Stress, Trauma, and Crisis

ISSN: 1543-4613 (Print) 1543-4591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcit20

Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization in a

Rural School

CATHERINE N. DULMUS , MATTHEW T. THERIOT , KAREN M. SOWERS & JAMES

A. BLACKBURN

To cite this article: CATHERINE N. DULMUS , MATTHEW T. THERIOT , KAREN M. SOWERS &
JAMES A. BLACKBURN (2004) Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization in a Rural School,
Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 7:1, 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/15434610490281093

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15434610490281093

Published online: 11 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 177

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcit20

Download by: [Library Services City University London] Date: 05 April 2016, At: 00:50
 Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 7: 1–16, 2004
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 1543-4613 print/1543-4591 online
DOI: 10.1080=15434610490281093

Student Reports of Peer Bullying

Victimization in a Rural School
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

CATHERINE N. DULMUS, MATTHEW T. THERIOT,

AND KAREN M. SOWERS
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

JAMES A. BLACKBURN
Hunter College, New York, New York, USA

Three rural schools located in Appalachia, United States, were the

site for this research study that examined the prevalence of bully-
ing among children. A convenience sample of students in grades
3 through 8 completed the Olweus Bully=Victim Questionnaire.
Results found that of the 192 students included in this study, 158
children (82.3%) reported experiencing some form of bullying at
least once in the past three months. This prevalence rate is substan-
tially higher than the figures reported in other U.S. studies. Such a
significant finding may confirm that school bullying is a bigger
problem in rural communities than in urban areas. Given varia-
tions in the definition of bullying and measures of frequency, com-
parisons to other studies should be made cautiously. Instead, this
finding should be viewed as a validation for further research
rather than as a definitive conclusion.

Keywords: bullying, rural schools, victimization, school violence,

Appalachia

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Pamela

Jinks and David Dupper to the project.
Address correspondence to Catherine N. Dulmus, Ph.D., The University of
Tennessee, College of Social Work, 301 Henson Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996. E-mail:
cdulmus@utk.edu

1
 2 C. N. Dulmus et al.

School bullying would seem to occupy a unique position in the

American collective psyche. Generation after generation reflect with
outrage or sadness upon their own experiences with a school bully,
yet the victimization of each new generation is seen as being almost
inevitable. For many, bullying is an unfortunate, disturbing, and
normal part of growing up. It is, despite the brutality and frequent
violence, simply a traumatic childhood rite of passage (Limber & Small,
2003; Will & Neufeld, 2003).
Traditionally, popular thought has suggested that students who
have been bullied will eventually ‘‘get over it.’’ However, an emerging
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

body of research suggests that bullying leaves a lasting and even

destructive residue. Obviously, lethal episodes of school violence, such
as those occurring in Littleton, Colorado, or Springfield, Oregon—in
which being bullied was seen as a precipitating factor for both ram-
pages—demonstrate the most extreme outcomes of bullying at school.
In most instances and for most victims, however, the experience of
being bullied makes a far less public or deadly impact. Studies have
shown that victims of bullying often feel anxious; suffer from lower
self-esteem, depression, and suicidal ideation; experience rejection
by peers; feel isolated, lonely, and abandoned at school; are socially
unpopular; and often experience feelings of shame and stupidity as a
result of being bullied (Bjorkqvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982; Boulton
& Underwood, 1992; Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003; Olweus, 1993;
Piskin, 2002). Children victimized by bullies also tend to have more
difficulty adjusting to school, may experience school avoidance, and
are more likely to dislike school (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996).
Increased disruptive and argumentative behaviors have also been
documented (Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988; Perry, Perry, & Kennedy,
1992).

