- Visibility 60 Views
- Downloads 35 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.jchm.2021.012
-
CrossMark
- Citation
Distribution and correlations of school bully activities in a Central Indian district of Madhya Pradesh
Abstract
Background: Bullying at schools is a known but neglected phenomenon. The study of its prevalence and correlates are essential to curb this aberrant behavior for building a healthy society.
Aim and Objective: This cross-sectional evaluation was carried out to study the pattern through which bully activities manifests in students from 6th to 10th standards and find its positive and negative correlates.
Materials and Methods: 'Candidates’ selection was done through simple random technique and proportionate sampling was adopted to ensure equal presentation across the board i.e., urban vs rural, types of schools, gender and class(standard).
Results: 480 participants were studied both from rural and urban high schools (6th – 10th standard) in equal proportion. An equal portion (33.3%) of participants were ensured from the three groups of schools studied i.e., Girls, Co-education, and Boys, across gender (50%) and class(standard) 20% from each of them. Their age ranged from 10 years to 18 years with the mean age at 13.9 years and a standard deviation of 1.66. Of them 52% were bystanders, and 48% were engaged in some form of bully activities (20% victim, 16% bully victim, and 13% bully). While both bully and victim scores showed a strong positive correlation (r - 0.259**, p - 0.000) their relation with prosocial and self-esteem scores were strongly negative (p – 0.001). GHQ (General Health Questionnaire) score was not related to any of the above ones.
Conclusion: Bully related behavior was predominant in the studied population. From the results, it appears that measures directed at improving prosocial behaviors and self-esteem of pupils can act as effective counters to the empathetic school bully activities.
Introduction
A sound psychosocial foundation at an early and formative stage is imperial for holistic personality development. Providing such an environment is one of the prime responsibilities of any sensible society. Schools considered as the learning towers are one such organization which has a great role to play in this regard. Under the right to education, one of the prime criteria is to ensure the physical and mental wellbeing of the students which can lead to effective learning and skill development.[1] Providing a conducive and ameliorated surrounding for all children has become a bare necessity both legally and socially.[2] Regardless of sustained legal and social reforms, we are far away from such a situation. At ground level school bully activities, a prominent psychosocial deranged situation is glaringly prominent. Through the present study, an attempt is made to expose this unruly behavioral issue and to identify the factors supporting and antagonizing it.
Materials and Methods
A cross-sectional evaluation of students from 6th to 10th standards(classes) was undertaken over 1 year from a western district of the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh to assess the prevalence, type, and relating factors to school bully activities. Total 6 schools, 3 each from urban and rural areas were randomly selected from the enlisted ones provided by district educational office. Of them 1 each was a boy’s school, a girl’s school and a coeducational school from both the chosen settings. The sample size of 480 participants was estimated by using a prevalence-based formula where the locally relevant literature supported prevalence used was 31.4%, the margin of error fixed at 0.05%, an add-on of 10% was considered to cover the dropouts and a final roundup of number was carried out to the nearest feasible higher number.[3] Bullying Prevalence Questionnaire (BPQ) to measure subscales such as Bully, Victim, and Pro-social Scales, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) to estimate participants self-esteem and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ- 12) was used for evaluation of psychiatric morbidity were used as tools for collecting information.[4], [5], [6] The “back/reverse translated,” and field-tested tools were employed in data collections. Questionnaires in both English and Hindi(local vernacular) were employed keeping the need of the participants and medium instruction of schools in mind. Level of significance was fixed at p ≤ 0,05, computer coded data were analyzed by SPSS 21 of IBM Inc. US.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Students of 6th -10th standards free from major comorbid conditions with parental permission were included.
Results
From 480 participants 240 each were from both urban and rural localities. 160(1/3rd) of the participants were from the three different types of schools (boy’s, girl’s and co-educational). An equal number of participants (96) were enrolled from each class (6th to 10th). The mean age of participants was 13.9 year with a standard deviation of 1.66. Students involved in some form of bully activities was 48.3% of which 20.2% were victims. From 480 candidates 298(62.1%) were prosocial, 68.4% had normal or higher self-esteem and 53.3% reported no psychological distress. This along with other descriptive details of studied variables are presented in [Table 1].
