Statement |
No of Items |
Pilot Position |
Mean |
S.D |
Bullying |
9 |
1st 2nd |
3.16 3.15 |
1.17 1.18 |
Anxiety |
8 |
1st 2nd |
3.18 3.15 |
1.19 1.18 |
Peer Isolation |
8 |
1st 2nd |
3.12 3.18 |
1.15 1.19 |
Possession of Weapon |
9 |
1st 2nd |
3.29 3.39 |
0.95 0.97 |
Weighted Mean |
0.85 |
0.85 r-coefficient was obtained, therefore the instrument was considered reliable.
Results and Discussion
The results from the data collected upon field study are presented in tables and figures to ensure clarity.
Demographic Description of Respondents
This section describes demographic characteristics of the respondents using frequency counts and percentage as illustrated below:
Table 1: Gender Distribution of Respondents
Gender |
Frequency |
Percentages |
Male |
150 |
56 |
Female |
120 |
44 |
Total |
270 |
100 |
Data presented in Table 1 shows that out of two hundred and seventy (270) respondents that participated in the study, 150 (56%) were males, while 120 (44%) were females. From this it can be deduced that although the study sampled both gender, majority of the respondent were males.
Table 2: Age Distribution of Respondents
Age |
Frequency |
Percentages |
9 to 11 years |
100 |
37 |
12 to 14 years |
145 |
54 |
15 years above |
25 |
9 |
Total |
270 |
100 |
Data presented in Table 2 shows that out of two hundred and seventy (270) respondents that participated in this study 37% of the respondents were between age 9 and 11 years, 54% were between age 12 and 14 years while 9% were 15 years above.
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant impact of bullying on anxiety among school-aged children.
Table 3: Chi-square Analysis showing impact of bullying on anxiety among school-aged children.
Variables |
N |
Mean |
S.D |
DF |
X2-Cal |
X2-tab |
Sig. |
Bullying |
159 |
16.09 |
4.88 |
1 |
31.69 |
9.48 |
0.05 |
Anxiety |
111 |
12.16 |
11.24 |
92 |
|||
Total |
270 |
93 |
Significant at 0.05, df. = 1 and 92, X2 cal = 31.69, X2 tab = 9.48
The table 3 shows that the calculated X2- value 31.69 is greater than the X2 table value which is 9.48 given 1 and 92 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the null hypothesis which state that there is no significant impact of bullying on anxiety among school-aged children is rejected. Therefore, bullying has a significant impact on anxiety among school-aged children in Nigeria.
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant impact of bullying on peer isolation among school-aged children.
Table 4: Chi-square Analysis showing impact of bullying on peer isolation among school-aged children.
Variables |
N |
Mean |
S.D |
DF |
X2-Cal |
X2-tab |
Sig. |
Bullying |
143 |
26.55 |
4.26 |
1 |
22.246 |
9.488 |
0.05 |
Peer Isolation |
127 |
22.06 |
3.25 |
86 |
|||
Total |
270 |
87 |
Significant at 0.05, df. = 1 and 86, X2 cal = 22.246, X2 tab = 9.488
The table 4 shows that the calculated X2- value 22.246 is greater than the X2 table value which is 9.488 given 1 and 86 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the null hypothesis which state that there is no significant impact of bullying on peer isolation among school-aged children is rejected. Therefore, bullying has a significant impact on peer isolation among school-aged children in Nigeria.
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant impact of bullying on school absenteeism of school-aged children.
Table 5: Chi-square Analysis showing impact of bullying on school absenteeism of school-aged children.
Variables |
N |
Mean |
S.D |
DF |
X2-Cal |
X2-tab |
Sig. |
Bullying |
196 |
22.58 |
3.44 |
2 |
1.724 |
3.974 |
0.05 |
School Absenteeism |
74 |
23.34 |
2.15 |
147 |
|||
Total |
270 |
149 |
Significant at 0.05, df. = 2 and 147, X2 cal = 1.724, X2 tab = 3.974
The table 5 shows that the calculated X2- value 1.724 is less than the X2 table value which is 3.974 given 2 and 147 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the null hypothesis which state that there is no significant impact of bullying on school absenteeism of school-aged children is accepted. Therefore, bullying has no significant impact on school absenteeism of school-aged children in Nigeria.