DEFINITIONS OF BULLYING

Definitions of bullying can be as varied as the behaviors contained

there within. Furniss (2000), for example, states that bullying is any
act that is deliberately hurtful to another individual. She also allows
that bullying behaviors are repeated over time and cause stress or
difficulty for the victim to defend herself=himself from. Similarly,
Piskin (2002) defines bullying as being ‘‘physical, verbal, indirect and
emotional and may be carried out by one individual or a group of stu-
dents’’ (p. 556). Nonetheless, perhaps Olweus (1978, 1993) offers the
most comprehensive and useful definition. According to Olweus
(1993), ‘‘a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is
exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of
 Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization 3

one or more other students.’’ Within this definition, the three pivotal
concepts that differentiate bullying from other forms of school
violence or conflict are: 1) there is the intent to harm or upset another
student, 2) the harmful behavior is done ‘‘repeatedly and over time,’’
and 3) the interpersonal relationship between the bully and the victim
is characterized by an imbalance in power. Some of the concrete
behaviors often included in measures of bullying are physical abuse
(hitting, kicking, shoving), threats of harm, teasing and name-calling,
intentional exclusion from peer groups, the spread of lies and false
rumors, damage of property, or the theft of money or property
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

through force or fear (Piskin, 2002).

THE PREVALENCE OF SCHOOL BULLYING

Considering these aforementioned behaviors that constitute bullying

with the aforementioned characteristics of victims, the seriousness of
the school bullying problem begins to crystallize. The addition of
research on the prevalence of bullying in schools to this mix now
makes the true size and scope of the problem quite clear. Inter-
nationally, studies of school bullying have been conducted in a variety
of countries, including Norway (Olweus, 1978, 1993), Australia (Rigby
& Slee, 1991), Ireland (O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001), Canada (O’Connell,
Pepler, & Craig, 1999), England (Baldry & Farrington, 1998), Finland
(Kumpulainen, Raesaenen, & Henttonen, 1999), Germany (Schuster,
1999), and Malta (Borg, 1998). Generally, these studies place the preva-
lence of bully victimization between 11–50% among school children
(Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003).
Not surprisingly, studies have also attempted to describe the
prevalence of bullying at American schools. Among this handful of
research, it has been reported that approximately 10–20% of children
attending U.S. schools are victims of bullying (Perry, Kusel, & Perry,
1988; Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999). Perry,
Kusel, and Perry (1988) surveyed 165 children in grades 3–6 attending
one school in a middle-class community. Based on peer nominations,
approximately 10% of the children were recognized by their peers as
victims of aggression and bullying. The authors found no differences
in victimization based on age or gender. They did find, however, that
victimization was negatively associated with peer acceptance and
positively associated with peer rejection.
A similar descriptive study, by Pellegrini, Bartini, and Brooks
(1999), was conducted in a rural county in Northeast Georgia. The
sample consisted of 154 children with a mean age 11.9 years. All study
respondents completed Olweus’ Senior Questionnaire (1989) and peer
 4 C. N. Dulmus et al.

nominations of popularity and friendship. Teachers also completed

temperament measures and Dodge and Coie’s (1987) Teacher Check
List for each student participating in the research project. The findings
from this study indicated that 19% of the sample was a victim of bully-
ing, including 5% of the sample that were categorized as aggressive
victims. An aggressive victim is defined as a victim who displays a
hostile style of social interaction. The authors also reported that having
friends and being liked by peers were protective factors against being
bullied.
Finally, Nansel and colleagues (2001) reported prevalence figures
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

from the largest American study on school bullying (part of the World
Health Organization’s Health Behaviour in School-aged Children
survey). From this nation-wide study of 15,686 students in grades
6–10, the authors found that approximately 16.9% of students were
bullied. This includes 10.6% who were bullied and 6.3% who were both
victim and bully. Furthermore, the authors concluded that males were
more likely than females to be both perpetrator and victims of bullying
behaviors and the frequency of such behavior was higher among
6th- through 8th-graders than among those in the older grades. They
also found that involvement in bullying (as a victim or a bully or both)
was associated with poorer psychosocial adjustment.

BULLYING IN RURAL SCHOOLS

Despite the relative consistency of prevalence rates for bullying

reported by these studies, such sizable prevalence suggests that these
studies have only scratched the surface of school bullying in the United
States. One area that may be especially deserving of more research
attention is school bullying in rural areas. Olweus (1993), following
extensive study of primary and secondary students in Norway,
reported that the percentage of students in Norway’s larger cities
who were involved in bullying was equal to or lower than parallel
figures for more rural areas. Olweus also states that teachers and
parents in the larger cities spoke more often with students involved
in bully problems than teachers and parents in other areas. Olweus
concludes that this suggests a greater awareness of these problems
in the bigger cities. The aforementioned study by Pellegrini, Bartini,
and Brooks (1999) provides some support for Olweus’ conclusions
in the United States. Pellegrini and colleagues demonstrate that bully-
ing is not the exclusive problem of schools in urban America. How-
ever, more research is needed to expand on these initial findings.
Recent advancements in bullying research in the United States
mirror a similar shift in research focus as it pertains to rural com-
 Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization 5