Variable |
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
Residence |
|
|
Urban |
240 |
50 |
Rural |
240 |
50 |
Type of Schools |
|
|
Girls |
160 |
33.3 |
Co-education |
160 |
33.3 |
Boys |
160 |
33.3 |
Class/Standard |
|
|
6th |
96 |
20 |
7th |
96 |
20 |
8th |
96 |
20 |
9th |
96 |
20 |
10th |
96 |
20 |
Gender |
|
|
Boys |
240 |
50 |
Girls |
240 |
50 |
Age groups |
|
|
10-12 years |
113 |
23.6 |
13-15 years |
278 |
57.9 |
16-18 years |
89 |
18.5 |
Total Bullying population |
232 |
48.3 |
Only bully |
60 |
12.5 |
Only Victim |
97 |
20.2 |
Bully-Victim both |
75 |
15.6 |
Bystanders |
248 |
51.7 |
Sociality |
|
|
Pro-social |
298 |
62.1 |
Social |
182 |
37.9 |
Self-esteem |
|
|
Low Self-esteem |
152 |
31.7 |
Normal Self-esteem |
286 |
59.6 |
High Self-esteem |
42 |
8.8 |
Psychological distress |
|
|
Severe psychological distress |
45 |
9.4 |
Some psychological distress |
179 |
37.3 |
No psychological distress |
256 |
53.3 |
A closer look at the participant behavior provided the break up into bystanders (52%), victims (20%), Bully victims (16%) and bully (13%). The [Figure 1] depicts these observations.

Scores |
Value |
Scores |
|||
Bully score |
Victim score |
Pro-social score |
Self-esteem score |
||
Victim score |
r |
0.259** |
- |
- |
- |
p |
0.000 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Pro-Social score |
r |
-0.154** |
-0.107* |
- |
- |
p |
.001 |
0.019 |
- |
- |
|
Self-esteem score |
r |
-0.043 |
-0.194** |
0.202** |
- |
p |
0.351 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
- |
|
GHQ score |
r |
0.080 |
0.088 |
0.007 |
-0.06 |
p |
0.079 |
0.053 |
0.871 |
0.188 |
On pearson correlation analysis Bully score and Victim score showed strong positive result (r - 0.259, p ≤ 0.001) among them but prosocial and self-esteem scores showed strong negative relations with both bully and victim scores (p ≤ 0.001). GHQ – 12 score was not related to any of the above scores (p ≥0.05). The correlation table explaining these observations is presented in [Table 2].
Types and sites of occurrence of bully activities
Bully activities manifested through verbal, psychological, and physical forms in that order. Verbal and physical bully was more site-specific and mostly materialized at fixed locations. Lesser varieties of psychological bullying (exclusion from groups and threats) mostly (56.9% and 53.1%) took place at fixed locations but sever forms (thefts of objects of poor or great values and extortion of money) was mostly opportunistic (no specific site preference noted). The respective number and percentages (in parenthesis) are presented in [Table 3].
