ORI GI NAL PAPER

Parent Retrospective Recollections of Bullying and Current

Views, Concerns, and Strategies to Cope with Childrens Bullying
Leigh A. Cooper

Amanda B. Nickerson
Published online: 27 September 2012
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract In this study, parent history of bullying was
examined in terms of general involvement with bullying,
specic types of bullying experienced, level of hurtfulness
associated with the experience, and when bullying occur-
red. Parent current views, levels of concern, and strategies
used to cope with bullying were also evaluated. Finally, the
aforementioned constructs were analyzed for existing pre-
dictive relationships. Two-hundred-sixty parents from a
public school district in the Northeast completed an online
survey. Results revealed that 90.3 % of parents reported
seeing and/or engaging in bullying during their youth. Few
parents reported involvement as a bully, but comparable
numbers of participants indicated being victimized or act-
ing as a bystander. Additional ndings suggest that a par-
ents historical involvement with bullying was predictive
of some of their current views, level of concern, and
strategies implemented in association with bullying. Future
research should attempt to account for the remaining var-
iance among these variables. Implications for parents and
school personnel are described, with recommendations for
the increase of involvement by parents in anti-bullying
initiatives.
Keywords Bullying Level of concern Parents
Retrospective report Victimization
Introduction
Bullying is a pervasive problem that is estimated to impact
almost one-third of students (Dinkes et al. 2009), and has
been found to be the form of school-based violence that
affects the greatest number of children and adolescents
(Juvonen and Graham 2001). Considered to be a less
obvious form of abuse (Hazler et al. 2001), bullying can be
characterized by specic features including peer-to-peer
interaction with the intent to harm, repeated occurrences of
these harmful acts, and a power differential between the
bully and the victim (Borg 1998; Limber 2004; Olweus
1993b). Intentionally harmful acts can take both direct and
indirect forms; specically, bullying can occur physically,
verbally, through social manipulation or exclusion known
as relational bullying, or by utilizing electronic means such
as a computer or cell phone, known as cyberbullying (Crick
and Grotpeter 1995; Olweus and Limber 2007). Bullying
impacts individuals across gender, age, and nationality
(Espelage et al. 2000; Nansel et al. 2007a, b), although the
greatest frequency of bullying interactions occur during
middle school (Barton 2006; Eslea and Rees 2001).
Impact on Victims and Bullies
Victims may experience a host of consequences associated
with repetitive bullying attacks. For instance, academic
problems may plague a victim exhibited by truancy,
absenteeism, and school dropout (Kochenderfer-Ladd and
Skinner 2002; Nansel et al. 2007a, b). Adjustment problems
may arise including symptoms of depression, feelings of
rejection, negative self-concept, withdrawal, loneliness,
helplessness, and a sense that he or she deserves to be bullied
(Hampel et al. 2009; Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner 2002;
Woods et al. 2007). Additionally, psychological and
L. A. Cooper (&) A. B. Nickerson
Division of School Psychology, University at Albany,
Albany, NY 12222, USA
e-mail: leighacooper@gmail.com
A. B. Nickerson
Dr. Jean M. Alberti Center for the Prevention of Bullying Abuse
and School Violence, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
1 3
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
DOI 10.1007/s10826-012-9606-0
physical health problems have been linked to bullying
attacks (Nansel et al. 2007a, b). Such consequences may
extend from childhood and continue to impact a victim into
adulthood (Hawker and Boulton 2000).
Like victims, commonalities also are present among
those who commit acts of bullying. A variety of negative
outcomes have been identied among bullies, including a
loss of condence, externalizing problems, inadequate
coping skills, academic difculties, and trouble with
emotional regulation (Kim et al. 2011; Orpinas and Horne
2006). Furthermore, the social supports of bullies can be
impacted, as they often have a difcult time maintaining
interpersonal relationships, experience peer rejection, and
afliate with antisocial peer groups (Lassiter and Perry
2009; Olweus 2011).
Aggressive tendencies appear to be consistent over time,
suggesting that children who bully may continue engaging
in hostile behaviors into adulthood (Farrington and Tto
2011). Aggressive adults are more likely to engage in
domestic violence, workplace harassment, and illegal
activities than non-hostile peers (Craig and Pepler 2007;
Kim et al. 2011; Olweus 2011). Lastly, adults who had
engaged in bullying behaviors in terms of physical and
verbal aggression tend to raise children who act aggres-
sively (Farrington 1993), which suggests a possible cycli-
cal pattern of violence. Consequences are not limited to
adults who bullied others, however; those with a history of
victimization may experience psychological and physical
health problems that persist from childhood into adulthood
(Hawker and Boulton 2000).
Parents of Victims and Bullies
As stated previously, long-term consequences of bullying
can extend into adulthood, impacting bullies and victims as
they enter into the realm of parenthood. Researchers have
focused primarily on parents in relation to their childrens
present bullying or victimization, as opposed to investi-
gating the role of parents who may have been bullies or
victims in the past. Harsh, punitive, and generally stressful
home environments can result in children who are more
likely to be victimized by their peers (Schwartz et al. 2000;
Shields and Cicchetti 2001). The most consistent ndings
about parentchild relationships and victimization concern
enmeshment (Nickerson et al. 2010). Enmeshment, or
emotionally intense, positive interactions, and overprotec-
tion on the part of the parent, has been associated with
increased risk for victimization in observational studies
(Ladd and Ladd 1998), child self-reports (Bowers et al.
1994; Finnegan et al. 1998; Rigby 1999), and interviews
with parents of victimized boys (Olweus 1991).
Children who bully are more likely to grow up with
uninvolved, unempathic, or hostile parents who may be
accepting or permissive of aggressive behaviors; they also
may model aggression by demonstrating a power-assertive
discipline style toward the child or domestic partner
(Bernstein and Watson 1997; Georgiou and Stavrinides
2008; Olweus 1980, 1993a). While both victims and bullies
may be raised under authoritarian parents (Chase-Lansdale
et al. 1995; Schwartz et al. 2000), children raised in a
consistent, authoritative environment are less likely to
engage in bullying (Baumrind 1971).
Recollections of Bullying in Adulthood
Limited research exists that assesses parent experience
with bullying in childhood (Duncan 1999). Despite the lack
of research focused specically on the retrospective recall
of bullying by adults, Rivers (2001) determined adults can
report historical recollections of bullying consistently with
over a year in between reports. Findings suggest that a
variety of maladaptive characteristics of adults have been
linked to a history of self-reported involvement with bul-
lying (Schafer et al. 2004). To date, there exists only one
research study that specically addresses the population of
parents and their recollections of bullying experiences in
childhood. Sawyer (2008) expanded an existing Canadian
research project by interviewing the parents of children
who had been identied as victims of bullying, some of
whom volunteered narratives of their own experiences with
bullying. As the volunteered information was not essential
to this research project, the researcher recommended that
parent history of bullying should be further investigated by
future researchers to help develop a link between the parent
perspective regarding bullying and recommendations made
to parents to help combat bullying (Sawyer 2008).
Parent Involvement in Bullying Prevention
Although parent involvement is essential to reducing
childrens bullying behavior (Baldry 2003; Smith et al.
2008), there is a dearth of research on parents concerns,
reactions, and strategies used to help their children cope
with bullying. Farrington and Ttos (2011) comprehen-
sive meta-analysis of international bullying prevention
programs revealed that parent training was one of the
components of bullying prevention efforts that related to
reduced bullying and victimization. Despite this, a survey
conducted by Sherer and Nickerson (2010) revealed that
practicing school psychologists perceived parental
involvement in bullying prevention and intervention to be
relatively ineffective; increasing the efcacy of parent
involvement was listed as an area in need of improvement.
