Influence of bullied status on Self-esteem of higher primary students

Introduction

Bullying is usually defined as a form of aggression in which one or more children intend to harm or disturb another child who is perceived as being unable to defend himself or herself (Glew, 2000) [21] . Bullying represents a significant problem in schools. The National School Safety Center (NSSC) called bullying the most enduring and underrated problem in U.S. schools (Beale, 2001) [22] . Bullying is a problem that affects all students, either the person the bully, the victims, and those who witnesses. Bullying may include verbal, physical assaults, threats, jokes or language, mockery and criticizing, insulting behavior and facial expressions. All of such factors work either individually, or collectively, for contributing in students' likelihood of bullying. William James (1890) introduced self-esteem to psychology as a major focus of study. He defined self-esteem as the feeling of self-worth that results from consistently meeting expectations for personally valued activities. Self-esteem is widely used construct in social psychology, as well as in everyday life. It corresponds with an overall view of the self as worthy or unworthy and is the evaluative aspect of the self-concept. (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) [23] The relationship between bullying and self-esteem has primarily focused on the self-esteem of victims, and results consistently indicate that children who are victimized have significantly lower self-esteem than those who are not victimized (Hawker & Boulton, 2000) [24] . Therefore, such situation makes bullied students unable to follow or to pay attention for their study and even they might do not like to go to school. Moreover, they miss opportunities to participate with their colleagues or even enjoy school activities and they lose their abilities and selfrespect. Self-esteem is widely used construct in social psychology, as well as in everyday life. It corresponds with an overall view of the self as worthy or unworthy and is the evaluative aspect of the self-concept. (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) [23] The relationship between bullying and self-esteem has primarily focused on the self-esteem of victims, and results consistently indicate that children who are victimized have significantly lower self-esteem than those who are not victimized (Hawker & Boulton, 2000) [24] . Therefore, such situation makes bullied students unable to follow or to pay attention for their study and even they might do not like to go to school. Moreover, they miss opportunities to participate with their colleagues or even enjoy school activities and they lose their abilities and self-respect.

Material and methodology

The population for the study comprised of higher primary school children in age group of 11 -13 years studying in 5 th -7 th standard studying in schools of Dharwad and Mudhol Karnataka state. The sample for the present study consisted of from Block Education Officer, the study sampled 240 students from 47 higher primary English medium private schools in Dharwad, and 12 higher primary English medium private school in www.extensionjournal.com Mudhol. 60 students from two schools studying in 5-7 th class in Dharwad and Mudhol of Karnataka were selected. After informed consent, data were collected through selfstructured questionnaire and The Olweus bully/victim questionnaire (OBVQ) Dan A. Olweus (1996) [25] was used to assess bullied status and academic achievement was assessed using previous grades. SPSS version 26 was used to analyse the data. In Mudhol with regard to student's mother's education most of them were professional qualified with technical degree (14.60%) followed by graduation and post-graduation (14.2%), illiterate and < 10 th pass (11.30%) and last 10 th class pass but < than graduation (10%).

Result and discussion

Identical results was observed by Fadia et al. (2016) [26] that mother's education level had associations with both bullying and physical violence. Parents with higher levels of education may be more engaged in their child's education and better equipped to address bullying issues. Parents with higher education levels may serve as positive role models for their children, demonstrating problem-solving skills, conflict resolution strategies, and emotional intelligence, which can help children navigate bullying incidents more effectively.

With regard to the student's education of father in Dharwad most of them were professionals with technical degree (14.60%) followed by graduation and post-graduation (14.20%)%), illiterate and < 10 th pass (11.30%) and last 10 th class pass but < than graduation (10%).

With regard of education of father in Mudhol most of them were graduates and post graduates (18.80%) followed by professional qualification with technical degree (15.0%), 10 th class pass but < than graduation (11.70%) and last illiterate and < 10 th pass (4.60%). Identical results was observed by Nandoli et al. (2016) [27] that low fathers education levels were a significant predictor of a child's bullying status.Lower levels of parental education can sometimes be associated with limited parental involvement in a child's education and school life. This lack of involvement may result in students feeling less supported or protected.

With regards to student's occupation of mother in Dharwad most of them were doing service in private sector or independent business (11.70%) followed by service in central/state/public sector (10.8%), self-employed with income >5000 (10.80%), service at shops transport, own cultivation of land (9.60%), and last income <5000 (7.10%).