Types of Bullying |
Out of school |
In the way to the classroom |
In the classroom |
In the bathroom |
On playground |
At eatery |
No specific site |
Multiple sites |
One site only |
Psychological bullying |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exclusion from groups |
71 (14.8) |
49 (10.2) |
55 (11.5) |
13 (2.7) |
73 (15.2) |
12 (2.5) |
119 (24.8) |
88 (18.3) |
273(56.9) |
Threats |
102 (21.2) |
40 (8.3) |
52 (10.8) |
26 (5.4) |
24 (5) |
11 (2.3) |
154 (32.1) |
71 (14.8) |
255 (53.1) |
Theft of objects of poor value |
52 (10.8) |
12 (2.5) |
83 (17.3) |
6 (1.2) |
14 (2.9) |
15 (3.1) |
245 (51.3) |
52 (10.8) |
182 (37.9) |
Great Theft |
84 (17.5) |
15 (3.1) |
25 (5.2) |
8 (1.7) |
9 (1.9) |
9 (1.9) |
295 (61.5) |
35 (7.3) |
150 (31.2) |
Money extortion |
95 (19.8) |
25 (5.2) |
18 (3.8) |
4 (0.8) |
12 (2.5) |
15 (3.1) |
267 (55.6) |
44 (9.2) |
169 (35.2) |
physical bullying |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Injuries |
61 (12.7) |
32 (6.7) |
27 (5.6) |
4 (0.8) |
95 (19.8) |
5 (1) |
156 (32.5) |
100(20.8) |
224 (46.7) |
Physical aggressions |
82 (17.1) |
25 (5.2) |
43 (9) |
14 (2.9) |
33 (6.9) |
8 (1.7) |
223 (46.5) |
52 (10.8) |
205 (42.7) |
Verbal bullying |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jokes |
60 (12.5) |
24 (5) |
69 (14.4) |
3 (0.6) |
51 (10.6) |
14 (2.9) |
37 (7.8) |
222(46.2) |
221 (46) |
Verbal teasing |
63 (13.1) |
27 (5.6) |
45 (9.4) |
8 (1.7) |
50 (10.4) |
11 (2.3) |
135(28.1) |
141(29.4) |
204 (42.5) |
Discussion
Schools the dome of learning should be sanitized from all aspects so that the tender mind can learn and the persona groomed unhindered.[7], [8] Though much been said and done in this regard but still wide gaps exist. One such arena is existence of bullying at middle and high schools across the world.[2] The legislations for ensuring safe learning environment are a far-reaching goal at least in present context. The situation is no good in developing countries including India.[9] This study highlights pertinent correlates of this psycho-social apathy.
A bully prevalence of 48.3% as reported in the present study is a staggering number considering the time, we are living in. Dake JA et al. reported an overall prevalence of 49.8% in Irish pupils.[10] T. Biswas et al. also reported a Global bully prevalence at 50% for school attendance adolescents.[11] Bibou-Nakou & Markos also reported that between 15 and 30% of school children are either bullied or bully others.[12] The report by Biswas et al. is a recent one (2020). Bibou-Nakou & Markos study was from Greek secondary schools which have somewhat encouraging statistics.
The break of bully activities revealed the prevalence of victims at 20%, Bully victims at 16%, and bully at 13%. A higher victimization score is a thing of common occurrence followed by bully-Victim category who are involved in both activities, sometimes getting bullied(victimized) and at other times bullying others. This attribute is related to the power equation at the time of the episode. The authorities can step in and discourage this power/group activities by a regular student and parental counselling and dismantling such groups. Researchers across the globe have opined in similar lines.[9], [13], [14]
While bully scores and victim scores were positively correlated, prosocial behaviour and high self-esteem were reported protagonist against them ([Table 2] ). Pro-social pupils had high self-esteem (r, 0.202**) which is an encouraging and synergic sign. Schools need to work on strengthening these domains which can bring the bully burden down. J. Ashwin Rambaran et al. 2020 and a host of other researchers have reported with the same vest.[15], [16], [17]
The most encouraging observation was pupils psychiatric score (GHQ 12) was found away from this vicious phenomenon.
Verbal bullying was noticed as a more frequent phenomenon which was followed by psychological and physical ones. Irrespective of their modality most bully activities happened in fixed locations ([Table 3]). Many researchers have emphasized on the comfort of place and existence of psycho-social power imbalance as it’s important contributors.[18], [19], [20]
Strength and weakness
The stringent and scientific sample selection process and involvement of a single investigator were aimed at bias reduction. The obvious limitation is that which is inherent to the selected study design i.e., cross-sectional study.
New observation
The most encouraging observation was pupils psychiatric score (GHQ 12) was found not to be related to this vicious phenomenon.
Conclusion
Perpetual offenders are a part of every society. It is our role and responsibility to bring their number down through reformist measures. Though many such measures are in place for prevention of bullying at schools but the results are hardly impressive. Identifying the potential problem in terms of its manifestations and place of occurrence will give additional inputs to concerned authorities to be more vigilant, targeted and proactive. Additionally, encouraging and awarding prosocial and self-esteem acumens will be further rewarding in curbing this social evil. All efforts must be made to sustain the gain achieved by no entanglement of the differently-abled subject into this devilish activity.
Ethical permission
The study had IEC (institutional ethical committee clearance of R D Gardi Medical College - RDGMC) clearance vid version number 225.
Source of Funding
None.