Another recent research study revealed that parents views
of the school climate may impact whether or not they
intervene with their childs involvement as a bully or
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 527
1 3
victim, or assist with anti-bullying initiatives (Waasdorp
et al. 2011). Similarly, research involving teachers has
shown that teacher beliefs regarding bullying were asso-
ciated with their bullying prevention and intervention
behavior (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier 2008). Fol-
lowing the ndings of Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier
(2008), it is possible that parents normative beliefs may
impact if and how they attempt to resolve bullying situa-
tions. Therefore, it is important to understand the views of
parents if it is desired to alter or improve their response to
bullying. Clearly, there are many areas in need of explo-
ration regarding parents past experiences with bullying, as
well as their concerns and reactions to their childrens
bullying and victimization. Understanding parent personal
experience with bullying may provide insight into both the
long-term impact of bullying in childhood as well as the
best way to involve parents in anti-bullying initiatives.
Present Study
This study aimed to help to develop a research base
regarding parental recollections of experiences with bul-
lying, including parent role in bullying, type of bullying
experienced, impact of bullying, and when bullying
occurred most frequently. Specically, we explored which
bullying experiences parents can recall, both generally and
specically, which is an area with no existing research base
beyond anecdotal information. Additionally, the (a) rela-
tionship between parent historical experience with bully-
ing, (b) parental views and level of concern regarding his
or her middle school childs bullying behavior, and
(c) reactions to bullying and ones own child were inves-
tigated. Hypotheses were as follows:
1. Parents who had a history of involvement in bullying
(as bullies and/or victims) would be able to recall their
experiences.
2. More parents would report experience as a victim over
experience as a bully.
3. The types of bullying identied as most concerning
would be related to parent personal history of bullying.
4. Parents who had been victimized would report more of
a reaction to such behaviors in their own children as
compared to parents who were not personally
involved.
Method
Participants
A total of 260 parents with at least one child enrolled in
one of two suburban middle schools in the northeastern
United States participated in this study. Students in the
district were primarily White, but also came from African
American, Asian/Pacic Islander, American Indian/Alas-
kan Native, and Hispanic backgrounds. The rst school
served approximately 700 students in grades 58; approx-
imately one-third of students came from low socioeco-
nomic status in this school as dened by those receiving
free or reduced lunch costs. The second school served
approximately 860 students in grades 58; approximately
two-thirds of students came from low socioeconomic
status. In addition, the school district had implemented an
anti-bullying initiative as of the 20082009 school year
(specically, the OBPP; Olweus and Limber 2007).
Instruments
The Parent Personal Experience, Views, and Reactions
Regarding Bullying Behavior survey contains 54-items
including four sections designed to evaluate demographic
information, parent personal history of bullying, parent
views and level of concern regarding bullying, and parent
reactions to actual bullying events with his or her child.
Because no one instrument exists that evaluates either these
specic areas or the population of parents regarding these
topics, sections from four existing instruments were
adapted.
Demographics Section
The survey began with a brief demographics section
designed to gather information regarding the respondent
including: gender, age, race/ethnic background, marital
status, and number of children. These questions were
developed by consulting the literature; specically, items
were developed based on the standards put forth by the
United States Census Bureau (2010) and the National
Center for Education Statistics (2010). A second brief
demographic section asked for basic information about the
middle school-aged child about which the parent is
responding. Questions in this section evaluated: gender,
grade, and respondents relationship to the child.
Retrospective Recollection of Bullying
Retrospective recollection of bullying victimization was
measured in part using the Revised Bullying and Rela-
tionship Scale (Revised BRS; Jantzer et al. 2006), adapted
with permission (A. M. Jantzer, personal communication,
May 4, 2010). The original BRS is a self-report measure
divided into subscales by age group designed to evaluate
both bullying experiences and friendship/romantic rela-
tionships from childhood through college. In the Revised
BRS, the relationship subscales were excluded in order to
528 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3
conduct research specically regarding bullying (Jantzer
2006). The Revised BRS demonstrated adequate internal
consistency, with coefcient alpha found to be .93 for the
total scale. The Revised BRS included 24 items rated on a
6-point Likert scale with no neutral option (e.g.,
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly dis-
agree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly
agree). This scale is divided into four subscales to examine
victimization in elementary school, middle school, high
school, and college, respectively.
For the present study, minor changes were made to the
Revised BRS. As the Revised BRS included the same 6
items for each subscale (e.g., items from the elementary
subscale were identical to those from the college subscale),
the subscales were condensed to ask parents to respond
regarding their K-12 school years. Then, one item was
developed to inquire when the majority of these acts
occurred, with responses including elementary school,
middle school/junior high, high school, consistently
during school (K-12), and did not agree to items 15.
This change was made to reduce the repetition of asking
the same questions for each age group, respectively. Par-
ents were not asked if they had experienced cyberbullying,
as this form of bullying was rst formally identied
in 2000 according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary
(Cyberbullying, n.d.), and it was anticipated that asking
regarding cyberbullying in their youth would result in
confusion and inaccurate results. The Likert scale for each
item was altered (e.g., 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes,
3 = Often, 4 = Always) to clarify that bullying acts must
have occurred more than once per week due to the repe-
titious nature of this form of violence; this change was
made as per recommendations by multiple experts in bul-
lying assessment (D. Espelage, personal communication,
October 7, 2010; S. Swearer, personal communication,
October 10, 2010). Higher scores indicate higher levels of
self-reported victimization. For the purposes of this study,
the highest total score is 16, which suggests that the par-
ticipant was victimized through various bullying means.
Retrospective recall of bullying was also examined
using the Retrospective Bullying Questionnaire (RBQ); this
questionnaire evaluates bullying as a global construct
instead of bullying by specic type (see BRS; Jantzer et al.
2006). The RBQ was selected for this study as it was one of
the most commonly used measures found in past research
with adequate reliability. It mimics questions asked of
students by Olweus (1993a), but is presented in a long-term
retrospective manner. While it is limited in scope as it
assesses bullying as a general construct, it was used to
provide a baseline of parent reported involvement as a
bully and/or victim without requiring the parent to recall
the specic type of bullying which occurred. Furthermore,
based on limited existence of retrospective research on
bullying behavior, this was the only retrospective measure
available which assessed bullying involvement as a bully,
victim, or bystander. This 44-item questionnaire was
developed by researchers in Germany, Spain, and the
United Kingdom to examine frequency, duration, and
seriousness of bullying exchanges. The RBQ was based on
a questionnaire developed by Rivers (2001), which was
founded on the research by Olweus (1993a) and has been
shown to produce reliable responses over time. Schafer
et al. (2004) indicated that testretest reliability for this
measure was adequate for both the primary school
(r = .88) and secondary school scales (r = .87). An Eng-
lish version of the RBQ was obtained from the lead author,
who granted permission to alter this measure (M. Schafer,
personal communication, May 6, 2010).
For the purposes of this study, one item was taken from
the RBQ to evaluate general involvement with bullying. As
the Revised BRS focuses on specic types victimization,
this item from the RBQ allows the participant to choose
among options that include involvement as a bully, victim,
or both for bullying as a general construct. While the BRS
helps to examine victimization by type of bullying, the RBQ
examines the respondents role as a bully, victim, or both.
Additionally, the RBQ evaluates bullying as an all-encom-
passing construct, while the BRS distinguishes between
types of bullying behavior. Responses were combined to
indicate if a parent never participated and never or rarely
observed bullying (e.g., bystander), as compared with those
who reported sometimes being involved as a bully, victim,
or both for the purposes of comparing historical involvement
with bullying with the presently occurring constructs.