munities. Historically, in terms of social work practice and social ser-

vice delivery, rural social work interventions have been designed from
a community-deficit perspective in which problems were viewed as
originating in the limitations of the geographic location and sparse
resources. However, the current emphasis in rural social work has
now shifted to a focus on building assets (Avant, 2004; Daley & Avant,
2004). This changed approach to practice with rural clients would
seem to provide a wonderful opportunity for studying bullying pro-
blems in rural schools and then implementing evidence-based inter-
ventions designed to improve the school and the quality of the
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

education offered. Given that approximately 22.5% of the U.S. popu-

lation resides in rural communities (Daley & Avant, 2004), such endea-
vors could ultimately serve millions of children.
This study marks one of the first attempts to document the inter-
section of these two important research areas—school bullying in a
rural America. Utilizing students’ reports of being bullied, this study
will detail the prevalence of school bullying in rural schools as well
as characterize such bullying based on specific demographic and attitu-
dinal criteria.

METHODOLOGY
Study Design
This study utilized a survey research design to gather information from
students as to their self-reported bullying victimization during the
three month period prior to data collection. The Institutional Review
Board at a large university in the Southeastern United States granted
permission to conduct the research before the start of the project. Par-
ental consent was obtained for all student subjects whose participation
was voluntary and confidential.

Study Sample
Subjects were recruited from three rural public schools within the
same school district located in a Southeastern rural Appalachia region
of the United States. Letters to parents were sent home with students
to recruit subjects. The letter included information related to the study
and a consent form for parents to complete to allow their child to par-
ticipate in the study. A self-addressed stamped envelope was provided
for parents to mail the consent form back to the principal investigator
at the university. Ultimately, the convenience sample consisted of 192
students in grades 3 through 8. Data collection occurred in the Fall of
2002. A team of researchers conducted data collection in the school
 6 C. N. Dulmus et al.

setting for all children who met inclusion criteria and for whom
parental consent was obtained. Since all subjects were measured at
one point in time, no follow-up was necessary. Thus, attrition was
not problematic.
Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) subjects had to be students
enrolled in the school where data collection occurred, and (b) subjects
had to be in grades three through eight.
Written parental consent was obtained for each subject prior to
their participating in the study. In addition, all children completed
an individual assent form.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

Measures
Each subject completed the Olweus Bully=Victim Questionnaire
(Olweus, 1994). This 56-item, self-administered questionnaire, designed
for grades 3 through 10, asks questions specific to student’s victimiza-
tion and participation in various aspects of bullying in the school
setting during the three month period prior to data collection.
For the purposes of this study and as per the Olweus question-
naire, we defined and explained bullying to the students as being when
another student or several other students do the following:

. completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends

or leave him or her out of something on purpose
. hit, kick, push, shove around, or lock him or her inside a room
. tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean notes
and try to make other students dislike him or her
. and other hurtful things like that

In addition, we explained that a student is being bullied when the

above things happen over and over again, and it is difficult for the stu-
dent being bullied to defend himself or herself. We further explained
that bullying is when a student is teased over and over in a mean and
hurtful way, but that it was not considered bullying when teasing was
done in a friendly or playful way.

Data Collection Procedures

A team of researchers collected data in the school setting over a period
of two days. Students for whom parental consent had been obtained
were called to the cafeteria during the school day to complete the
assent form and questionnaire. The definition of bullying used for this
study and directions for completion of the questionnaire were
provided. Data collectors assisted with the reading of questions,
 Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization 7

directions, and bullying definition to individuals and groups of stu-

dents as indicated. Upon completion of the questionnaires, students
were given a pencil and key chain as a thank-you gift, and sent back
to their classrooms.
All participants were assured of the confidentiality of their
responses throughout the study. There were minimal physical, psycho-
logical, legal, or social risks for participants. To ensure confidentiality
and protection of participants, they were instructed not to put their
names or any identifying information on the questionnaire.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