Conflict of Interest
None.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the support received from the Inspector of school, Ujjain district and his high office for their permission to carry out this research. Our heartfelt thanks to the principals, teachers and support staffs of participating schools in making this endeavour see the light. We are indeed grateful to all the parents for their consent and participants for their enthusiastic involvement.
References
- Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(sup1):240-53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Subedi K. Literature Review On School Bullying. World J Adv Healthc Res. 2020;4:233-46. [Google Scholar]
- Kshirsagar V, Agarwal R, Bavdekar S. Bullying in Schools: Prevalence and Short-term Impact. Indian Pediatr. 2007;44:25-8. [Google Scholar]
- Rigby K, Slee P. Bullying Prevalence Questionnaire (BPQ). . 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenberg M, Schooler C, Schoenbach C, Rosenberg F. Global Self-Esteem and Specific Self-Esteem: Different Concepts, Different Outcomes. Am Sociological Rev. 1995;60(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Goldberg D, Hillier V. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med. 1979;9(1):139-45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- . STANDS4 LLC, 2020. "SCHOOL". . . [Google Scholar]
- . SCHOOL. Ref: Abbreviations.com, STANDS4 LLC. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Shetgiri R. Bullying and Victimization Among Children. Adv Pediatr. 2013;60(1):33-51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Dake J, Price J, Telljohann S. The Nature and Extent of Bullying at School. J School Health. 2003;73(5):173-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Biswas T, Scott J, Munir K, Thomas H, Huda M, Hasan M. Global variation in the prevalence of bullying victimisation amongst adolescents: Role of peer and parental supports. EClin Med. 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Nakou I, Asimopoulos C, Hatzipemou T, Soumaki E, Tsiantis J. Bullying in Greek secondary schools: prevalence and profile of bullying practices. Int J Ment Health Promot. 2014;16(1):3-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Monks C, Smith P. Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience. Br J Dev Psychol. 2006;24(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Aud S, Wilkinson-Flicker S, Kristapovich P, Rathbun A, Wang X, Zhang J. The Condition of Education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. . 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(sup1):240-53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Reijntjes A, Vermande M, Thomaes S, Goossens F, Olthof T, Aleva L. Narcissism, Bullying, and Social Dominance in Youth: A Longitudinal Analysis. J Abnormal Child Psychol. 2016;44(1):63-74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Rambaran J, Dijkstra J, Veenstra R. Bullying as a Group Process in Childhood: A Longitudinal Social Network Analysis. Child Dev. 2020;91(4):1336-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Reijntjes A, Vermande M, Thomaes S, Goossens F, Olthof T, Aleva L. Narcissism, Bullying, and Social Dominance in Youth: A Longitudinal Analysis. J Abnormal Child Psychol. 2016;44(1):63-74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Wang J, Iannotti R, Luk J. Co-occurrence of Victimization from Five Subtypes of Bullying: Physical, Verbal, Social Exclusion, Spreading Rumors, and Cyber. J Sch Psychol. 2012;50(4):521-34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- Vivolo-Kantor A, Martell B, Holland K. Ruth West; A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19(4):423-34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
How to Cite This Article
Vancouver
Mishra B, Patidar S, Sinha ND, Mohapatra SC. Distribution and correlations of school bully activities in a Central Indian district of Madhya Pradesh [Internet]. J Community Health Manag. 2021 [cited 2025 Oct 08];8(1):53-57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jchm.2021.012
APA
Mishra, B., Patidar, S., Sinha, N. D., Mohapatra, S. C. (2021). Distribution and correlations of school bully activities in a Central Indian district of Madhya Pradesh. J Community Health Manag, 8(1), 53-57. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jchm.2021.012
MLA
Mishra, Badrinarayan, Patidar, Shivnarayan, Sinha, Nidhi Dinesh, Mohapatra, S C. "Distribution and correlations of school bully activities in a Central Indian district of Madhya Pradesh." J Community Health Manag, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 53-57. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jchm.2021.012
Chicago
Mishra, B., Patidar, S., Sinha, N. D., Mohapatra, S. C.. "Distribution and correlations of school bully activities in a Central Indian district of Madhya Pradesh." J Community Health Manag 8, no. 1 (2021): 53-57. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jchm.2021.012