HALAMAN 1

EXAMINING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN

PEFICEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT IN ADOLESCENCE
AND BULLYING IN TERMS OF PREDICTION
ASSIST. Paor, De. ASnuLL,=-,n l$lKLAIEl',
De,orrrrrnenr of Educ-nrinnnl Sciencer, Ercr'yeS Uru'verSt'ry
Knyreri, 38039, Turlce_v
ASSIST, Paor, Du, ALI Havoau San
Deprtrtutenr r.g;t"Er!rrr*rrrirJrrul 5'cr'ertr*eS, Snlcnryn Unr'verSt'ry
Snalo:tr_vn, 543oI9, Tunlnay
M, Sc, S'l"U[ZIEl"~lT ASLIHAH CELIK
Mnrrrer cfrttrdentr. Erct'_veS Urti1ver,Sir;-.*
Ko_v,Seri, 38039, Turkey,
ThiS reaearch waS carried out to eaamine perceived Social Sup-
port in adoleScence and bullying. l 12 femaleS and I'll tnaleS [in
total 283} attending difierent typeS of high SchoolS were uSed in
thiS reSearch. The Sample group includeS StudentS who were
referred to guidance and counSeling Service aS bullieS, Accord-
ing to the reSearch reSultS; when ettamining the path diagram
between family Support and peer Support, and mocl-ting and
property aggreSSion. family Support predictS mocking poaitively
but predictS property aggreSSion negatively, At the Same time,
peer Support predictS mocking which iS the Sub-dimenSion of
bullying negatively. On the other hand, family Support which iS
the Sub-dimenSion of the perceived mu[ti-dirnenSional Social
Support predictS Social bullying which iS the dimenaion of bul-
lying Scale poaitively; peer Support and Special Support which
are the Sub-dimenSion of the perceived multi-dimenSional Social
Support predict bullying negatively.
Kcywordat Bullying, llamily Support, peer Support, Special Sup-
port
Introduction Pikin, 2010}, on purpoSe {Gi:il<let', 2009}
To date, bullying iS a problem that haS to Show So-called dominance or power over
increaSed and haS to be prevented in weak oneS (Eilgic; dc Yurtal, 2009; Smith,
SchoolS. Generally, bullying haS many def- 2004}. AS for the other reSearcherS, it iS
initionS: it iS defined aS aperSon ora group argued that bullies are the StudentS who
of people doing harm {Ada, 2010: draw attention and can be provoked withu
Andreou,2001}intentionallytl-iector,Bar- out any impulSion and there muSt be a
rioS, DioS, Montero, dz Barrio, 2003} and harmful behavior if we call it aS bullying.
eml:-arraSSing Someone repeatedly [AyaS ThuS, we cannot conSider all the aggres-
dr, Pikin, 20! l; Barbo:-r.a, Schiamberg, Sive behaviorS aS bullying; the definition
Oehmke, KoraeniewSki. PoSt-Lori, dc generally needS (1) acting withoutany rea-
Heraua, 20113; OConnell, dz Debra, 1999; Son (O"Connell, EL Debra, I999), and (2)
BB9
HALAMAN 2
BQU I Educatinn Vnl. 132 Mn. 4
repeated and intentinnal behavinr. Bully- Besides, parents" nverprntectinn tnwards
ing has three types nf peuple in terms nf children and adnlescents and lackntwarm-
participatinn: the bully, the vietimtthe bul- ing behavinrs are nther factnrs fnr
lied) and the bystander ts-ltndrenu. 2U[ll: victimizatinn. In mnst cases. the rnles nf
Smith. 2[l'l}4). Apart frnm all nfthese. there peers in adnlescents' lives are inevitable.
is anntherrnle in bullying issue: the bully- Accnrding tn a research. uncured adnles-
victim t_Bnllmer, Harris 3.: Ivlilich, EUIISJ. cents receive less sneial suppnrt amnng
Bullying has twn main sides: direct bully- their peers tlvlalecki :5: Ellint. I999}. The
ing and indirect bullying. The first is related research questinn is as fnllnws:
tn physical sides nfbullying(hitting.l<icl<;- 1. What is the strength (capacity) nf
ing and threatening snmenne ete.J: the latter the multi dimensinnal suppnrt level
is related tn the sneial cnnditinns nf pen- in terms nf bullying?
ple {spreading rumnrs. nnt giving
permissinn tn be invnlved in a grnup nr a Method
game, teasing nr nicknaming etc.}. Accnrd-
ing gender aspect. girls generally pre fer tn Pam}:-i_r:.:mr.v
use indirect bullying [Nansel et al. 2001} The pnpulatinn in this study was select-
and it is certain in mnst nftbe research that ed atnnng the students nf Kayseri High
bnys are mnre likely tn bully [generally Sehnnl. lvlimar Sinan Vncatinnal High
using physical fnrm nf bullying} and In be Sehnnl and Zubeyde Hantm Girls High
victims than girls {whn generally prefer tn Sehnnl in Turkey. In the prncess nf deter-
use verbal bullying) {Al<saray. ZUI 1: Ayas mining the sample, a relatinnal scanning
3.: Pikin. Zlll l: Aypay dc Durmu. Zllllfil: tnndel was used and the sample cnnsists nf
Olflnnnell. dc Debra, I999; Clakan :51: (;ift- the students and high sehnnls. The sample
ei, 2010). nf this study included a tntal nf 283 stu-
Hnwever. little research has been car- dents: l 12 (39.6%) female and I'll
ried nut nn the rnles nf suppnrting bullying (60.4%) male students. which were select-
sn far(Hnlt&Espelage, 20-{)6}-.In aclditinn. ed using the disciplines students frntn
sneial suppnrt when giving adnlescents disciplinary punishments. The sehnnls
fnr facingthe difficulties and measurement being included in this study were chnsen
nf sneial suppnrt have nnt been studied amnng the students whn were received dis-
widely (Malecki 3: Ellint. I999). Fncuses ciplinary punishments by disciplinary
nf interests are generally nn family and cnmmittees in sehnnls.
peers. Parental effects certainly appear in
tnnst nf the characteristics nf a persnn. If la-.trru.-m:-vn.~.'
a child nr an adnlescent espnse tn physi-
cal vinlenee. sfhe will prnbably shnw much Determining Bully-Victims Scale:
mnre aggressinn than their peers having a In this study. Determining Bully-Vic-
gnnd family relatinnships [Spriggs, Lan- tims Scale which was develnped by
nntti, Hansel, 3: Haynie. 200?) as the Mynard and Jnseph [2000] was used tn
vinlence is mndeled by the adnlescents. determine the participants" levels nf bul-