Data Analysis
All data were coded directly from respondents’ answers to specific
questions asked on the survey instrument. The two primary categories
for comparison were those students who reported being bullied in the
past three months and those students who did not report such bully-
ing. All students who reported having been victimized by any of the
nine bullying behaviors listed on the survey were included in the
Bullied group. Alternatively, students in the comparison group (Non-
bullied) responded that they had not been bullied and that they had
not experienced any of the types of bullying behavior listed in the
survey at any time during the previous three months.
The data are displayed on three tables. Table 1 and Table 2 show
information for both comparison groups while Table 3 focuses exclus-
ively on those students who have been bullied. On all 3 tables, categ-
orical variables are presented in frequencies and percentages while
continuous variables are reported as means (
standard deviations).

RESULTS

Only 98 students responded that they had been bullied when asked
directly in one survey question, yet 158 students responded positively
to experiencing some form of bullying when asked about the nine
specific types of bullying behaviors. These students are, therefore,
included in the Bullied group. In comparing this group to those
students who had not been bullied, there appears to be only limited
differences in the demographic characteristics displayed on Table 1.
Although there is a slight variation in the distribution of males and
females across the two groups, both groups are predominantly female.
Regarding current grade level, students in grades 3 and 5 comprised a
larger percentage of the Bullied group while students in grades 4 and 6
formed a larger percentage of the Non-bullied group.
 8 C. N. Dulmus et al.

TABLE 1. Demographic and Attitudinal Characteristics (N ¼ 192)

Have Not Been

Bullied in
Have Been Bullied Past Three
in Past Three Months (n ¼ 34) Total Sample
Months (n ¼ 158) Frequency (n ¼ 192)
Frequency (%) (%) or Frequency (%)
Characteristic or Mean
SD Mean
SD or Mean
SD

Gender (n ¼ 191)
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

Male 77 (49.0) 15 (44.1) 92 (48.2)

Female 80 (51.0) 19 (55.9) 99 (51.6)
Current School Grade Level
3rd Grade 39 (24.7) 6 (17.6) 45 (23.4)
4th Grade 18 (11.4) 6 (17.6) 24 (12.5)
5th Grade 33 (20.9) 3 (8.8) 36 (18.8)
6th Grade 21 (13.3) 9 (26.5) 30 (15.6)
7th Grade 24 (15.2) 4 (11.8) 28 (14.6)
8th Grade 23 (14.6) 6 (17.6) 29 (15.1)
Age 10.57
1.85 10.71
1.80 10.59
1.83
Do you like school?
I dislike school 15 (9.5) 1 (2.9) 16 (8.3)
Neutral 37 (23.4) 2 (5.9) 39 (20.3)
I like school 106 (67.1) 31 (91.2) 137 (71.4)
How many good friends do you have?
None 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)
1 10 (6.3) 2 (5.9) 12 (6.3)
2–3 33 (20.9) 5 (14.7) 38 (19.8)
4 or more 114 (72.2) 27 (79.4) 141 (73.4)

Column percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

SD ¼ standard deviation.

Nonetheless, there does appear to be an important difference in

these students’ attitudes towards school. Specifically, a larger percent-
age of Bullied students disliked or felt neutral towards school (32.9% of
Bullied students compared to 8.8% of the Non-bullied students).
Regarding social networks, however, the overwhelming majority of
students in both groups identify having 2 or more good friends (93.1%
of the Bullied students and 94.1% of the Non-bullied). Contrastingly,
only a small number of students in each group (6.9% and 5.9%,
respectively) say that they have only one or no good friends.
 Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization 9

TABLE 2. Summary of Student Attitudes Towards Bullying (N ¼ 192)

Have Not
Been
Have Been Bullied in
Bullied in Past Three Total
Past Three Months Sample
Months (n ¼ 34) (n ¼ 192)
(n ¼ 158) Frequency Frequency
Characteristic Frequency (%) (%) (%)
How often are you afraid of being bullied by other students?
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

Never 72 (45.9) 22 (64.7) 94 (49.2)