Hypothesis 4: There is no significant impact of bullying on possession of weapon by school-aged children.
Table 6: Chi-square Analysis showing impact of bullying on possession of weapon by school-aged children.
Variables |
N |
Mean |
S.D |
DF |
X2-Cal |
X2-tab |
Sig. |
Bullying |
214 |
22.58 |
7.93 |
2 |
2.59 |
5.438 |
0.05 |
Possession of Weapon |
56 |
12.16 |
10.38 |
147 |
|||
Total |
270 |
149 |
Significant at 0.05, df. = 2 and 147, X2 cal = 2.59, X2 tab = 5.438
The table 6 shows that the calculated X2- value 2.59 is less than the X2 table value which is 5.438 given 2 and 147 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant impact of bullying on possession of weapon by school-aged children is accepted. Therefore, bullying has no significant impact on possession of weapon by school-aged children in Nigeria.
Discussion of Findings
Hypothesis one states that there is no significant influence of bullying on anxiety among school-aged children. The findings from this study however showed clearly that anxiety disorders exists among school-aged children who have been exposed to bullying in Nigerian schools. Reports from the study indicated that most victims of bullying exhibit fear and worry even while they are in school. Loss of concentration in class was also a paramount issue expressed by participants in the study. The study also reflected that many of the victims of bullying are afraid to tell their school administrators and principals their experience because they feel telling will prompt their bully to victimize them even more. This is supported by Campbell M. (2013) who opined that there is a synergy between aggressive behavior and social anxiety. Fullchange and Furlong (2016) likewise revealed that increased frequency of victimization increases the tendencies for other constructs such as anxiety disorders and depression. Findings of Reiss and McNally (2001), further opined that being a bully victim is one of many reasons of psychopathological symptoms, and may cause the generation of anxiety sensitivity in adolescents. Consequently, Reiss and McNally’s assumptions that bullying may have effects on anxiety sensitivity in adolescents was found true as revealed by this study which revealed that anxiety disorders exists among school-aged children who have been exposed to bullying in Nigeria.
Hypothesis two states that there is no significant impact of bullying on peer isolation among school-aged children in Nigeria. The findings from this study revealed however that bullying as an aggressive behavior has a significant impact on peer isolation witnessed among school-aged children in Nigeria. Report from the study found that bully victims do not make friends in school because of the denigration they often experience. Victimized participants in the study chose to isolate themselves during recess rather than socialize with their colleagues to avoid being bullied. This study also found victims of bullying being isolated because they were categorized as being weak, unfit and unable to defend themselves by their classmates. The foregoing is supported by Garbarino and deLara, (2003), who emphasized that peer isolation is itself a problem as victims of bullying can easily become disconnected from the moderating forces of mainstream society. The findings of Garbarino and deLara (2003), explained that peer isolation can take the form of ignoring someone, openly excluding or isolating a child, rallying other students to dislike a child and usually name calling and rumor spreading can lead to this exclusion and isolation however victims of bullying are usually faced with loneliness and depression from being isolated by their peers.
Hypothesis three states that there is no significant impact of bullying on school absenteeism of school-aged children. The findings from this study however revealed that students had remained consistent in school not just because they loved coming to school but because the decision to either attend school or not was mostly not theirs to make. Parents would often not allow their children stay back at home not minding the experiences they grapple with in school. Students themselves do not often relate their bullying experience to their parents hence they are mostly forced to be in school. This study found that students do not stay away from school just because they were bullied. The findings of this study however is contrary to the findings of the study done by Hutzell and Payne (2012) who explored rates of school absenteeism and certain locations in a school setting of students who have experienced bullying using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement 2007, the researchers were able to examine data of 11,161 students between the ages of 12 and 18. Bullying victimization and school absenteeism were both measured using a series of questions complied by the researchers. It was found that students who experience bully victimization were more likely to exhibit avoidance and absenteeism from school. However findings from this study reveals that there is no significant impact of bullying on school absenteeism of school-aged children in Nigeria.