Views and Level of Concern
The ParentSchool Climate Survey was developed as a
tool to examine parent perceptions of bullying as well as to
document the types of bullying occurring in middle school.
This scale was developed to be parallel with an existing
measure of student perceptions of bullying known as the
School Climate Bullying Survey (SCBS; Cornell and Sheras
2003). For each denition on the ParentSchool Climate
Survey, parents responded regarding if their child had
experienced this type of bullying within the past month.
Additionally, 21 positive and negative statements about
bullying were provided. For all items, parents were asked
to respond on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = Agree, 2 = Not
sure, 3 = Disagree).
The majority of this survey was adapted for use in this
study. Parents were rst asked if their child had been
bullied in the past month; if a parent responded negatively,
he or she was directed to move onto the next question
examining if the child had bullied others in the past month.
If a parent responded positively to either item, he or she
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 529
1 3
was asked to endorse each type of bullying (e.g., physical,
verbal, relational, cyberbullying) with which the child had
been involved. Denitions and examples for each type of
bullying were included within each option. Four items were
adapted from the original survey to also evaluate parent
level of concern regarding each type of bullying behavior
as level of concern was not examined in either survey.
In terms of parent perceptions regarding bullying, 10 of
the 21 items were used for this study. Items selected
examined subjective viewpoints about bullying; items were
not included if they focused on views about the school or
specic reactions to bullying behavior. Some items
appeared to support bullying behavior while others suggest
more prosocial views that bullying should not be tolerated.
Additionally, the responses were changed from a 3-point to
a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes,
3 = Often, 4 = Always); this change allowed for consis-
tency with the rest of the survey as well as the elimination
of the neutral response (e.g., Not sure).
Reactions to Bullying Behavior
As no published research to date has examined how parents
help their children cope with bullying situations, the Parent
Personal Experience, Views, and Reactions Regarding
Bullying Behavior survey was developed in part to evaluate
parental reactions to bullying. One item regarding coping
with bullying was utilized from the section on the RBQ
examining general experiences at school for ones child. As
the original question allowed respondents to check one or
more coping method, this question was expanded to make
each coping method an individual item; respondents were
able to indicate whether or not they have utilized each
coping method via a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Never,
2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always). This change was
made to not only determine if a parent had used a coping
mechanism, but also to determine the frequency with which
it has been used; to date, no systematic research has
examined strategies used by parents.
The Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Activities
scale was developed in order to examine current use of
anti-bullying strategies in American schools according to
school psychologists (Sherer and Nickerson 2010). The
scale included techniques that were determined by con-
sulting the most recent empirical and theoretical informa-
tion available at the time of development; 43 prevention
and intervention techniques were included in all. With
permission from the authors, items from this scale were
utilized in order to evaluate parent reactions to bullying
instances regarding his or her own child. Specically, 11
prevention and intervention techniques were taken from the
Current Bullying Prevention/Intervention Activities scale.
Items selected examined actions parents could take
regarding bullying; items were not included if they focused
exclusively on actions taken by the school or by students.
Parents were asked to respond to each strategy regarding
the frequency of use on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Never,
2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always). An open-ended
response area was included to allow parents to explain if
they had used strategies that are not otherwise listed.
Procedure
The aforementioned items, combined into the Parent
Personal Experience, Views, and Reactions Regarding
Bullying Behavior survey, were accessible to parents
through the internet via PsychData. PsychData is a secure
website allowing for the collection of research data con-
dentially (see www.psychdata.com for more information).
Prior to opening the PsychData survey, the Parent
Personal Experience, Views, and Reactions Regarding
Bullying Behavior survey and the cover letters for the
participating schools were reviewed by two local educators
with expertise in the area of bully prevention. Additionally,
the full survey was piloted with 10 parents in order to
further evaluate the readability, comprehension, and over-
all quality of this survey (Mangione 1995). Minor changes
were made to the wording of the directions based on parent
feedback; no major changes were made to the composition
of the survey.
Once full Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
was obtained, all participants received a letter from the
school administration soliciting their participation in an
internet survey regarding past and present experiences and
thoughts related to bullying. Participants were able to type
in the link given in the letter, and were also directed that
the link was accessible from the school website. Further-
more, a local media publication reported on this survey,
again directing potential participants to the school website.
Upon accessing the link, participants were automatically
redirected to the PsychData survey and asked to read and
consent to participate in this study. Upon providing con-
sent, parents completed the Parent Personal Experience,
Views, and Reactions Regarding Bullying Behavior survey
and were thanked for their participation. As an incentive to
participate, parents were informed that they had the option
to receive the results of this study (Dillman et al. 2009);
information on how to contact the researcher was provided
upon completion of this survey. Additionally, participants
had the option to enter a rafe to win a monetary prize,
which has been found by previous researchers to increase
response rate (Church 1993). Three weeks after parents
received the invitation to participate in the study, a
reminder from the school was sent.
530 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3
Results
Respondents
Two-hundred-seventy-six surveys were completed and 260
were interpretable (e.g., at least one section of the survey
was completed in full). Of the 260 participants, the typical
respondent was female (89.6 %), White (94.3 %), and aged
4150 (56.9 %). Two-hundred-fty-seven participants
indicated the number of children they had, with the
majority reporting more than one child (82.1 %). Of the
256 individuals who indicated marital status, the majority
indicated being married (78.5 %). Demographic charac-
teristics of the middle school child about whom partici-
pants responded are summarized in Table 1. The middle
school students described (N = 230) covered all grades
and included approximately equal amounts of each gender
(male = 52.5 %; female = 47.5 %). Participants typically
identied as being the biological parent to the middle
school child being discussed (91.3 %).
Data Screening
Before data were analyzed, the data were screened to
ensure accuracy. Specically, responses were evaluated
through SPSS for outliers, errors in data entry, missing data
trends, and normality of distribution; additionally, reverse
coding procedures were implemented for some items. Two
cases were found to contain outliers; in each of these cases,
the respondent reported being a non-parent and was
therefore removed from the sample. Identiable errors in
the data (e.g., reporting an age below 20 as a parent of a
middle school student) were corrected for two cases by
replacing with the mean age for that variable; this provides
a conservative estimate of the age of the participants
(Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
Additionally, participants who did not complete any
items were removed from the database as they provided no
serviceable information. Respondents who completed at
least one section of the survey were retained within the
sample. For the occasional missing item, two methods were
utilized. If the item was associated with a categorical
variable, the participant was excluded from that measure.
In contrast, if the item was associated with a continuous
variable, a mean substitution was completed to allow for a
conservative estimate of the actual value (Heppner and
Heppner 2004; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). Additional
data screening measures indicated that 19 participants
completed demographic information exclusively; aside
from describing the demographic characteristics of the
sample (N = 260), the sample consisted of 241 respon-
dents. The majority of respondents completed all survey
items (80.5 %); when controlling for participants who only
completed demographic information, 93.4 % of the
remaining respondents completed all items.
In initial analysis of the sample, it was observed that the
vast majority of participants identied as female (n = 232;
89.6 %). An independent t test was conducted to determine
if mean differences existed among male and female par-
ticipants in this sample; results indicated that Levenes Test
for Equality of Variance demonstrated equal variance.
Therefore, it appears that there were no signicant differ-
ences between the females and males in this sample.
Parent History of Bullying Experience
To determine the frequency with which parents reported
historical involvement with bullying, two measures were
used. First, the RBQ
1
, representative of the rst section
utilized from the RBQ, was used to determine general
involvement in bullying. The BRS was also utilized to
assess parent reports of historical involvement with bully-
ing; this construct evaluated overall victimization, as well
as specic types of bullying. Results of the RBQ
1
and the
BRS are summarized in Table 2.