Seldom 20 (12.7) 7 (20.6) 27 (14.1)
Sometimes 34 (21.7) 3 (8.8) 37 (19.4)
Often 19 (12.1) 0 (0.0) 19 (9.9)
Very often 12 (7.6) 2 (5.9) 14 (7.3)
What do you feel or think when you see another student your age
being bullied at school?
They deserve it. 9 (5.7) 3 (8.8) 12 (6.3)
I don’t feel much. 9 (5.7) 1 (2.9) 10 (5.2)
I feel sorry for them. 44 (27.8) 5 (14.7) 49 (25.5)
I feel sorry for them 96 (60.8) 25 (73.5) 121 (63.0)
and I want to help.
How do you usually react if a student your age is being bullied by
other students?
I have never noticed this. 50 (31.8) 15 (44.1) 65 (34.0)
I take part in the bullying. 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)
I don’t act, but I think the 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)
bullying is OK.
I just watch. 13 (8.3) 1 (2.9) 14 (7.3)
I don’t act, but I think 36 (22.9) 4 (11.8) 40 (20.9)
I should help the
bullied student.
I try to help the bullied 56 (35.7) 14 (41.2) 70 (36.6)
student.
How often do other students try to stop it when a student is being
bullied at school?
Almost never 51 (32.3) 16 (47.1) 67 (34.9)
Once in a while 34 (21.5) 7 (20.6) 41 (21.4)
Sometimes 33 (20.9) 6 (17.6) 39 (20.3)
Often 21 (13.3) 2 (5.9) 23 (12.0)
Almost always 19 (12.0) 3 (8.8) 22 (11.5)

(Continued)
 10 C. N. Dulmus et al.

TABLE 2. (Continued)

Have Not
Been
Have Been Bullied in
Bullied in Past Three Total
Past Three Months Sample
Months (n ¼ 34) (n ¼ 192)
(n ¼ 158) Frequency Frequency
Characteristic Frequency (%) (%) (%)
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

How often do teachers or other adults try to stop it when a student is

being bullied at school?
Almost never 41 (25.9) 13 (38.2) 54 (28.1)
Once in a while 24 (15.2) 3 (8.8) 27 (14.1)
Sometimes 16 (10.1) 1 (2.9) 17 (8.9)
Often 34 (21.5) 4 (11.8) 38 (19.8)
Almost always 43 (27.2) 13 (38.2) 56 (29.2)
Overall, how much has your teacher done to counteract bullying?
Little or nothing 47 (29.7) 12 (35.3) 59 (30.7)
Fairly little 28 (17.7) 1 (2.9) 29 (15.1)
Somewhat 23 (14.6) 9 (26.5) 32 (16.7)
A good deal 36 (22.8) 6 (17.6) 42 (21.9)
Much 23 (14.6) 6 (17.6) 29 (15.1)

Column percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

In moving to assess student attitudes towards bullying (as shown

on Table 2), the students who had experienced bullying in the pre-
vious three months reported being afraid with greater frequency than
did the comparison group. Whereas 85.3% of students who had not
been bullied stated that they never or seldom feared bullying, 54.1%
of the Bullied group said that they felt afraid at times.
Furthermore, concerning those questions assessing feelings and
behaviors in response to witnessing another student being bullied,
the majority of students in both groups expressed feeling sorry for
the bullied student. Yet, a larger percentage of the Non-bullied group
indicated that, in addition to feeling sorry, they also felt a desire to
help. Plus, more of these students also said that, beyond just feeling
sorry and wanting to help, they would indeed take action to help a
student being bullied (41.2% compared to 35.7%).
Finally, concerning the attitudes towards bullying, a larger per-
centage of the Non-bullied students thought that students and teachers
almost never try to stop bullying behaviors, compared to members of
 Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

TABLE 3. Frequency and Type of Bullying Experienced in Past Three Months (N ¼ 158)

Has Not Happened 2–3 Happened Happened

Happened in Happened Only Times a About Several
Past 3 Months Once or Twice Month Once a Week Times a Week
Type of Bullying Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

Called Mean Names, Made 43 (27.2) 66 (41.8) 10 (6.3) 17 (10.8) 22 (13.9)

Fun of, or Teased
Excluded or Ignored 82 (52.2) 45 (28.7) 5 (3.2) 5 (3.2) 20 (12.7)
by Others
Hit, Kicked, Shoved, 93 (58.9) 36 (22.8) 9 (5.7) 11 (7.0) 9 (5.7)
or Assaulted
Others told Lies or Spread 57 (36.1) 61 (38.6) 15 (9.5) 11 (7.0) 14 (8.9)
False Rumors

