Bullying.pptx mmhc oral1

Sensation Seeking and Emotional Intelligence as Risk Factors for

School bullying among Adolescents in Ghana

Beatrice Dwumfour Williams, Richard A. Boateng and Adote Anum

Department of PsychiatryCollege of Health Sciences

University of Ghana School of Medicine and Dentistry

Bullying The core descriptions of school bullying: • Physical, verbal or psychological attack or

intimidation - intended to cause fear, pain or damage • An imbalance of power (psychological or physical)• Repeated incidents (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1993). Four groups• The bully (The perpetrator) • The bullied (victim) • The bully/victim• Neutrals (Those who neither bullied or victimised

bully)(Cohn & Canter, 2003)

Forms Direct (physical and verbal) and Indirect (Mishna & Alaggia, 2005).

• Physical: hitting, smacking, theft

•Verbal: name-calling, insults

•Social (relational): gossiping, rumour spreading and convincing others to socially exclude the victim (Underwood, 2003)•Indirect - damaging the victim’s social status and is often much less detectable

Gender issues

• Boys experience and tend to engage in higher rates of direct bullying

• Girls are more often the targets of indirect bullying (Craig & Pepler, 2003).

• In a recent study by Goldstein, Young and Boyd (2008) gender was not reported as significant predictor of either form of bullying

Risk factors and Psychological outcomes

Risk factors • The quality of parental attachment• Sensation seeking • Emotional Intelligence (EI)• Self-esteemOutcomes • Depression • Suicidal ideations

Aims and objectives How the adolescent’s –

•attachment to their primary caregiver

•self esteem

•sensation seeking behaviour

•emotional intelligence

predict the likelihood of the individual engaging in bullying behaviour.

•To investigate the association between bullying behaviour, depression and suicidal ideation among adolescents aged 12-19.

Hypothesis

H1: Sensation seeking would account for a significant variance in bullying behaviour after controlling for age, gender and parental attachment and self esteem.

H2: Emotional intelligence would account for a significant variance in bullying behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self esteem.

H3: Sensation seeking would account for a significant variance in victimisation behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self esteem.

H4: Emotional intelligence will account for a significant

variance in victimisation behaviour after controlling for age, gender and parental attachment and self esteem.

H5: Bullying and Victimisation behaviour would account for a significant variance in depression among adolescents after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment, self esteem, sensation seeking and emotional intelligence.

H6: Bullying and Victimisation behaviour would account for a significant variance in suicide ideations among adolescents after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment, self esteem, sensation seeking and emotional intelligence.

Proposed model

Parental attachment

Sensation seeking

Emotional intelligence

Self esteem

Bullying PerpetrationBullying Victimisation

Depression Suicidal ideations

METHODOLOGY

• Population Male and female adolescent students between the ages of 12

and 19 years in Junior and Senior High schools with the Accra Metropolis.

SampleThree hundred and fifty five (355) students (180 males and 175 females)255 from Senior High School100 from Junior High School• Sampling technique The study used two non-probability sampling techniques -

Convenience and the Purposive sampling techniques Probability sampling technique which is the stratified random

sampling technique.

Study Design •Cross sectional research designInstruments / Measures•Demographic Information •Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument: Bully/Target (APRI-BT) Parada, Marsh and Craven (2010).•Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ, West, Rose, Spreng, Sheldon-Keller & Adam, 1998). •Sensation seeking scale : Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ) (1993) – Zuckerman and Kuhlman (1993)• Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty , Cooper, Golden & Dornheim, 1998). •Rosenberg Self esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) •Columbia Depression Scale (Zuckerbrot, Maxon, Pagar, Davies, Fisher & Shaffer, 2007).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participants (N=355)Variable Frequency Percent (%)

Age (Mean, SD) 15.85(1.98)

GenderMale 180 50.7Female 175 49.3

FormJHS1 6 1.7JHS2 58 16.3JHS3 37 10.4SHS1 47 13.2SHS2 79 22.3SHS3 69 19.4SHS4 59 16.9SHS1 47 13.2

Table 2Summary of the Cronbach’s alpha for tests used in the current study

Scale Psychometric property

Study value (α)

Pilot value

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (Bully)

.89 - .93 .89 .90

Adolescent Peer Review Instrument (Target)

.87 - .93 .89 .89

Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire

.81 .84 .78

Sensation Seeking Scale

.84 .62 .62

Emotional Intelligence Scale

.90 .85 .81

Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale

.80 - .88 .71 .72

Columbia Depression Scale

.79 - .87 .78 .78

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Variables in the Study and Alpha coefficients of Key Study Variables Variable M SD N Skew

Age 15.83 1.95 355-.26

Bullying Behaviour 31.23 12.37 355 1.31

Victimization 33.85 13.93 355 1.16

Parental

Attachment

35.66 7.50 355 .91

Sensation Seeking 10.61 3.11 355 -1.52

Emotional

Intelligence

124.85 15.07 355 -.05

Self Esteem 19.55 4.60 355 -.66

Depression 10.79 3.43 355 .41

Suicide Ideation 1.62 1.04 355 -.34

Hypothesis OneTable 4 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis One

• Note. R2 = .181, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2 = .045, (p <.001) for Step 2. **p <.01, ***p < .001.

B SE β

Step 1

Constant 3.31 0.45

Age 0.48 0.09 .27***

Gender -0.35 0.09 -.20***

Parental attachment 0.22 0.06 .19***

Self esteem 0.16 0.09 .09

Step 2

Constant 4.62

0.54

Age 0.52

0.09.29 ***

Gender -0.290.09

-.17**

Parental attachment 0.190.06

.17**

Self esteem 0.11 0.09.06

Sensation seeking -0.36 0.09-.22***

Hypothesis TwoTable 5 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Two

• Note. R2 = .183, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2 = .016, (p <.017) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01, ***p<.001.

