intervene at multisystem levels, we hope that our study can help educators detect bullying and notice the gender dynamics involved, and can help to offer training to recognize these behaviors with a view to reducing them. Psychologists can use such research to reinforce intervention efforts with teachers and families and, with them, to remove the ways which support bullying in schools.

References Andreu, J. M., Peña, M. E., & Graña, J. L. (2002). Adaptación psicométrica de la versión española del Cuestionario de Agresión. Psicothema, 14, 476–482. Archer, J., & Coyne, S. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212–230. Archer, J., & Webb, I. A. (2006). The relation between scores on the Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire and aggressive acts, impulsiveness, competitiveness, dominance, and sexual jealousy. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 464–473. Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–528. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. Blazina, C., Pisecco, S., & O’Neil, J. M. (2005). An adaptation of the gender role conflict scale for adolescents: Psychometric issues and correlates with psychological distress. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 39–45.

123

472

R. Navarro et al.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender development and functioning. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 92–119). New York: Guilford Press. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185–1229. Cassidy, T. (2008). Bullying and victimization in school children: The role of social identity, problemsolving style, and family and school context. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 63–76. Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression: links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 3(4), 610–617. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Crothers, L. M., Field, J. E., & Kolbert, J. B. (2005). Navigating power, control and being nice: Aggression in adolescent girls’ friendship. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 349–354. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. Dohi, I., Yamada, F., & Asada, H. (2001). The relationship between masculinity and they type a behavior pattern: The moderating effect of femininity. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(2), 83–90. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender (pp. 269–295). New York: Guilford Press. Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Parental style and child bullying and victimization experiences at school. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 213–227. Ghaed, S. G., & Gallo, L. C. (2006). Distinctions among agency, communion, and unmitigated agency and communion according to the interpersonal circumplex, five-factor model and social-emotional correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 77–88. Gianluca, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2006). The role of masculinity in children’s bullying. Sex Roles, 54(7–8), 585–588. Giles, J. W., & Heyman, G. D. (2005). Young children’s beliefs about the relationship between gender and aggressive behaviour. Child Development, 76, 107–121. Graves, K. N. (2007). Not always sugar and spice: Expanding theoretical and functional explanations for why females aggress. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(2), 131–140. Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1992). Predictors of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 219–229. Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions form agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 131–158. Hoffman, R. M. (2001). The measurement of masculinity and femininity: Historical perspective and implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 471–485. Hughes, F. M., & Seta, C. E. (2003). Gender stereotypes: Children’s perceptions of future compensatory behaviour following violations of gender roles. Sex Roles, 49(11/12), 685–691. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer perception of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer Harassment in School: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105–124). New York: Guilford Press. Kilpatrick, M., & Kerres, C. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471–489. Kinney, T. A., Smith, B. A., & Donzella, B. (2001). The influence of sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger and verbal aggressiveness among us college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 245–275. Kogut, D., Langley, T., & O’Neal, C. (1992). Gender role masculinity and angry aggression in women. Sex Roles, 26(9/10), 355–368. Kolbert, J. B., Field, J. E., Crothers, L. M., & Schreiber, J. B. (2010). Femininity and depression mediated by social and relational aggression in late adolescence. Journal of School Violence, 9(3), 289–302.

123


473

López-sáez, M., & Morales, J. F. (1995). Gender stereotypes in the Spanish population: Looking toward the future. In L. Amâncio & C. Nogueira (Eds.), Gender, management and science (pp. 151–168). Braga: Instituto de Educaçâo e Psicologia, Universidade do Minho. López-Sáez, M., Morales, J. F., & Lisbona, A. (2008). Evolution of gender stereotypes in Spain: Traits and roles. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 609–617. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119–1134. Muncer, S., Campbell, A., Jervis, V., & Lewis, R. (2001). “Ladettes,” social representations and aggression–aggressive behaviour by girls and women. Sex Roles, 47, 33–42. Ortega, R., & Mora-Merchán, J. (1999). Spain. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Jurgen-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalana, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 157–174). Londres: Routledge. Phillips, D. A. (2007). Punking and bullying. Strategies in middle school, high school, and beyond. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(2), 158–178. Rigby, K., & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adolescent students collaborating with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conflict in schools. Educational Psychology, 23(5), 535–546. Ridgeway, C., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society, 18, 510–531. Roland, E., & Idsoe, T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 446–462. Slee, P. T. (2006). Violence prevention: Schools and communities working in partnership. International Journal of Violence in Schools, 1, 5–17. Smith, S. C., Ellis, J. B., & Benson, T. A. (2001). Gender, gender roles and attitudes towards violence: Are viewpoints changing?. Social Behaviour and Personality, 29(1), 43–48. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, traits stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62. Thompson, E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating relationships: An appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24(5/6), 261–278. Toldos, M. P. (2005). Sex and age differences in self-estimated physical, verbal and indirect aggression in Spanish adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 13–23. Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children: Why can’t we all just get along?. Social Development, 10, 248–266. Witt, S. D. (2000). The influence of peers on children’s socialization to gender roles. Early Child Development and Care, 162, 1–7. Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behaviour: a gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50(7/8), 525–537.

Author Biographies Raúl Navarro is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Education. Area of research: gender differences in aggressive behavior, social factors associated with bullying and cyberbullying. Elisa Larrañaga is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Social Work. Area of research: sexism and behavioral problems, gender and reading practices. Santiago Yubero is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Education. Area of research: bullying and workplace aggression, gender and reading practices.

123