11
Had Money or Items Taken 105 (66.5) 36 (22.8) 8 (5.1) 6 (3.8) 3 (1.9)
or Damaged
Threatened or Forced to 120 (75.9) 21 (13.3) 8 (5.1) 5 (3.2) 4 (2.5)
Do Things
Heard Comments or Called 116 (73.9) 18 (11.5) 11 (7.0) 4 (2.5) 8 (5.1)
Names based on Race
or Color
Bullied with Sexual 97 (61.4) 41 (25.9) 8 (5.1) 5 (3.2) 7 (4.4)
Comments,
Names, or Gestures
Bullied in Other Ways 103 (65.6) 34 (21.7) 4 (2.5) 11 (7.0) 5 (3.2)

Column percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

 12 C. N. Dulmus et al.

the Bullied group who thought that students and teachers try at least
sometimes to stop bullying. Interestingly, though, a substantial pro-
portion of members in the Non-bullied group also believe that teachers
almost always try to stop bullying at the school. Overall, however, both
groups believe teachers do little or nothing to counteract bullying
(45.8% of the total sample).
Finally, among students who had been bullied in the previous
three months, the most common and frequent type of bullying was
being called mean names, made fun of, or teased by other students.
As shown on Table 3, a combined 72.8% of Bullied students were
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

bullied in this way and 13.9% were bullied this way several times a
week. The second most common form of bullying was having lies or
false rumors spread (63.9% experienced this). The third most frequent
type of bullying was being excluded or ignored by others (a total of
47.8% experienced this; 12.7%, several times weekly).
Conversely, the least common and least frequent types of bullying
were being threatened or forced to do things (24.1%) and being sub-
jected to insults based on race or color (26.1%). Other less frequent
types of bullying, were bullying of a sexual nature, having money or
items taken or damaged, and unspecified types of bullying. Less than
5% of the Bullied sample experienced these types of bullying several
times in a week.

DISCUSSION

Of the 192 students included in this study, 158 children (82.3%)

reported experiencing some form of bullying at least once in the past
three months. This prevalence rate is substantially higher than the fig-
ures reported in other U.S. studies. Such a significant finding may con-
firm that school bullying is a bigger problem in rural communities than
in urban areas. Given variations in the definition of bullying and mea-
sures of frequency, comparisons to other studies should be made
cautiously. Instead, this finding should be viewed as a validation for
further research rather than as a definitive conclusion.
Victims of peer bullying at school are a heterogeneous group
(Pellegrini et al. 1999). Consequently, as focus shifts from overall
prevalence to more specific findings, the lack of substantial gender
differences between bullied students and non-bullied students is not
surprising. This finding is consistent with outcomes reported by Perry
et al. (1988). Likewise, the larger percentage of bullied children in the
younger grades echoes the pattern reported by Nansel and associates
(2001). In their study, the frequency of bullying was higher among
the younger students than the older students in their sample. This
 Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization 13

may suggest that bullying decreases as students’ age increases. Alterna-

tively, this finding may also demonstrate that the older children are
bullying the younger ones.
Previous research has emphasized the lonely, helpless, and aban-
doned feelings that bullying victims often develop. Evidence of such
feelings in this sample may be reflected in Bullied students’ attitudes
towards school and peers. For example, a considerably larger percent-
age of victims reported feelings of dislike or neutrality to school com-
pared to the Non-bullied students. Another example of these negative
feelings shows in the Bullied students’ lower desire to help a peer who
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

is being bullied.
Fear of bullying also occured with greater frequency for Bullied
students. This result is not surprising, yet the ramifications are worth
comment. Specifically, it can be reasonably assumed that students
who are distracted by persistent and frequent fear of bullying may
have more difficulty concentrating, learning, and participating in
school lessons or activities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