Hypothesis four states that there is no significant impact of bullying on possession of weapon by school-aged children. This study however revealed that students do make use of weapons in school because they were bullied nor as a means of self-defense. This study found that victims of bullying did not engage in hiding any firearm in their school bags because weapons are contrabands in schools and are prohibited substances. Parents likewise engage in routine check of their wards school items and so victims of bullying do not adopt the use of weapon in school as they are being thoroughly checked by their parents. The aforementioned is however contrary to the findings of Phang, Keng, and Chiang (2014), who opined that bullying victims who have been threatened or have been in a fight are more likely to bring a weapon to school than other victims and no victims. The study of Phang et al (2014), also revealed that students whose sense of safety had been violated or threatened in successively more ways had a greater propensity to carry weapons to school, with each additional risk factor further compounding this risk. They reported that victims were twice more likely to carry weapons to school than non-victims. In contrast to the findings of Phang et al (2014), this study reveals that there is no significant impact of bullying on possession of weapon by school-aged children in Nigeria.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, bullying has become a major issue of great concern in today’s society, it possesses psychosocial implications for victims of this cruel behavior. Bullying can be ameliorated by adopting many strategies considering that bullying can threaten students’ psychological, social, and emotional safety at school and can negatively impact their psychosocial adjustment.
In the light of the findings reported in the study the following recommendations serves as approaches to curb bullying in schools:
- The schools and home should work in synergy to collaboratively instill good values in their children/students.
- The school should embrace counselling services to help the psychosocial wellbeing of victims of bullying.
- The school should develop strategies to mete out punishments for any discovered bully.
- Victims of bullying should be encouraged by counsellors to report bullying cases to school authority as soon as it is experienced.
Sociological Implications
Keeping schools safe spurs social and creative learning in the child and helps the child anticipate being at the school at the dawn of any new academic day. When their basic safety needs are not met, children are at risk for not feeling comfortable at school. Thus, school safety provides an opportunity for the students to explore, learn and grow. John Dewey (1909) opined that the school should be a reflection of the society. Dewey expresses that school should promote values and traits that are in tandem with the goals and vision of the society. Hence if we would desire a society devoid of crises and social vices such as aggression, theft, terrorism etc. then the school should strive towards a school system devoid of bullying. Education is keen on ensuring the development of the individual’s abilities and the formation of a knowledgeable society as a requirement for development. The foregoing suggests that the purpose of education is to assist the personal growth of the individual and national development. This study hence seeks to add to the body of sociological findings on the need for a safe school system devoid of bullying as this would go a long way in ensuring the child trained in the school is well equipped with the right knowledge, in the right learning environment with the right skills to fit into the larger society properly thereby reducing the rate of unskilled and unfit youths in the society today.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study suggests the following areas for further research:
- Personality and environmental correlates of bullying behavior in junior secondary schools.
- Implications of bullying victimization of students in Higher Institutions.
References:
Campbell M. (2013). Loneliness, social anxiety, and bullying victimization in young people: A literature review. Psychology and Education. 50. 1-10.
Fajoju A.S (2009) School bullying and academic performances of secondary school students in Edo State. Unpublished Doctoral Research Proposal Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nigeria.
Federal Ministry of Education. (2007). Basic and Senior Secondary Education Statistics in Nigeria, Abuja. 1-5.
Fullchange, A., & Furlong, M. J. (2016). An Exploration of Effects of Bullying Victimization from a Complete Mental Health Perspective. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015623593
Garbarino, J. & Delara, E. (2003). Words Can Hurt Forever. Educational Leadership.
Hutzell. K & Payne. A (2012). The Impact of Bullying Victimization on School Avoidance. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 10. 370-385. 10.1177/1541204012438926.
Ionu?, A. (2011). Family And School Understood As Agents Of Socialization.
Kutsyuruba, B, Klinger, D & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate, school safety, and student achievement and well-being: a review of the literature. Review of Education. 3. 103-135. 10.1002/rev3.3043.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, D. C. Hemisphere Press.
Phang, K. C., Keng, L. S., & Chiang, C. K. (2014). Mindful-S.T.O.P.: Mindfulness made easy for stress reduction in medical students. Education in Medicine Journal, 6(2), 48-56. doi:10.5959/eimj.v6i2.230
Reiss, S., & McNally, R. J. (2001). Expectancy model of fear. In S. Reiss & R. R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavior therapy (pp. 107–121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tapia F.C, Fraijo S.B, Corral V.V, Garza T.G & Moreno B.M. (2020) School Environments and Elementary School Children’s Well-Being in Northwestern Mexico. Front. Psychol. 11:510. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00510
United States Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, (2007). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR23041.v1