With regards to student's occupation of mother in Mudhol most of them were doing service at shops transport, own cultivation of land (11.30%), self-employed with income >5000 (11.30%), service in private sector or independent business (10.40%), service in central/state/public sector (9.60%), and last income < 5000 (7.10%). Bullies may exploit these differences to target and stigmatize their peers. Table 4 presents the distribution of bullied status among Dharwad and Mudhol. In Dharwad most of the students belonged to not bullied and moderate bullied status (35%) followed by severe bullied status (30%). In Mudhol most of the students belong to severe bullied status with (36.7%) followed by not and moderate bullied status with (31.70%). Table 5 presents the distribution of students of Dharwad and Mudhol students by self-esteem. In Dharwad, most of the students belonged to high self-esteem (89.10%) followed by low self-esteem (10.80%). In Mudhol most of the students belonged to high self-esteem (87.50%) followed by low self-esteem (12.50%). Table 6 depicts the association and comparison of selfesteem and bullied status of higher primary students. In Dharwad with regard to self-esteem and bullied status, the students who were having low self-esteem were more in severe bullied with 36.40 per cent followed by 33.60 per cent were in moderate bullied and 29.90 per cent were in not bullied status. The students who were having high selfesteem were more in not bullied status with 46.20 per cent followed by 38.50 per cent were in severe bullied status and 15.40 per cent were in moderate bullied status. Significant association was observed (χ 2 =2.20) between bullied status and self-esteem and there is significant difference was also found as the mean score (83.52) indicates that the students who were having low self-esteem were having more bullied status compared to high self-esteem students.

In Mudhol, with regard to self-esteem and bullied status, the students who were having low self-esteem were more in severe bullied with 35.2 per cent followed by 32.4 per cent were in moderate and not bullied status. The students who were having high self-esteem were more in not bullied status with 53.3 per cent followed by 33.3 per cent were in moderate bullied status and 13.3 per cent were in severe bullied status. Significant association was observed (χ 2 =3.24) between bullied status and self-esteem and significant difference was also found as the mean score (79.58) indicates that the students who were having low self-esteem were having more bullied status compared to high self-esteem students.Similar results was observed by Julie et al (2007) that, as bullying behaviours increased, levels of self-esteem decreased. Additionally, lower selfesteem was associated with an increase in bullying behaviours. The reason may be students with low selfesteem may appear less confident and more susceptible to bullying, making them more attractive targets for bullies.

Students with low self-esteem may have difficulty standing up for themselves or asserting their boundaries, which can make them less effective at deterring bullies. To predict self-esteem of students, hierarchal multiple regression analysis was performed.  In Model-1, individual factors such as class, gender were taken which was found to be statistically significant (F=3.98). Gender (t-value=2.99) and class (t-value=4.18) were found to be the main predictors of self-esteem and combined effect of individual factors accounted for 57 per cent of variance in self-esteem of higher primary students. (R 2 =.57).  In Model-2, parental factors such as parent's education and occupation were included along with individual factors which was found to be statistically significant (F=6.12). Gender (t-value=2.89) and class (t-value=2.80) were found to be the main predictors of self-esteem and combined effect of individual and parental factors accounted for 62 per cent variance in self-esteem of higher primary students. (R 2 =.62).  In Model-3, familial factors such as family type and SES were included along with individual and parental factors which was found to be statistically significant (F=11.88). Gender (t-value=4.60) and class (t-value=2.07) and SES (t-value=4.18) were found to be the main predictors of self-esteem and combined effect of individual, parental and familial factors accounted for 77 per cent of variance in self-esteem of higher primary students. (R 2 =.77). 3). To predict self-esteem of students, hierarchal multiple regression analysis was performed.  In Model-1, individual factors such as class, gender were taken which was found to be statistically significant (F=6.48). Gender (t-value=3.42) was found to be the main predictors of self-esteem and combined effect of individual factors accounted for 26 per cent of variance in self-esteem of higher primary students. (R 2 =.26).  In Model-2, parental factors such as parent's education and occupation were included along with individual factors which was found to be statistically significant (F=4.21). Gender (t-value=3.14) was found to be the main predictors of self-esteem and combined effect of individual and parental factors accounted for 58 per cent variance in self-esteem of higher primary students. (R 2 =.58).  In Model-3, familial factors such as family type and SES were included along with individual and parental factors which was found to be statistically significant (F=3.48). Gender (t-value=4.20) and SES (t-value=2.87) were found to be the main predictors of self-esteem and combined effect of individual, parental and familial factors accounted for 65 per cent of variance in self-esteem of higher primary students. (R 2 =.65).

