aprendizaje

1. 1
EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON TEENS´ SOCIAL LIFE
Leonardo J. Romay O.

2. 2
Dwight David Eisenhower
EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON TEENS´ SOCIAL LIFE
Leonardo J. Romay O.
(2018)

3. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………..……4,5
PROBLEM STATEMENT………………….. ………6,7
GENERAL AND SPECIF OBEJETIVES……….8
BACKGROUND……………………………………………….9
JUSTICATION……………..10,11
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………….. 12
CONCLUSION…………………………….13,14
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………….15

4. 4
INTRODUCTION
Bullying has long been tolerated by many as a rite of passage among children and
adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must have “asked for”
this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the child who is bullied begins to
internalize this idea. ( Dr. Marlene Seltzer 2016)
For many years, there has been a general acceptance when it comes to a child or adolescent
with greater social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate—such
that you can almost hear the justification: “kids will be kids” (Jonatan Fast. 2012) The
schoolyard bully trope crosses race, gender, class, ethnicity, culture, and generations,
appearing in popular media ranging from Harry Potter to Glee, and Mean Girls to Calvin
and Hobbes cartoons. Its prevalence perpetuates its normalization. But bullying is not a
normal part of childhood and is now appropriately considered to be a serious public health
problem.
Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is changing.
Historically, bullying has occurred at school—the physical setting in which most of
childhood is centered and the primary source for peer group formation—or really anywhere
that children played or congregated. In recent years, however, the physical setting is not the
only place bullying is occurring. Technology allows for a new type of digital electronic
aggression, cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging, social
media, and other forms of digital electronic communication.
Simultaneously, the demographics of cities and towns in the United States are in flux, with
resulting major changes in the ethnic and racial composition of schools across the country.
Numerical-minority ethnic groups appear to be at greater risk for being targets of bullying
because they have fewer same-ethnicity peers to help ward off potential bullies. Ethnically
diverse schools may reduce actual rates of bullying because the numerical balance of power
is shared among many groups.

5. 5
composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms, and modern
technology are contextual factors that must be considered to understand and effectively
react to bullying in the United States. Youth are embedded in multiple contexts, and each of
these contexts interacts with individual characteristics of youth in ways that either
exacerbate or attenuate the association between these individual characteristics and being a
target or perpetrator of bullying. Even the definition of bullying is being questioned, since
cyberbullying is bullying but may not involve repetition—a key component in previous
definitions of bullying—because a single perpetrating act on the Internet can be shared or
viewed multiple times.
Although the public health community agrees that bullying is a problem, it has been
difficult for researchers to determine the extent of bullying in the United States. However,
the prevalence data that are available indicate that school-based bullying likely affects
between 18 and 31 percent of children and youth, and the prevalence of cyber victimization
ranges from 7 to 15 percent of youth. These estimates are even higher for some subgroups
of youth who are particularly vulnerable to being bullied (e.g., youth who are lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender [LGBT]; youth with disabilities). Although these are ranges, they
show bullying behavior is a real problem that affects a large number of youth.