HALAMAN 3

Examining the Correlation... I 391
tying exposure. The original scale is a self- Findings
rating scale that has 16 items being replied The main objective of this study is to
in 3 steps. The highest score that can be setand analyze astructural equation model
taken from the scale is 32. and the lowest as there are cause-and-effect relationships
one is U. The validity and reliability of the between the variables. In accordance with
scale are detennined to be satisfactory after this. the suggested mode! is shown in Fig-
making an adaptation study carried out by ure 1. The ways in this structural equation
Gtiltekin and Sayil (2005) (Gtiltekin & model which are shown in one-way arrows
Saytl. 2005}. As for the analysis about the between the variables in fact reflect the
reliability of the scale. Cronbach alfa coef- hypotheses of the research. Accordingly;
ficient of consistence rates are found as family support. peer support and special
follows: fortbe whole ofthe scale .92. for support affect frightening. open aggres-
the frighteningf intimidating flti. for mock- sion. mocking. relational aggression and
ing .30. open aggression .'r'9. relational property aggression [Figure 1.)
aggression .?5. and aggression against per-
sonal properties .80.
Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support:
The MSPSS is a self-reported instru-
ment developed by Zimet et al. ( I 983} that
measures perceived support from three
domains: family. friends. and a significant
other. Respondents use a 3"-point Likcrt-
type scale (ranging from .'i.'f.Ft}'tIgf_} rh'srrgr*ee
to strongfv rrgrce} with each item. Zitnet
et al. investigated and found internal reli-
ability estimates of .88 for total score and
87. .85. and .91 for the Family. Friends.
and Significant Other subscales. Factor
analysis of the MSPSS confinned the three-
factor structure of the measure. In the
present study. the Turkish version of the
MSFSS [Eker 3: Arkar. 1995] was used.
According to Elcer et al.. the factorial struc-
ture of the MSPSS was confirmed and the
internal reliability was estimated to be .39
for the total score and .35. .88. and .92 for
the Family. Friends. and Significant Other
subscales.
HALAMAN 4
B92 1' Education Vol. 132 No. 4
Figure 1. Made] of the Hyputhesis
E 4-