Based on the responses of the participants in this study,
it appears that most parents were able to recall involvement
with bullying; of 238 respondents, only 9.7 % indicated
that they were uninvolved and unaware of bullying during
their school days. A unique result of this study was iden-
tifying parents that had not participated in bullying, but
who recalled seeing it happen; these individuals would be
known today as bystanders (OConnell et al. 1999). In the
current sample, 34.5 % of participants would be classied
as bystanders. Of parents who reported involvement in
Table 1 Middle school child demographic characteristics
Variable n %
Child gender
Male 120 52.5
Female 110 47.5
Child grade
5 71 30.7
6 68 29.4
7 44 19.0
8 48 20.8
Relationship to child
Biological mother 193 83.9
Biological father 17 7.4
Adoptive mother 8 3.5
Stepmother 1 0.4
Grandparent 8 3.5
Guardian/caregiver 3 1.3
\241 due to missing data
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 531
1 3
bullying (n = 133), 32.8 % reported being victimized
during childhood while 2.5 % indicated bullying others.
Furthermore, 15.1 % of parents reported that they had
experience as both a bully and as a victim at different
points in time. Parents were asked to report on their
experiences with physical, verbal, and two types of rela-
tional bullying. Of the 241 parents who responded, the
most commonly reported involvement was associated with
verbal bullying (57.3 %), followed by relational bullying
by isolation (51.0 %), then relational bullying by spreading
rumors (36.5 %), and, lastly, physical bullying (24.1 %).
Of the 152 participants who acknowledged involvement in
bullying, 45.5 % indicated that bullying most frequently
occurred in middle or junior high school.
Parent Current Reports
Beyond parent historical experience with bullying, parents
were also asked to provide insight into their current views,
level of concern, and reactions to bullying and their middle
school student. To determine parent perceptions regarding
bullying behavior, a total score was generated for responses
on the SCBS
1
(i.e., the rst part of the SCBS pertaining to
current viewpoints associated with bullying). The mean
score of participants suggested slightly positive, prosocial
responses on average (M = 29.19, SD = 5.1), with scores
ranging from 11 to 50. Results of this measure indicate a
wide variety of perceptions regarding bullying behavior.
In order to determine the level of concern that parents
have regarding their childs actual or potential involvement
with various forms of bullying behavior, frequencies of
responses on the SCBS
2
were evaluated, which included
questions selected from the second section of the original
SCBS. The most concerning type of bullying reported by
parents was verbal, with parents indicating slight (26.1 %),
moderate (27.5 %), and strong (17.6 %) concern with more
frequency than other forms of bullying. Relational bullying
was also concerning to parents, with participants reporting
slight (25.6 %), moderate (21.0 %), and strong (15.5 %)
concerns. Participants indicated the least amount of con-
cern associated with cyberbullying and physical bullying,
with close to half of parents indicating no concern (46.2
and 45.2 %, respectively).
To evaluate parent response to bullying, participants
were asked to complete items related to what parents
reported telling their child to do to cope with bullying
(RBQ
2
), as well as what parents have done personally to
help prevent or intervene with bullying (Current Bullying
Prevention/Intervention Activities scale). Parents reported
telling their child to get help from adults with the most
frequency; specically, combined totals indicated parents
most often recommended seeking out help from family/
parents (98.2 %) and teachers (97.3 %). Avoiding the
situation (86.2 %) was also commonly recommended.
Children were less frequently advised to try to negotiate
the bullying exchange independently; 73.1 % of respon-
dents indicated that they would never tell their child to
handle the situation alone, with 66.4 % reporting they
would never tell their child to make fun of the bullying
situation. Respondents were approximately split on whe-
ther or not to tell their child to ght back, with 44.1 %
reporting never telling their child to ght back, while
42.3 % reported telling their child to ght back some-
times. In terms of strategies that parents personally
reported utilizing, the majority of respondents indicated
that they have at least sometimes (a) talked with their
child about bullying (89.8 %), (b) offered suggestions for
coping if the child had been victimized (79.0 %), and
(c) developed ways to avoid contact between the bully and
victim (74.0 %). Approximately one-third (34.4 %) of
parents reported contacting the parent of another child
following a bullying incident.
Table 2 Parent historical involvement with bullying
Variable n %
RBQ
1
I was not involved at all, and I never saw it happen 23 9.7
I was not involved at all, but I saw it happen
sometimes
82 34.5
I would sometimes join in bullying others 6 2.5
I would sometimes get bullied by others 91 38.2
At various times, I was both a bully and a victim 36 15.1
BRS
Physically bullied
a
58 24.1
Verbally bullied
a
137 57.3
Relationally bullied, isolated
a
123 51.0
Relationally bullied, rumors
a
88 36.5
Bullying experienced was hurtful
Strongly disagree 13 5.5
Disagree 7 3.0
Slightly disagree 6 2.5
Slightly agree 19 8.0
Agree 50 21.1
Strongly agree 55 23.2
Did not report experiencing bullying
b
(87) (36.7)
When bullying occurred
Elementary school 38 25.0
Middle school/junior high 69 45.4
High school 36 23.7
Consistently during school (K-12) 9 5.9
Did not report experiencing bullying
b
(86) (36.1)
N\241 due to missing data
a
Frequency for each item out of a possible N = 241
b
Responses not calculated toward total
532 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3
Hierarchical Regression Analyses
A secondary goal of the current study was to determine if
parent historical experience with bullying was predictive of
current views, levels of concern, and strategies used with
ones child to prevent and intervene with bullying. Prior to
entering demographic variables into the analysis, a pre-
liminary screening was conducted to determine if these
variables were associated with the dependent variable
(Kleinbaum et al. 2008). Demographic variables that were
unrelated to the dependent variable were excluded from the
hierarchical analysis. Additionally, choices from the RBQ
1
were consolidated into categories using averages to identify
participants among two groups (0 = uninvolved or
observers, 1 = personally involved in bullying as a victim,
bully, or both). Hierarchical regression analyses were used
to determine if relationships exist between parental history
of experiencing bullying and parents (a) perceptions of
bullying, (b) level of concern regarding bullying, and
(c) reaction to bullying with their own child. Demographic
information was inputted into the rst block of the regres-
sion analysis, with the associated predictor vari-
able(s) entered in the second block for each analysis. Results
suggest that parent history of experience with bullying
provided limited, yet signicant predictive value for some of
the criterion variables. While the results are summarized
below, Tables 3 and 4 provide signicant statistical ndings.
Two predictor variables (parent historical involvement
in bullying as measured with the RBQ
1
, parent gender)
accounted for approximately 5 % of the variance in current
views regarding bullying, adjusted R
2
= 0.05; R
2
change = 0.03; F(1,232) = 6.00; p \.01. These results
Table 3 Hierarchical regression of history of bullying experience on current views and level of concern regarding bullying
Variable F R R
2
Adj. R
2
F change R
2
change B SE B b
Current views of bullying 6.00** .22* .05 .04*
Demographic characteristic 5.66* .020*
Parent gender
a
-2.5* 1.1 -.15*
History of bullying experience 6.21* .030*
History of involvement in bullying .62* .25 .16*
Concern for physical bullying 7.95** .40** .16** .14**
Demographic characteristics 6.52** .074**
Parent age .26* .13 .15*
Child grade -.18** .07 -.18**
Marital status .17** .06 .17**
History of bullying experience 9.24** .084*
History of physical bullying .61** .18 .25**
History of verbal bullying .05 .11 .04
Concern for verbal bullying 3.96** .83* .07* .05*
Demographic characteristic 4.16* .019*
Child grade .35* .15 .16*
History of bullying experience 3.83* .050*
History of physical bullying .45* .19 .19*
History of Relational bullying (rumors) .11 .16 .06
History of verbal bullying .03 .13 .02
Concern for relational bullying 3.40** .24** .06** .04**
Demographic characteristic 3.86* .017
Marital status
b
.12 .06 .12
History of bullying experience 3.20** .042
History of physical bullying .40** .19 .17**
History of relational bullying (rumors) .14 .16 .08
History of verbal bullying -.02 .13 -.10
SE Standard Error, b Beta
* p \.05
** p \.01
a
Gender (1 = female, 2 = male)
b
Marital status (1 = Married, 2 = Single, Never married, 3 = Separated, 4 = Divorced, 5 = Widowed)
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 533
1 3
suggest that male participants and/or participants who had
a greater history of involvement in bullying indicated more
prosocial views in association with bullying. In contrast,
female participants and/or participants with less historical
experience with bullying reported more negative views
associated with bullying behavior.
