Christopher Jones, Assignment Number 2 Question One: Haynie et al's purpose for the study was the examination

of bullying with an eye towards discovering predictive and or associated behaviors that could be used to analy!e, understand, and predict such behavior" #articular attention was paid to the differences and similarities in associated factors among bullies, victims, and bully victims who are both bullies and the victims of bullies" $he authors were as%ing, in summary, what are the characteristics of students involved in bullying and what are the differences between children who have different positions within the bullying hierarchy& $he study too% into account thirteen variables' (ullying, victimi!ation, problem behaviors, behavioral misconduct, self)control, deviant peer influences, deviant acceptance, social competence, school ad*ustment, school bonding, depressive symptoms, parental involvement, and parental support" $he authors explained these variables more completely in the study" $he authors indicated that the study was important for a few reasons" +or one, most of the studies in this area had, at the time, been performed in ,urope" #revious studies had found that the -ualities of bullying varied from country to country" $hat finding implied that there would be differences in the results had the studies been performed in the .nited /tates" $he study could also find what variables are predictors for bullying and what undesirable outcomes could be predicted by the type of bullying in which a student was involved" 0 thin% that the study is useful for much the same reasons" 0ntervention programs could ta%e this data into account as they try to identify students at ris% for bullying" #erhaps more importantly, it shows that intervention in environments that promote bullying might have far)reaching conse-uences for the students involved" 0 also appreciate that the authors addressed the problems inherent for victims and 0 find their category of 1bully victims1 interesting" 0n addition to adding a distinct category to the lexicon of bullying it also helped to emphasi!e that bullies are, in fact, victims themselves" /uch bullies, and especially the children who were both bullies and victims, are children and that they re-uire intervention and help at least as much as the victims" Question Two: $he study was carried out via surveys given to students in a 2aryland school district" #arents were as%ed for their permission and informed that there would be 1sensitive1 information collected" Compared to many other methods of research, surveys have a fairly low impact on the participants" (eyond being forced to endure a fairly boring class)period or two of filling out a survey there would have been little impact on the students" #erhaps a few more reflective students might have been given some food for thought by the -uestions, but 0 see little effect on them overall" /urveys such as the one used by the authors are easy to apply and inexpensive compared to other research methods" $hey can include a much larger sample si!e than more experimental or observational methods so that they generate more accurate statistics" 3espondents may also be more honest when filling out a form than when tal%ing with a researcher" 4ording the -uestionnaires correctly can be tric%y enough that there are boo%s and classes on *ust that part of research methods" 0t is also impossible to obtain a truly random sample when the participants or, in this case, their parents have the right to refuse to participate"

Question Three: $he study found a number of correlations between the variables studied and bullying behavior" $he authors focused on which factors could be used as predictors of whether students would be involved in bullying and where they would fall in the bullying food)chain" 0nvolvement in problem behaviors, which involved actions ranging from vandalism and other criminal activity to truancy and smo%ing, was the most strongly associated variable" After that came self)control 5meaning lac% thereof6, and deviant acceptance and deviant peer influences" $he last two refer to subculture acceptance, particularly violent subculture acceptance, li%e that which might be found in gangs rather than *ust being generally different from other students" 0 found it surprising that the least significant factor was parenting style, as 0 would have guessed that parenting had more to do with this than either genetic or socio)economic factors" $hat is the sort of finding that shows that common sense is not very accurate when applied to complex social behaviors" Applying this research in a practical manner would really re-uire more research" $he correlations found in the study would be useful to someone who wished to narrow down whether intervention in bullying would improve the variables in the study or whether bullying was *ust a symptom" 0n fact the study only provided correlations so it does little to ferret out the root causes of either bullying or the associated behaviors" 7oes bullying cause the variables& 7o the variables cause bullying& 7o some of the variables cause other variables that then cause bullying& +urther research that built off of these results might either use more surveys to discover differences among students who do not share the same predictors" $his might yield more data about exactly what is causing the bullying and whether bullying is a cause or *ust a side effect" 8ne might also want to do longitudinal studies of students who suffered from bullying and or the associated factors but still had good long)term outcomes" 4hat would be different about their lives& Could those differences be applied to intervention programs that target other students with similar predictors to change their lives for the better& A lot of research would be needed to ma%e these results of immediate value to policy)ma%ers, educators and parents"