Family
Sup-pun Upen
Aggression
Pm-_-1- } Mmzking
Suppun

-..V
Special Relaliurrual
Suplmn F-ggresstnn
F'ru[:ert1.'
Xiggrcssiuli

HALAMAN 5

Examining the Correlation... I893
Figure 2. Path Diagram for the Relationship between Multiple Dimensional Social Support
and Bullying
Support
um n.i'.r 1- use
-939 -11.15 -0.1?

pcfl Property
Supnflfl Aggression
1.111} + I13!
Chi-Square=l I .56. df=2. P-valuc=t1flfl3fl9. R]v'iSEA= '3. ISI
T value for the relationship between ly support predicts mocking positively, but
family support and mocking is found 5,05. predicts property aggression negatively.
peer support and mocking -7,13. and fam- Besides, it is found out that peer support
ily support and property aggression -2,55. predicts mocking negatively. Total effect
Special support is excluded from the analy- of family support and peer support is found
sis as it does not predict bullying. When as R3=0,l31.
analysing the path diagram between fam-
ily support. peer support, mocking and
property aggression, we found that fami-

HALAMAN 6

894 I Education Vol. 132 No. 4
Figure 3. The Relationships between Social Support and Bullying
Frightening M"
-I-
l-'an'n'Iy
I1]-pen n._-_r;
Aggression
-'l.'I.Io II..t- Propcrljr I:I.asI
S ecial
Relationaal in M7
-ttggrcssion
Chi-Square=l29.i]fl, df=li', P-va1ue=l].l]{}Dfl[}. RlvlSEA= H.143

T value for the relationship between support negatively. In other words, the
family support and social support is found more increase in the family support, the
4,22, peer support and social support -436, more increase in the social support; the
and special support and social support - more peer support and special support, the
3,34. T value for the relationship between less social support level is observed. Social
bullying and open aggression is 4, I l, bul- support prevents bullying behaviors in the
lying and mocking -3,CIE, bullying and level of-CI,23. Tntal effects offamily sup-
relational aggression 3,63, and bullying port, peer support and special support is
and property aggression -3,41. As analye- R2: 0,143.
ing the path diagram between multiple
dimensional social support and bullying; Discussion
it is revealed that family support, peer sup- Considering the research results, there
port and special support predict bullying. is a negative correlation between peer sup-
In the result of the analysis. it is conclud- port, which is the sub-dimension of the
ed that family support predicts social perceived tnulti-dimensi-anal social sup-
bullying positively, conversely, peer sup- port scale, and mocking, which is the
port and special support predict social sub-dimension of the bullying scale. In


HALAMAN 7

Examining the Cerrelatien... F3535
general perspectives. when peers begin te pert causes anxiety and depressien. which
decrease their suppert tewards their friends. happen as a result ef bullying. te decrease
adnlescents feel the pressure ef mecking. {Helt 8: Espelage. 2006}. Anether kind ef
On the centrary. if adelescents feel much eentradictery evidence abeut family sup-
mere suppert ameng their peers. their self- pert is that mere parental invelvement in
eenfidence perceptien increases [Malecki male adnlescents" scheel life can cause
3:. Elliet. 1999}. bullying behavier and being espesed tn

Similarly. there is a pesitive cerrelatien bullying. partly because it has a cennectien