6. 6
PROBLEM STATEMENT
While traditional face to face bullying has been going on since the beginning of time,
cyberbullying is a relatively new form of bullying that has not been taken seriously until the
recent years. It used to be thought that since cyberbullying does not inflict physical damage
on the victim, it is not much of a concern. What these old beliefs where missing was
knowledge about what cyberbullying is and how this “new” type of bullying can cause such
an effect on one’s psychological state. The old beliefs did not take the 24/7 aspect of
cyberbullying into consideration. Also the negative publicity the victim will encounter for
being a victim was not taken into consideration either, therefore making it challenging to
grasp how such an indirect form of bullying can do such harm. (Campbell, Marilyn A.;
Slee, Phillip T.; Spears, Barbara; Butler, Des; Kift, Sally. 2013).
Once the population began to recognize the negative effect cyberbullying has on the victim,
preventive action began to take place. Due to this recognition, the problem no longer lies
whether cyberbullying exist or whether it needs to be stopped, rather the problem lies
whether the current prevention technique used towards cyberbullying is effective. It is
typically understood that in order to end the cyberbullying problem, the only course of
action that must take place is punishing the penetrator, but research has shown that this is
not only not effective, but it alone will not end cyberbullying. (Serber, Deborah L. 2013)
In order for one to grasp why punishment alone is not an effective course of action, one
must first understand the victim-bully cycle. The victim bully cycle states that a bully, more
specifically a cyberbully is likely to have been a victim of bullying at one portion of their
life. (Serber, Deborah L. 2013). This is because, victims of cyberbullying undergoes severe
mental distress that causes depression, anxiety, and a lowered self-esteem. Once a victim
develops depression and other psychological problem, even once their penetrator stopes,
they will have a continued negative effect if a proper treatment plan was not carried out.
The psychological state that the victim develops will cause the former victim to be more
prone to becoming an online penetrator, therefor falling into the victim-bully cycle. It is
important to understand this phenomenon when approaching and engineering a plan to end
cyberbullying because before ending cyberbullying one must understand what makes a
cyberbully a cyberbully. Once that is understood, then we must fabricate a plan to prevent
people from developing the psychological state that turns people into a cyberbully.

7. 7
Since research has shown that victims of cyberbullying become the next group of
cyberbullies, we must find and treat victims early on in order for them not to fall under the
victim-bully cycle. One way to locate the victim in a timely fashion is by making sure
parents and counselors keep a close eye on the online activities of their children and
students. Another effective way of locating the victim in a timely fashion is by encouraging
all students to talk to their counselors on a monthly bases. Once the victim is located,
instead of making the punishment of the penetrator a priority, the counseling of the victim
should be the first thing that is done. In counseling, the victim will learn assertive skills,
developing a more positive self-concept, increasing social skills reducing social isolation,
and practicing positive behaviors that reduce the risk of further victimization. (Chibbaro,
Julia, 2010). Once the victim receives this treatment, they will be able to lead mentally
healthy productive life’s that is free from cyberbullying. Not only will they be less likely to
fall victim again, but they are less likely to become a cyberbully. If the only course of
action that was carried out is punishment for the penetrator, then while one cyberbully is
stopped (or just slowed down) another cyberbully is formed. This is not to say that
punishment is not necessary or unfair, this is to say that punishment alone will only deal
with a single individual while ignoring the bigger picture. Once the bigger picture is
studied, new ways to deal with cyberbullying, such as treating the victim will be establishes
therefor putting an end to cyberbullying.

8. 8
GENERAL AND SPECIF OBJETIVES
1. Understand the extent, seriousness, and dynamics of bullying
2. Recognize and respond early and effectively to behaviors that can lead to bullying
3. Learn about new, effective strategies for controlling bullying
4. Prepare children to recognize and respond effectively to early bullying behavior
5. Teach children how everyone—bullies, victims, bystanders, and supportive adults—can
help control bullying
6. Create an environment where everyone understands that bullying behaviors are
unacceptable, harmful, and preventable
7. Empower yourself and children to actively intervene to prevent and stop bullying