B SE β

Step 1

Constant 3.26

0.45

Age 0.51

0.09.29***

Gender -0.33

0.09-.19***

Parental attachment 0.21

0.06.19***

Self esteem 0.16

0.09.10

Step 2

Constant 3.19 0.45

Age 0.45 0.10.26***

Gender -0.31 0.09-.18***

Parental attachment 0.19 0.06.17**

Self esteem 0.10 0.10.06

Emotional intelligence 0.09 0.04.14*

Hypothesis ThreeTable 6 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Three

• Note. R2 = .145, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2 = .037, (p <.001) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01,***p<.001.

B SE β

Step 1

Constant 3.37 0.53

Age 0.32 0.11 .16**

Gender -0.40 0.11 -.20***

Parental attachment 0.27 0.07 -.20***

Self esteem 0.25 0.11 .12*

Step 2

Constant 4.71 0.63

Age 0.37 0.11 .18 ***

Gender -0.33 0.11 -.16**

Parental attachment 0.23 0.07 .18**


Sensation seeking-0.38 0.10 .20***

Hypothesis FourTable 7 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Four

Note. R2 = .145, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2 = .003, (p <.344) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01<.01,***p<.001.

B SE β

Step 1

Constant 3.36 0.53

Age 0.32 0.11 .15**

Gender -0.39 0.11 -.19***


Self esteem 0.26 0.11

.13*

Step 2

Constant 3.36 0.53

Age 0.29 0.12 -.14 *

Gender -0.38 0.11 -.19***



Emotional intelligence 0.040.05 .06

Hypothesis FiveTable 8 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Five

B SE βStep 1

Constant 3.20 0.82

Age -0.01 0.08-.01

Gender -0.08 0.07-.07

Parental attachment -0.02 0.11-.01

Self esteem -0.24 0.08.19**

Sensation seeking 0.18 0.07.16*

Emotional intelligence 0.05 0.03.11

Step 2

Constant 2.96 0.90-.020

Age -0.02 0.08-.060

Gender -0.08 0.07-0.003


Table 8 .. CONTD.. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Five

Self esteem -0.23 0.08 -.192**

Sensation seeking 0.19 0.07 .17**

Emotional intelligence 0.05 0.03 .096

Bullying perpetration 0.04 0.05 .054

Bullying victimisation -0.01 0.05 -.008

.

Note. R2 = .071, (p < .01) for Step 1; ∆R2 = .002, (p =.754) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01

Hypothesis SixTable 9 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Six

B SE βStep 1

Constant 1.717 0.43

Age -0.019 0.04-.030

Gender 0.097 0.04.157**

Parental attachment 0.002 0.06.002

Self esteem -0.071 0.04-.115

Sensation seeking 0.057 0.04.096

Emotional intelligence -0.012 0.02-.046

Step 2

Constant 1.758 0.46

Age -0.014 0.04-.022

Gender 0.098 0.04.159*


Table 7 .. CONTD.. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Five

Self esteem -0.076 0.04 -.124

Sensation seeking 0.055 0.04 .092

Emotional intelligence -0.011 0.02 -.043

Bullying perpetration -0.025 0.03 -.070

Bullying victimisation 0.022 0.24 .071

.

Note. R2 = .067, (p < .004) for Step 1; ∆R2 = .004, (p =.569) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01

Summary of findings Hypotheses one, two and three were supported• Sensation seeking accounted for a significant variance in bullying

behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self esteem

• Emotional intelligence accounted for a significant variance in bullying behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self esteem

• Sensation seeking accounted for a significant variance in victimization behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self esteem.

Hypothesis four, five, and six were not supported• Emotional intelligence did not account for a significant variance in

victimization behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self esteem.

• Bullying and victimisation behaviour did not account for a significant variance in depression among adolescents after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment, self esteem, sensation seeking and emotional intelligence.

• Bullying and victimisation behaviour did not account for a significant variance in suicide ideation among adolescents after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment, self esteem, sensation seeking and emotional intelligence.

Model based on current findings

Parental attachment

Sensation seeking

Emotional intelligence

Self esteem

Perpetration

Suicidal ideationsDepression

Victimisation

Implications

Educational stakeholders and adolescents encouraged to show interest in activities designed at regulating sensation seeking.

• Relaxation techniques, use of self talk, sports lessons (hiking, paragliding) .

Necessity for teachers, policy-makers and mental health professionals to emphasize the promotion of emotional education.

EI - has relevance for success in many areas of life, not only antisocial behaviours in educational settings (Goleman, 1995). Its development may also assist to better equip students to be successful in other aspects of life.

Parents and caregivers should continually reinforce appropriate and desirable behaviours with unconditional positive regard as depicted by Carl Rogers. This informs healthy self-esteem development. Students should also be taught self-efficacy techniques so as to help them have the confidence to solve and deal with problems when they occur – depressive episodes

The need to have and hire school psychologist

Conclusion

• The current findings reinforce the need to broaden our investigations of bullying and victimization in Ghana.

• The results lend support to further investigating these phenomena in an attempt to add to our cultural understanding, prediction, and control of bullying and victimization behaviour.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

• PROF. ANGELA L. OFORI-ATTA (UGSMD)

• PROF. C.C. MATE-KOLE

• DR. CHARLES D. WILLIAMS (SMCU)

• DRS. AKOENSI & ANNOR (CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY)

• DR. ADOTE ANUM (UG)

• DR. RICHARD A. BOATENG (UG)

• RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS (ADOLESCENT STUDENTS)

THANK YOU…

Bullying.pptx mmhc oral1

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Bullying.pptx mmhc oral1