between the sub-diniensien ef the secial between parental invelvement and inde-
suppert. family suppert. and the sub- pendence(Nansel etal. 2001).
dimensien ef the bullying. meci-ting. On the ether hand. itisindicatedinthe
Mentiened befere. there is a negative cer- analyses that the sceres ef the adnlescents
relatien between peer suppnrt and having peer and special suppnrt predict
mecking. The reasen why it might be se bullying. Special suppnrt and secial sup-
is that especially fer victims er bully-vic- pert predict each ether negatively. One
tims. negative friendship aspects Uealeusy esplanatien might be that adnlescents gen-
er giving up their peer suppert tewards the erally begin te lese their pepularity ameng
adnlescents] can play reles abnut hnw ade- their peers when they are espesed te bul-
lescents feel and perceive the peer suppnrt lying (Rebert Q. Valles. 200?}.
{I-lelt 3: Espelage. 2006). It can be that When analyzing bullying in the tetal
suppert frem the familiar surreundings. in sceres we have feund. bullying and epen
which adelescents have clese relatienships aggressien {it can be censidered as indirect
{e.g. family}. taken tegether with the secial aggressien as well) can be predictive ef
envirenment [e.g. peers] prevent bullying each ether. which means that bully ade-
in mest cases. In sncial sense. the rnles ef lescents use vielence against the ether
peers in adnlescents lives are inevitable. peers. as well. Hewever; family suppnrt.
Thus. because efthe main reles efthe peer which is the sub-dimensien ef the secial
suppnrt in adnlescents lives. it becemes suppert. and epen aggressien. which is the
impertant especially fer the bully peers te sub-dimensien ef the bullying predict each
understand the victims feelings and the ether negatively. In similar ways. there is
peint ef views {Kuil-t Fast. 20] I }. Even if a negative cerrelatien between family sup-
elder adnlescents need less secial suppert pert and preperty aggressien. which is the
than the yeunger enes. {Helt 3: Espelage. sub-dimensien ef the bullying. It can be
2006: Malecki :3: Elliet. 1999) secial sup- censidered that family suppnrt have much
pert preserves its main impnrtance in all mere pesitive streng impact against pre-
parts ef their lives. Despite the impnrtance venting bullying. Te sum; family suppert.
ef the family facter which still sheuld be peer suppert and special suppnrt predict
taken inte censideratien during adeles- bullying significantly. Theugh. further
cence. adelescents de net seem te prefer research is needed fer analysing the rela-
using maternal suppnrt. Interestingly. it is tienships between secial suppnrt and
indicated that getting mere maternal sup- bullying.
HALAMAN 8
896 I Edueatien val. 132 Ne. 4
References Hecter, Berries. iii... Dies. M._.l. Mentern, l. :51:
Ad . _. Barnes. ti. D. (2lIiI.']3}. The lneidenee Peer Bul-
a, 5. (2fllEI}. Analyzing peer bullying nffith.
lying As Multiple Maltreatment Among
Tith and 3th grades primary seheel students S . h S d S h I St d I I I
frern the aspect at" different variables in Erau- _llfl"': jmlil all-ll '3 _DP hell, 5' i Er?
ruin. Etiiicaiicvi and Science. 35, I53, EH}-lflil. gfiiriflfflgjigyfiififljif H Egg)" H"
t:
Ftkaaray. S. (EH1 I}. Cyher Bullying. Czrkrrrava
Uafver'at't}= Jaurnaf t;gfIrt.rtt'tttte af3ar::'a: S:?:'- Huh N1]_'55fl K Efipclagflt Dmmhy L1 (2Ufl}'
E_.c.E_._3. (EH)! 21 4fl5*432_ FLITLE1VEd$[f1fi[1fl1~Il:[?pflHJfl}I11flIl% AE;:11E3g V13
Imst an u g,r- re rma. ea I er eseenee.
andreeu, E. [2t]fl1). Eullytvietim prebleme and gear, 3e;9g4_994_
their aaeeeiatien with eepirtg behavieurin eet1- _ _ I