Total parent historical experience of bullying (measured
by the BRS) was analyzed for predictive ability of current
levels of concern regarding types of bullying behavior
(SCBS
2
). History of involvement with physical bullying
was the strongest predictor of level of concern for physical,
verbal, and relational bullying; when demographic char-
acteristics were included in the equation, between 4 and
14 % of the variance in level of concern was predicted.
When evaluating different coping strategies used by
parents to combat bullying, strategies were grouped into
subcategories (i.e., Resist Bullying, Get Help from Adults);
this technique was utilized to improve reliability by cre-
ating subscales rather than analyzing by single item. The
Resist Bullying subscale consisted of two items, (a) try to
avoid the situation, and (b) try to ignore it. The Get Help
from Adults subscale consisted of two items, (a) get help
from a teacher, and (b) get help from family/parents. Four
of the items on the scale (i.e., ght back, get help from
friends, try to make fun of a bullying situation, try to
handle it alone) were unrelated and treated individually in
data analyses. Although parent history of bullying was not
predictive of what parents report telling their child
regarding bullying, a number of demographic characteris-
tics were found to have predictive value. Two subcatego-
ries were created when evaluating the coping strategies that
parents personally use (General Anti-Bullying/Involve
Others, Specic Anti-Bullying/Involve Own Child).
Results indicate that historical involvement in bullying was
the only variable predictive of the Specic Anti-Bullying/
Involve Own Child subscale of strategies utilized by par-
ents, adjusted R
2
= 0.06; F(1,212) = 13.42; p \.01. This
suggests that a parents historical involvement in bullying
accounts for approximately 6 % of the variance in the
Specic Anti-Bullying/Involve Own Child subscale.
However, parent historical involvement in bullying was not
predictive of the General Anti-Bullying/Involve Others
subscale of strategies implemented.
Discussion
Parent Retrospective Reports of Bullying
and Victimization
The results of this study provide previously unknown base-
line evidence to suggest that the majority of parents are able
Table 4 Hierarchical regression of history of bullying experience on strategies used by parents
Variable F R R
2
Adj. R
2
B SE B b
Told to child: resist bullying 3.97* .13* .02 .01*
Demographic characteristic
Child grade .18* .09 .13*
Told to child: get help from adults 5.69* .16* .03* .02*
Demographic characteristic
Parent gender .87* .37 .16*
Told to child: ght back 7.94** .19** .04** .03**
Demographic characteristic
Parent age -.24** .09 -.19**
Told to child: get help from friends 5.31* .16* .02* .02*
Demographic characteristic
Child gender .31* .14 .16*
Used by parent: general anti-bullying/
involve others
5.07* .15* .02* .02*
Demographic characteristic
Parent ethnicity .94* .42 .15*
Used by parent: specic anti-bullying/
involve own child
13.42** .24** .06** .06**
History of bullying experience
History of involvement in bullying .87** .24 .24**
SE Standard Error, b Beta
* p \.05
** p \.01
534 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3
to recall bullying experiences fromtheir youth. Based on the
average age range of parents (4150) and most commonly
reported time of victimization (middle/junior high school),
the majority of participants appear to be able to recall bul-
lying exchanges fromapproximately 3040 years prior. This
information is consistent with the limited existing literature
where parents willingly disclosed narrative accounts of
bullying situations from childhood (Sawyer 2008). Addi-
tionally, Rivers (2001) demonstrated that retrospective
accounts of bullying reported by adult victims remained
relatively consistent over time, supporting the ability of
adults to recall bullying incidents years after occurrence.
The reported prevalence of parent involvement in bully-
ing suggested that while 32.8 % reported being victimized
during childhood, only 2.5 % indicated engaging in bully-
ing, as measured by the RBQ
1
. Over one-third (34.5 %)
reported acting as bystanders to bullying. Although the study
evaluating parents of victimized children by Sawyer (2008)
contained a very small sample (N = 20), the parents in that
study reported similar trends of involvement in bullying;
specically, 30.0 % of parents reported being victimized
while 5.0 % indicated bullying others. As recent estimates
indicate that over 5.7 million American youth were involved
in bullying as a bully or victim, comprising approximately
32 % of all students nationwide (Dinkes et al. 2009; Nansel
et al. 2007a, b), parent reports suggest tentatively that the
prevalence of bullying involvement has remained relatively
stable over time. In turn, it is likely that the acknowledge-
ment of involvement as a bully is an underestimate, as a
recent assessment determined that approximately 20 % of
middle school students reported engaging in bullying (Rivers
et al. 2009). Underestimating the prevalence of bullying is
not uncommon; for instance, teacher reports of the frequency
of bullying attacks are often considerably lower than reports
made by students (Craig et al. 2000; Schafer et al. 2004). As
reports from parents acknowledging acting as bullies appear
to be underestimated, all responses should be interpreted
with caution as they may also be modest in nature.
It is unknown if results of the current study are indica-
tive that parents have more difculty recalling bullying
others, or if parents were less involved in bullying as
compared to current middle school students. However,
given that reports from the RBQ
1
indicated that over 30 %
of individuals consistently reported being victimized by
others, and over 30 % of uninvolved individuals recalled
observing bullying exchanges, it is likely that more indi-
viduals were involved as bullies than has been either
admitted or realized by the bully. It should also be noted
that 15.1 % of participants indicated that they acted both as
a bully and as a victim during childhood; this would allow
for 17.6 % of the parent participants to be characterized as
bullies, which is considerably closer to the recent estimates
by Rivers et al. (2009). Empirical research on bullying has
identied this subset as bully/victims; it has been suggested
that the majority of bullies have also experienced victim-
ization, comprising the bully/victim group (Nansel et al.
2004; Wolke et al. 2001).
This is the rst known study asking parents to report on
their recollection of bullying experience by type experi-
enced, so there is no previous research with which to com-
pare these results. However, a recent assessment by Wang
et al. (2009) regarding types of victimization experienced
reported similar trends. Of the 7,182 students surveyed, they
reported most frequently experiencing verbal bullying
(53.6 %), followed by relational bullying (51.4 %), and
physical bullying (20.8 %). It should be noted that current
students reported the least amount of involvement in
cyberbullying (13.6 %) as compared to the other types
(Wang et al. 2009). Comparing the current results against
recent assessments evaluating prevalence of bullying by
type, when excluding cyberbullying for lack of comparison,
it appears that experience by type of bullying has remained
relatively stable over time. It should be noted that results of
the original BRS (Jantzer et al. 2006) were reported in terms
of when bullying was experienced; therefore, total scores
were reported by grade-level, as opposed to by type of bul-
lying recalled by the participating adult. Therefore, com-
parisons by type of bullying experienced cannot be inferred
in terms of relating the current results to the original BRS.