References

1. Ada MJ, Okoli G, Obeten OO, Akeke MNG. Prevalence, causes and effects of bullying in tertiary institutions in Cross River State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice. 2016;7(29):98-110.
2. Parray MA, Sheoron P. Role of academic procrastination on metacognition of senior secondary school students of Central Kashmir. Journal of Business, IT, and Social Science. 2024;3(2):1-8. doi:10.51470/BITS.2024.03.02.01.
3. Albuhairan F, Abou Abbas O, El Sayed D, Badri M, Alshahri S, De Vries N. The relationship of bullying and physical violence to mental health and academic performance: A cross-sectional study among adolescents in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2017;4(2):61-65.
4. Aleem S. Bullying behavior among school students: A review. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing. 2016;7(10):976-981.
5. Al-Raqqad HK, Al-Bourini ES, Al Talahin FM, Aranki RME. The impact of school bullying on students' academic achievement from teachers' point of view. International Education Studies. 2017;10(6):44-50.
6. Cook CR, Williams KR, Guerra NG, Kim TE. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly. 2010;25(2):65-83.
7. Delprato M, Akyeampong K, Dunne M. The impact of bullying on students' learning in Latin America: A matching approach for 15 countries. International Journal of Educational Development. 2017;52:37-57.
8. Mohana Keerthi M. Transforming agronomy, business, and management through blockchain technology. Journal of Business, IT, and Social Science. 2024;3(2):9-11. doi:10.51470/BITS.2024.03.02.09.
9. Huang L. Exploring the relationship between school bullying and academic performance: The mediating role of students' sense of belonging at school. Educational Studies. 2022;48(2):216-232.
10. Jan U, Hafeez I, Bhat SA, Shah BA, Mir FA, Rather IA, et al. of mental health among higher secondary school students in District Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Journal of Business, IT, and Social Science. 2024;3(2):12-19. doi:10.51470/BITS.2024.03.02.12.
11. Hagan J, Hirschfield P, Shedd C. First and last words: Apprehending the social and legal facts of an urban high school shooting. Sociological Methods Research. 2002;31:218-254.
12. Alabi OD, Aserere AJ, Ogunniran AO. Examining the link between company governance and monetary outcome: A review study of financial service providers in Nigeria. Journal of Business, IT, and Social Science. 2024;3(2): [pagination not provided]. doi:10.51470/BITS.2024.03.02.20.
13. Maliki AE, Asogwara CC, Ibu JE. Bullying and its effects on the academic performance of secondary school students in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 2009;25(3):209-213.
14. McMahon SD, Peist E, Davis JO, Bare K, Martinez A, Reddy LA, et al. Physical aggression toward teachers: Antecedents, behaviors, and consequences. Aggressive Behavior. 2020;46:116-126.
15. Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2017;22(1):240-253.
16. McLeod JD, Uemura R, Rohrman S. Adolescent mental health, behavior problems, and academic achievement. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2012;53(4):482497.
17. Pasha MT, Vennela R. Parental role in the English language learning of their children during COVID-19 pandemic: A study of parents of secondary school ESL learners. Journal of Business, IT, and Social Science. 2024;3(2): [pagination not provided]. doi:10.51470/BITS.2024.03.02.33.
18. Olweus D. Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. 1994;
19. Swearer SM, Espelage DL, Vaillancourt T, Hymel S. What can be done about school bullying?: Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher. 2010;39:38-47. www.extensionjournal.com
20. Glew GM, Rivara FP, Pease PS. School-based programs to reduce bullying. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;284(5):653.
21. Beale AV. Bullybusters: Using drama to empower students to take a stand against bullying behavior. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 2001;9(4):210-213.
22. Leary MR, Baumeister RF. The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2000;32:1-62.
23. Hawker DSJ, Boulton MJ. Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2000;41(4):441455.
24. Olweus D. The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen; 1996.
25. Fadia AI, Singh SK, Gomase VS. A study of academic stress and self-esteem among adolescents. International Journal of Indian Psychology. 2016;3(4):152-161.
26. Nandoli P, Das S, Debnath P. A study on bullying experience among adolescents and its effects on their psychological well-being. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health. 2016;3(7):1826-1830.