ietual peer interaetiene ameng aeheel-age K"k FEEL N3_='*1 V3! [ml - A PW Stud? F
ehiltiren. Edtteatiarrai Far-che!agi'. 3!. 59-fie. E3113 Eullyni EgPEFE'35 f_Ch_l[_1;lrEUWtf
tutter an t e eping trategies ey ae in
AFHS, T & M. Ifli-"E5Iig3.tii]'fl CIfbUl- Refipfll-I53 L]'ni1,_.-Ersity DfA[bErta_ Edfnflntflnl
lying among high aehflnl students with regard {j3n3d3_
te aeit, grade level and aeheel type. Eiemen- I
tans Eam;*atieri Omline, H} [E], SSE!-5&8. Mfllfilfigigfhigllffi KIl'5R3i Ell1*3l~f5lPEPhE1} Na
e eaeenta* atin 5 e ereewe
fi"1"'P33'- A 3'5 D"5~ E- l2fl[l3l- Elifllljlallfln f Seeia] Snppert and Ite Impertganee: falidatien
Cneperativeneaa as a Character Attribute Fer mc mg gmdflnt sflcial Suppfln Scam P_,_.w.hmi_
High Sflflfll Stlltlflflts Wllil Hilltlldflfl Elf B11-ll}; Hg. I-H H-IE 3.h.flmr3* Vfl]_ 36$];
Self-Confident anti Avetdant from Bullying.
Ankara Uniyereity, Journal .;fFm:-mn- qf'Edr:- Mynarcl, H and Jeeeph. S+[2{}fl{}).[Jeyeiepment at"
eatiarza! Sciences. {4}} 2. 23-42. the multidirnentinnal Peer Vietirniaatinn Seale.
J * I 34 ' '1 B! *' .2ti, lfi9-lTE.
Earheaa, Gt El, Schiamherg, L. E.. Dehnike, .l., mum Elf ggmmle E lmmw
Keraeniewaki, S. .I.. Peat-Lari. .41. fit I-ierauit. Naneel, T. IL. {}yeI']::eel<, l'yl., Filla. R. 5., Ruan.
(LG. {ZHUS}. Individual Charaeteriatiea and W. .i.. Sin1ena-Mer1en B. 3: Seheidt F. {2[l{il].
the Multiple Cunte:-tta ufhduleaeent Bullying: Bullying Eehayiera Arnung US Yeuth: Preyau
An Eeelegieal Perspective. Springer Seienee lenee and Asaeeiatien With Psyehesereial
BUSHIESS Medias LLC Adjustment. Jemviaf t;fAmer't'eeu Medical
eitgig e. a vurtai. F. tzeesi. an invesiigattun "'"""""*"""'' 9'" 335' l' l lE1L*'i--l-l"
-at Bullying in acverdine Iv Classrvem Cli- t}CenneI_.P..s.: Debrs,C.w.ttss9_i. PeertnveIve-
mate. Jem'ri-.el ef T}Ieur_1' ea.-:1 F'rtIttt'u:'t: I'M ment in hullying: insights and ehallenges fer
Efllilfflfiflflr 5 l2}3l3fl'l'5'4~ interventien. ..-e1trnel' ef.icfeiese'eriee. 3. 43'?-
aultmer, J. rv1., Harris. ivt. .1. s: Milich. R- {mes}. 453-
Reactivns tn bvilvins and veer victimization: dzkan. v. a cieci. ea. {sets}. veer bullying in
N_31i3llr'E5 Ph}3i'?'l'3'E1'331 3i'_"5'1i5iil~ iifld Fi'31'5'3'i1* primary sehuels in luw seeie-
eennemie level.
Egg?-E=%'i'53" '5} -R'i?5"3"-'""i3"l'i "3 FE""*'i'i3-"i5"'l'.-i'- 40+ Efarrieritaij-' Edttr;'r:Ill"fl.fl
Uriffrte. EH3}. 576-535.
Piskin, M. {EUIU}. Eaaminatien ef Peer Bull in
E]-ter. D. $5 Ari-tar, H.{ 1995}. Faeterial Frame ef Amflng primary and Middic 3L.]mfll Chilgrgfi
the Perceived Mltl'D_l"le5l3] swig] SPF in Ankara. Edaearinn and Science. 35.156.
pert Scale and Validity and Reliability.
Jae;-mi iyrriiveiee P.v,ieauiagv_ 34; 45- 55. Ruben Q. italics. Jr. t2flfl7'}. How Succsssiiui Hiah
Sh lStd ti" W'thBl1' :9. l-
Gijkler, R. {2[l{lEi}. Peer bullying in seheels. Iiiii-'-r- itgtiilg stuud:?;flcf$,:} D1i55E:at:;:]g Qua
natinnnl Jiviirrtnl bf Himimi .3cieiic'e.?. 4'5. P l
2.511-53?. Smith, P.K_ t.'tt}fl4}. Bullying: Reeent develnp-
l'l.:i id i=.- ilw ii
Gaiiekin, z a: sayii, M. iznnsi. naemaning and i;f;"9_]lfl3 if " W li'l H3
Develeping Bullying Scale. Jtiiu-riiii bf Tiii-in
isii Psycireingv. 3 [15] 4?-bl.


HALAMAN 9

Examining the Correlation... at B9?

Spriggs. I-'L.L.. Lennotti. R. .F., Neneel. T.R. .3:
Haynie. ELL. [2l'.][}?]. Adolescent httllying
int-'ol'~rement and perceived family. peer and
school relations: Commonalitiee and differ-
ences across recer ethnicity. Jorrmof of
Aooa'e.scem Heofrh- 4H3); 283-293.

Zimet. (3.11. Powel. 5.5. 3.: Farley, GK. etc
(1983). Psychometric characteristics of the
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support. Jormtof o,I'"Per3oce! A3.re.rs. 55: fill}
61?.