Current Views
Beyond what parents report from their personal histories,
this study aimed to determine what parents would
acknowledge regarding their current views, level of con-
cern, and reaction to bullying and their own child. Of the
views parents report regarding bullying, the mean score of
participants on this measure suggested slightly positive,
prosocial responses. The greatest consensus was on an item
stating, Students who are bullied or teased often deserve
it. Of the 235 responses, 78.3 % strongly disagreed with
this statement, and less than 1 % of participants agreed
with this statement. Although the majority of respondents
(57.1 %) indicated that bullying will always occur in
school, it is apparent that the vast majority of parents do
not believe this likelihood is at the fault of the victim.
Overall, the slightly positive trend of responses suggests
that the majority of parents believe that there are actions
that can be taken to prevent bullying, and the dominating
belief is that bullying should not be dismissed as normal.
Level of Concern
Participants indicated the least amount of concern associ-
ated with cyberbullying and physical bullying, and physical
and cyberbullying are reported to occur with the lowest
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 535
1 3
frequency as compared to verbal and relational bullying
attacks (Wang et al. 2009). The basis for the small amount
of concern may be different for these types of bullying.
Physical bullying appears to be the form of bullying most
commonly recognized by adults; therefore, parents may
expect that they would be more easily able to recognize
overt, aggressive acts involving their child as compared to
more covert, non-physical acts. In contrast, cyberbullying
is the most recently identied form of bullying, suggesting
that some parents may be unconcerned due to a lack of
awareness or understanding regarding this form of
aggression.
Parent ratings regarding level of concern for verbal and
relational bullying paralleled recent reports by students
indicating that verbal and relational bullying occur with
greater frequencies than other forms of bullying (Wang
et al. 2009). Both verbal and relational bullying involve
actions that can be taken without leaving physical scarring
(as with physical bullying) or a paper-trail (as with cy-
berbullying); parents may be more concerned with these
forms of bullying as they are less easily detectable by
adults. Based on the social nature of verbal and relational
bullying, adults have reported difculty in identifying if
an argument between friends is typical social behavior or
a bullying exchange (Mishna et al. 2008). Confusion
surrounding what actions are developmentally appropriate
versus unwanted bullying may also contribute to higher
levels of concern for these types of bullying.
Reported Coping Strategies
It is often recommended that parents be included in efforts
to combat bullying (Batsche and Porter 2006; Felix and
Furlong 2008; Olweus and Limber 2007). Parents in the
current study identied utilizing some empirically-based,
recommended strategies to help combat bullying and their
child. In the current study, approximately half of parents
reported involvement by obtaining anti-bullying resources,
attending an anti-bullying presentation, or spreading
information about bullying to others; these proactive
measures are consistent with recommendations for best
practice (Felix and Furlong 2008; Olweus and Limber
2007). It should be noted that the parents recruited for this
study were within a school district that was implementing
OBPP, which could have impacted their responses. Parents
indicated at least occasionally contacting the school fol-
lowing a bullying event with more frequency (58.1 %) than
contacting the parents of a bully or victim after an inter-
action involving bullying (34.4 %). This is consistent with
past research indicating that parents reported contacting the
school more often (45.0 %) than contacting other parents
(14.0 %) following a bullying incident (Holt et al. 2009).
Indeed, it is recommended that parents of a victim contact
the school, not the bullys family, when reacting to a bul-
lying incident because contacting the parent of a bully is
rarely considered effective and may escalate the issue (Holt
et al. 2009; Rigby 2008).
Predictive Relationships
Individuals who identied as female and/or indicated little to
no involvement in bullying based on responses to the RBQ
1
were predictive of more negative views regarding bullying.
While virtually no research has evaluated parent history of
experience with bullying, it was expected that more
involvement with bullying would be predictive of more
negative views regarding bullying, with less involved par-
ents demonstrating the most prosocial views. As victims of
bullying tend to have lower self-condence in adulthood
(Barton 2006; Schafer et al. 2004), it was anticipated that
more parental involvement as a victim would result in more
negative views regarding the ability to stop such behaviors.
While gender was not identied as an expected predictor of
views of bullying, research has shown that males and
females are directed to cope with bullying in different ways,
with males advised to ght back and females taught to avoid
confrontation (Turkel 2007). Results of the current study
suggest that those who experienced bullying in the past may
have successfully overcome the bullying or did not perceive
a considerable negative impact; therefore, bullying may be
perceived as a problem that can be easily resolved, espe-
cially for those who perceive that they were not signicantly
impacted by bullying experienced in childhood. In contrast,
parents who were uninvolved in bullying exchanges during
childhood may identify bullying as an overwhelming prob-
lem; for individuals with less experience with bullying, the
problem may be seen as impossible to resolve, resulting in
the more negative perceptions regarding bullying.
When parent history of involvement with bullying was
evaluated against current level of concern for various types
of bullying, history of experience with physical bullying
was the only type predictive of current levels of concern for
verbal and relational bullying. Although more parents
reported involvement in verbal and relational bullying
exchanges, it appears that that physical bullying may have
a longer-lasting or more severe impact. Additionally, level
of concern for physical bullying was found to be associated
with parent history of involvement with physical bullying.
While parents reported less concern over physical bullying
and less child involvement with this form of bullying, the
increased severity of the long-term consequences of this
form of bullying suggests the importance of regulating any
involvement in physical bullying, even if this form occurs
less frequently than verbal and relational types of bullying.
Parent historical involvement in bullying was not a
signicant predictor of any of the reports regarding what
536 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3
parents advise their child regarding bullying exchanges. It
had been anticipated that experiencing bullying as a child
would impact a how a parent advised his or her child to
negotiate a bullying exchange. Other variables, such as
locus of control, were not studied in the current research,
but may have contributed to parental recommendations
(Fosse and Holen 2007; Hunter and Boyle 2002).
In terms of what a parent is personally doing to prevent
and intervene with bullying, parent historical experience
with bullying as a bully, victim, or bystander was not
associated with parent implementation of strategies on the
General Anti-Bullying/Involve Others scale. Parent his-
torical experience with bullying as a bully, victim, or
bystander was a signicant predictor of the Specic Anti-
Bullying/Involve Own Child subscale; the majority of the
strategies on this subscale are reactive in nature. The pre-
dictive relationship suggests that parents who experienced
or witnessed bullying when in school are more apt to
respond to bullying with their child by discussing the sit-
uation, offering suggestions for coping, increasing super-
vision in unstructured areas, and contacting the school
when compared with parents who had no involvement in
bullying as a child. It is plausible that a parents personal
experience with bullying is associated with an increased
reaction to bullying exchanges involving ones own child.
A parents increased involvement with bullying during
childhood may be predictive of the strategies implemented
with their own child for a number of reasons. First, an adult
who recalls involvement with bullying may also be able
to recall what strategies were effective or ineffective
during childhood. Therefore, personal experience may be
impacting which strategies a parent is willing to imple-
ment. Additionally, a parents recollection of his or her
parents reactions to bullying may also be a driving force;
if the parent recalls that his or her parents did not react in
a desirable fashion, the parent may overcompensate by
ensuring a number of strategies are implemented to prevent
or intervene with current bullying situations. In contrast, it
is understandable that parents who were uninvolved with
bullying during childhood may be less likely to participate
in anti-bullying initiatives. Furthermore, as locus of control
was hypothesized to be associated with what a parent tells
their child to do in association with bullying, it is also
plausible that the strategies implemented by parents may be
associated with this phenomenon. A parent with an internal
locus of control, or a sense of control over a situation, may
be more apt to utilize intervention strategies with his or her
child; in contrast, a parent with an external locus of control
may not intervene as he or she perceives no ability to
change the situation. If history of experience with bullying
has impacted the sense of control that adults in this study
are currently experiencing, as per previous research
(Hunter and Boyle 2002; Fosse and Holen 2007), this may
also impact the strategies with which an adult is willing to
use regarding bullying behavior.