The common myth holds that bullies make victims of only a small hand-
ful of outcasts and misfits—the students who are obese, wear glasses,
have red hair and freckles, or other physical ‘‘abnormalities.’’ Olweus
(1993) found no data to substantiate this myth and neither does this
study. In this sample, 82.3% of the students had been bullied. Even in
a wild stretch of the imagination, it is hard to imagine that this huge
majority of students all possess the mythical external deviations that
would invite victimization. Instead, the data show that bullying is a
pervasive problem that impacts students regardless of gender or grade
level.
Effective strategies to address bullying in schools, then, need to
utilize a comprehensive and school-wide approach. This may require
incorporation of school-based interventions with community
resources. For rural areas, which may not be in a close proximity to
community-based social services, the utilization of formal community
social services may be difficult and problematic. In these instances,
it may be especially important for these schools to have access to
on-campus resources, such as school social workers or other profes-
sionals with skills in anger management, conflict resolution, and
children’s mental health.
 14 C. N. Dulmus et al.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence rate of victimization by school bullying is more

than fourtimes the rate reported in other studies of American
schoolchildren. As a result, the findings of this study will, expectedly
and understandably, be met with skepticism. In response to this uncer-
tainty, more research is encouraged that will further the knowledge
based on bullying in rural schools. Future research should seek to uti-
lize random assignment of study participants, a control group, and
gather data from different rural regions across the United States. Incor-
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

poration of these methodological suggestions will only help to build

upon the limitations of this study.
The purpose of this study was exploratory, focusing only on stu-
dents’ self-reported bullying victimization. Needs and suggestions for
future research notwithstanding, this study has shown that school
bullying is at least as serious a problem in rural schools as it is in urban
areas. The magnitude of the bullying problem in these schools
demands more attention in the professional literature and requires a
concerted effort to build upon the existing research evidence. This
evidence, when combined with emerging research efforts to identify
and emphasize the strengths and assets of rural communities, should
lead to the development of new and innovative interventions to handle
school bullying.

REFERENCES
Avant, F. L. (2004). Introduction to rural social work. In T. L. Scales & C. L.
Streeter (Eds.), Rural social work: Building and sustaining community
strengths (pp. 7–8). Belmont, CA: Brooks=Cole.
Baldry, A. C. & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and
victimization. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 3(2), 237–254.
Bjorkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their
ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 307–313.
Borg, M. G. (1998). Secondary school teachers’ perception of pupils’ undesir-
able behaviours. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(1),
67–79.
Boulton, M. J. & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully victim problems among middle
school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 571–579.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of
bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 73(5), 173–181.
Daley, M. R. & Avant, F. L. (2004). Rural social work: Reconceptualizing the
framework for practice. In T. L. Scales & C. L. Streeter (Eds.), Rural social
 Student Reports of Peer Bullying Victimization 15

work: Building and sustaining community strengths (pp. 7–8). Belmont,

CA: Brooks=Cole.
Dodge, K. A. & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information processing factors in
reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158.
Furniss, C. (2000). Bullying in schools: It’s not a crime—is it? Education and
the Law, 12(1), 10–29.
Kumpulainen, K., Raesaenen, El., & Henttonen, I. (1999). Children involved in
bullying: Psychological disturbance and the persistence of the involve-
ment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1253–1262.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

Kochenderfer, B. J. & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Manifestations

and relations to school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of school
psychology, 34(3), 267–283.
Limber, S. P. & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying
in schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 445–455.
Nansel, T. R. Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., &
Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and
association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 285(16), 2094–2100.
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying:
Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4),
437–452.
O’Moore, M. & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying
behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27(4), 269–283.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys.
Washington DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1989). Senior Questionnaire for students. Unpublished manu-
script.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a
school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171–1190.
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and
aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization
in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216–224.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression.
Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 807–814.
Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and development of
antisocial behavior. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in
child and adolescent development (pp. 301–329). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
 16 C. N. Dulmus et al.

Piskin, M. (2002). School bullying: Definition, types, related factors, and stra-
tegies to prevent bullying problems. Educational sciences: Theory and
practice, 2(2), 555–562.
Rigby, K. & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children:
Reported behavior and attitudes to victims. Journal of Social Psychology,
131, 615–627.
Schuster, B. (1999). Outsiders at school: The prevalence of bullying and its
relation with social status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
2(2), 175–190.
Will, J. D. & Neufeld, P. J. (2003). Keep bullying from growing into greater
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 00:50 05 April 2016

violence. Education Digest, 68(6), 32–37.