Implications
There are a variety of implications for parents and school
personnel based on the results of this study. Even after adults
have children, the long-term impact of involvement with
bullying can remain within a parents memory. While critics
continue to express concerns regarding retrospective
research (Flick 2006; Hardt and Rutter 2004), the over-
whelming majority of parents aware of and/or able to recall
involvement in bullying is concerning. Even if over 90 % of
parents recalling see and/or participating in bullying within
decades prior is a gross overestimate attributed to error in
memory, it remains clear that watching and participating in
bullying in childhood is not easily forgotten. Educating
adults on the long-lasting consequences of bullying could
provide incentive to act now with preventative strategies in
order to spare children similar long-term impacts.
As current prevalence rates of bullying are relatively
consistent with the results of this study, it is suggested that
bullying trends will continue without considerable inter-
vention by adults. Therefore, it is recommended that par-
ents and school personnel take the lead in raising
awareness regarding the various types of bullying and
possible anti-bullying initiatives that may assist in
decreasing the frequency of bullying attacks. Additionally,
raising awareness of the less commonly known parties
associated with bullying (e.g., bully/victims, bystanders)
and lesser known forms of bullying (e.g., cyberbullying)
may help to identify the widespread impact that bullying
exchanges can have on school communities.
Understanding the experience that a parent has had with
bullying may provide critical information for schools
attempting to implement an anti-bullying initiative (Olweus
and Limber 2007), as parent willingness to participate in
preventative and intervention movements could be related to
personal experience. Furthermore, it is important that schools
become aware of what strategies parents are utilizing in hopes
of reducing bullying; parents may be aware of bullying, yet
intervening with ineffective strategies. If prosocial views can
be harvested, parents may be able to be guided to attempt
using more empirically-based strategies, such as contacting
the school to help deal with bullying, while eliminating those
strategies which may result in more challenges.
Limitations and Future Research
There were several limitations of the current study. First, it
is difcult to know the true response rate of this study as
we were unable to determine how many parents were given
the survey invitation from their child, or how many parents
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 537
1 3
accessed the PsychData website through the school web-
sites. Furthermore, it is unknown if there were differences
among those who responded to the survey and non-
respondents. While this is consistent with the majority of
anonymous surveys and there is no way to conclude if the
non-respondents are, in fact, different from the respon-
dents, the fact remains that the results may have been
impacted by this unknown variable (Dillman et al. 2009;
Mangione 1995). Future researchers may benet from
establishing a way to characterize whether or not differ-
ences exist among these groups.
Another limitation of this study included the relatively
homogenous nature of the sample. Demographically, the
majority of participants fromthe sample of 260 parents were
of a White background (94.3 %), aged between 41 and 50
(56.8 %), and female (89.6 %). While these demographic
characteristics limit the generalizability of this research to
more diverse areas, it is a relatively consistent representation
of parents within this school district. Furthermore, research
suggests that females have been more apt to respond to
surveys regarding bullying than males (Holt et al. 2009;
Stockdale et al. 2002). Although the predominantly female
sample is relatively consistent with past research and no
gender differences were apparent within the sample, it is
recommended that results be generalized with caution based
on limited male respondents. To allow for generalization of
these results to other, more diverse settings, it is recom-
mended that future researchers collect a national sample to
evaluate parent history, views, concerns, and reactions to
bullying among a more diverse population.
This study identied a portion of participants who would
have been considered bystanders to bullying exchanges;
this group demonstrated that those who witness bullying
without active participation continue to recall these
exchanges into adulthood. It is recommended that future
researchers further investigate this group to determine the
long-term impact of observing bullying on bystanders.
Additionally, conducting this survey with a sample of
parents who had experience with cyberbullying may yield
important information in terms of the long-term repercus-
sions of this most recently identied form of bullying.
While this study was aimed at providing baseline data as
to the nature of parent historical experience with bullying,
as well as their coinciding views, level of concern, and
reactions to bullying behavior, this research should only be
regarded as the rst step in including parents in research
related to their personal experiences with bullying. As
small, yet signicant, relationships were found between
parent historical experience with bullying and current
views, level of concern for some types of bullying, and
current responses regarding bullying, it is recommended
that future researchers analyze these relationships more
thoroughly through larger studies with more questions
specic to long-term recollection and impact of involve-
ment with bullying. Additionally, other variables that were
not identied in this study may be able to account for some
of the missing variance. Furthermore, a childs experience
with and reactions to bullying incidents could be impera-
tive as a potential predictor accounting for some of the
remaining variance. Future researchers may expand this
study to include assessments of locus of control, empathy,
perspective-taking, anti-bullying education, attachment
styles, and parenting styles to create a more comprehensive
model of predicting parent views, level of concern, and
reactions to bullying behavior.
To date, there has been very little research dedicated to
adult history of experience with bullying and the potential
impact on children (Mishna et al. 2008). Results of the
current study suggest that bullying can be recalled long
after the actual incident occurred, with over 90 % of par-
ents in the current sample recalling some involvement as a
bully, victim, or bystander. Given that the prevalence rates
have remained relatively stable over time, it is likely that
this trend will continue without considerable intervention
by schools, parents, and students alike. As experience with
bullying was shown to have slight predictive ability
regarding the current views, level of concern, and reactions
by parent regarding bullying, it appears that intervening
with bullying during childhood could potentially alter the
trajectory of this prevalent form of violence. Understanding
parent historical experience with bullying may help schools
to better collaborate with parents to reduce the amount of
bullying behavior plaguing students today.
References
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic
violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 713732. doi:10.1016/
S0145-2134(03)00114-5.
Barton, E. A. (2006). Bully prevention: Tips and strategies for school
leaders and classroom teachers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Batsche, G. M., & Porter, L. J. (2006). Bullying. In G. Bear & K.
Minke (Eds.), Childrens needs III: Development, prevention,
and intervention (pp. 135148). Bethesda, MD: National Asso-
ciation of School Psychologists.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Devel-
opmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1103. doi:10.1037/h003
0372.
Bernstein, J. Y., & Watson, M. W. (1997). Children who are targets of
bullying: A victim pattern. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
12, 483498. doi:10.1177/088626097012004001.
Borg, M. G. (1998). The emotional reactions of school bullies and
their victims. Educational Psychology, 18, 433443. doi:
10.1080/0144341980180405.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family
relationships of bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle
childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,
215232. doi:10.1177/0265407594112004.
538 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Wakschlag, L. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995).
A psychological perspective on the development of caring in
children and youth: The role of the family. Journal of
Adolescence, 18, 515556. doi:10.1006/jado.1995.1037.
Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail
survey response rates: A meta-analysis. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 57, 6279. doi:10.1086/269355.
Cornell, D., & Sheras, P. (2003). School climate bullying survey.
Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia, Virginia Youth
Violence Project.
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From
research to practice. Canadian Psychology, 48, 8693. doi:
10.1037/cp2007010.
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying
in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology
International, 21, 2236. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66,
710722. doi:10.2307/1131945.
Cyberbullying. (n.d.). In Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary
(11th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/cyberbullying.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet,
mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design model
(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T. D. (2009). National
center for education statistics: Indicators of school crime and
safety: 2007. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://nces.
ed.gov.
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: The
relationship between child abuse, bully victimization, and psy-
chological distress. Child Maltreatment, 4, 4555. doi:10.1177/
1077559599004001005.
Eslea, M., & Rees, J. (2001). At what age are children most likely to
be bullied at school? Aggressive Behavior, 27, 419429. doi:
10.1002/ab.1027.
Espelage, D. L, Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the
social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326333. Retrieved
from http://web.ebscohost.com.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In
M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual
review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 381459). Chicago: University
of Chicago. doi:10.1093/her/cyg100.
Farrington, D. P., & Tto, M. M. (2011). Bullying as a predictor of
offending, violence and later life outcomes. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 21, 9098. doi:10.1002/cbm.808.
Felix, E., & Furlong, M. (2008). Best practices in bullying prevention.
In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology (5th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 12791289). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychology.
Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998).
Victimization by peers: Associations with childrens reports of
mother-child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 10761086. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.4.1076.
Flick, U. (2006). How to design qualitative research: An overview. In
An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 135145).
London: Sage.
Fosse, G. K., & Holen, A. (2007). Reported maltreatment in childhood
in relation to the personality features of Norwegian adult
psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
195, 7982. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000252312.98109.d4.
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2008). Bullies, victims, and bully-
victims: Psychosocial proles and attributional styles. School
Psychology International, 29, 574589. doi:10.1177/01430343
08099202.
Hampel, P., Manhal, S., & Hayer, T. (2009). Direct and relational
bullying among children and adolescents: Coping and psycho-
logical adjustment. School Psychology International, 30,
474490. doi:10.1177/0143034309107066.
Hardt, J., & Rutter, M. (2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports
of adverse childhood experiences: Review of the evidence.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 260273. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00218.x.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years research on
peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-
analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441455. Retrieved from http://
www.wiley.com.
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult
recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research,
43, 133146.
Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing you
thesis, dissertation, & research: A guide for students in the
helping professions. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson
Learning.
Holt, M. K., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/
child concordance about bullying involvement and family
characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal
of School Violence, 8, 4263. doi:10.1080/15388220802067813.
Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control in the
victims of school bullying: The importance of early intervention.
Educational Research, 3, 323336. doi:10.1080/0013188022000
031614.
Jantzer, A. M. (2006). Retrospective reports of bullying victimization,
college adjustment, and the role of coping (masters thesis).
Retrieved from author on June 8, 2010.
Jantzer, A. M., Hoover, J., & Narloch, R. (2006). The relationship
between school-aged bullying, and trust, shyness, and quality of
friendships in young adulthood. School Psychology Interna-
tional, 27, 146156. doi:10.1177/0143034306064546.
Juvonen, J., & Graham, J. (2001). Peer harassment in school: The
plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford.
Kim, M. J., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2011).
Bullying at elementary school and problem behaviour in young
childhood: A study of bullying, violence and substance use from
age 11 to age 21. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21,
136144. doi:10.1002/cbm.804.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Nizam, A., & Muller, K. E. (2008).
Applied regression analysis and multivariate methods (4th ed.).
Pacic Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers views
and beliefs about bullying: Inuences on classroom management
strategies and students coping with peer victimization. Journal
of School Psychology, 46, 431453. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.
07.005.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Childrens coping
strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 38, 267278. doi:10.1037//
0012-1649.38.2.267.
Ladd, G. W., & Ladd, B. K. (1998). Parenting behaviors and parent-
child relationships: Correlates of peer victimization in kindergar-
ten? Developmental Psychology, 34, 14501458. doi:10.1037//
0012-1649.34.6.1450.
Lassiter, W. L., & Perry, D. C. (2009). Preventing violence and crime
in Americas schools: From put-downs to lock-downs. Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus bullying
prevention program: Lessons learned from the eld. In D.
Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American Schools: A
social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention
(pp. 351363). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540 539
1 3
Mangione, T. (1995). Mail surveys: Improving the quality. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Mishna, F., Wiener, J., & Pepler, D. (2008). Some of my best
friendsExperiences of bullying within friendships. School
Psychology International, 29, 549573. doi:10.1177/014303430
8099201.
Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J.
(2004). Cross-national consistency in the relationship between
bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 730736. doi:
10.1001/archpedi.158.8.730.
Nansel, T. R., Haynie, D. L., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2007a). The
association of bullying and victimization with middle school
adjustment. In J. Zins, M. Elias, & C. Maher (Eds.), Bullying,
victimization, and peer harassment: A handbook of prevention
and intervention (pp. 4965). Binghamton, NY: Routledge.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., & Pilla, R. (2007b). Bullying behaviors
among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,
20942100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Demographic factors
summary. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/nies/nies_2009/nas_sum_02.asp/.
Nickerson, A. B., Mele, D., & Osborne, K. (2010). Parent-child
relationships and bullying. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, &
D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of bullying in schools: An
international perspective (pp. 187197). New York: Routledge.
OConnell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in
bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of
Adolescence, 22, 437452. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0238.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of
aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: A causal analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 16, 644660. doi:10.1037//0012-
1649.16.6.644.
Olweus, D. (1991). Victimization among school children. In
R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets of violence and aggression
(pp. 45102). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we
can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-
term outcomes. In K. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social
withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315341).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (2011). Bullying at school and later criminality: Findings
from three Swedish community samples of males. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 151156. doi:10.1002/cbm.806.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (2007). Olweus bullying prevention
program: Teacher guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a
positive school climate and developing social competence.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of
secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
69, 95104. doi:10.1348/000709999157590.
Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators
can reduce bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rivers, I. (2001). Retrospective reports of school bullying: Stability of
recall and its implications for research. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 19, 129142. doi:10.1348/02615100
1166001.
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing
bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness
status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211223. doi:10.1037/
a0018164.
Sawyer, J. L. (2008). The missing voice: Parents understanding of
bullying (Unpublished masters thesis). University of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Schafer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchan, J.
A., Singer, M. M., et al. (2004). Lonely in the crowd:
Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 22, 379394. doi:10.1348/0261510041552756.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2000).
Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early
harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer
group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 646662. doi:10.1037//
0012-1649.36.5.646.
Sherer, Y. C., & Nickerson, A. B. (2010). Anti-bullying practices in
American schools: Perspectives of school psychologists. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 47, 217229. doi:10.1002/pits.20466.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and
emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victim-
ization in middle school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-
ogy,30, 349363. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_7.
Smith, P., Smith, C., Osborn, R., & Samara, M. (2008). A content
analysis of school antibullying policies: Progress and limitations.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 24, 112. doi:10.1037/
a0022748.
Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., Sarvela, P.
D. (2002). Rural elementary students, parents, and teachers
perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior,
26, 266278. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from EBSCO.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Turkel, A. R. (2007). Sugar and spice and puppy dogs tails: The
psychodynamics of bullying. Journal of the American Academy
of Psychoanalysts and Dynamic Psychiatry, 35, 243258. doi:
10.1521/jaap.2007.35.2.243.
United States Census Bureau. (2010). The Questions on the form:
Census 2010. Retrieved from http://2010.census.gov/2010
census/how/interactive-form.php/.
Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The link
between parents perceptions of the school and their responses to
school bullying: Variation by child characteristics and the forms
of victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103,
324335. doi:10.1037/a0022748.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying
among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal,
relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45,
368375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., & Schultz, H. (2001). Bullying
and victimization of primary school children in England and
Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of
Psychology, 92, 673696. doi:10.1348/000712601162419.
Woods, T., Coyle, K., Hoglund, W., & Leadbeater, B. (2007).
Correlates of school victimization: Implications for prevention
and intervention. In J. Zins, M. Elias, & C. Maher (Eds.),
Bullying, victimization, and peer harassment: A handbook
of prevention and intervention (pp. 339388). Binghamton,
NY: Routledge.
540 J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:526540
1 3