9. 9
BACKGROUND
Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children thatinvolves a real
or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has thepotential to be repeated,
over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats,spreading rumors, attacking
someone physically or verbally, and excluding someonefrom a group on purpose
(Brookshire, 2014)
.In Indonesia, Roland and Idsøe (2001) have investigated how reactiveaggressiveness and
two aspects of proactive aggressiveness, power-relatedaggressiveness and affiliation-related
aggressiveness, are related to being bulliedand bullying others. In addition they have also
attempted to differentiate betweendifferent kinds of aggressiveness in bullying among boys
and girls in different grades.Overall, they have found that there was a good correlation
between both proactivepower-related aggressiveness and proactive affiliation-related
aggressiveness, andbeing involved in bullying. However, reactive aggressiveness was not a
goodpredictor for bullying behavior. Fandrem et al.
(2009) have also conducted a bullyingstudy in Norwegian schools using the same scales
developed by Roland and Idsøe.The result showed that proactive power-related
aggressiveness and affiliation-related aggressiveness are related to bullying behavior, but
somehow different instrength in gender relation. Thus, although there might be different
results in otherstudies, Roland and Idsøe and Fandrem et al. in their studies have somehow
shownassociations between bullying cultural patterns and aggressiveness as well asbetween
gender and degree of aggressiveness.
Local and international studies have affirmed the alarming situation of bullyingand school
violence involving Filipino children. The intensity of violence has reacheda disturbing rate
that has pushed policy-makers to formulate bullying preventionschemes. Despite organized
attempts to make schools a safe environment, thisdilemma poses critical risks that call for
aggressive and determined actions to fightviolence in schools (Ancho, 2013).

10. 10
JUSTICATION
There’s no denying that being a victim of bullying can leave lasting psychological and
social scars. Victims are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and problems in
developing healthy social connections for years after the experience. But according to a
new study, it gets even worse—the people bullying them may actually experience health
benefits from their ruthless behavior.
William Copeland, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke
University Medical Center, and other researchers report in the journal PNAS that bullies
show lower levels of inflammation, a biological process linked to higher risks of chronic
diseases such as heart trouble and cancer, while victims show spikes in the very
inflammatory markers that could prime them for serious health problems. The results aren’t
an excuse for bullying, says Copeland, but serve as a lesson for how social status can have
lasting positive effects on health—as long as it doesn’t come at the price of hurting others.
Victims of bullying showed the greatest increases in their CRP levels, compared to where
they started, which wasn’t surprising, since inflammation can spike due to stress, anxiety,
and lack of sleep—all of which bullying victims experience. The more often victims were
bullied, the more their CRP levels rose. But the real shocker came when the scientists
analyzed the CRP levels of the bullies. Their inflammation rates were lower even than
those children who had never reported being bullied or being a bully. Bullying seemed to
protect the aggressors from inflammatory diseases. “We found that the enhanced social
status that came along with being a bully did seem to advantage them over time,” says
Copeland. “That finding more than anything else surprised us.”
The fact that there are physical benefits to being the top dog socially—and that these effects
are long-lasting—is an important message of the study. And it’s not just bullying—other
research has linked higher socioeconomic status to lower levels of inflammation. But what
distinguishes Copeland’s work is the long consequence of this effect, which extended from
childhood into young adulthood. “It shows the possibility of social interactions for
positively affecting a person’s health,” he says. “It’s striking that we can still detect that
effect down the road.”

11. 11
Clearly, there are ways to enhance your social status without threatening to pound your
peers. Copeland hopes the study serves as an endorsement of more positive ways of
promoting self-esteem and confidence: through athletics, extracurricular activities and other
experiences that can help people feel good about themselves—and that don’t come at the
expense of others. Bullying shouldn’t be its own reward.

12. 12
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

13. 13
CONCLUSION
Bullying has long been tolerated by many as a rite of passage among children
and adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must
have “asked for” this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the
child who is bullied begins to internalize this idea. Formany years, there has
been a general acceptancewhen it comes to a child or adolescent with greater
social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate—such
that you can almost hear the justification: “kids will be kids.” The schoolyard
bully trope crosses race, gender, class, ethnicity, culture, and generations,
appearing in popular media ranging from Harry Potter to Glee, and Mean
Girls to Calvin and Hobbes cartoons. Its prevalence perpetuates its
normalization. But bullying is not a normal part of childhood and is now
appropriately considered to be a serious public health problem.
Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is
changing. Historically, bullying has occurred at school—the physical setting
in which mostof childhood is centered and the primary sourcefor peer group
formation—or really anywhere that children played or congregated. In recent
years, however, the physical setting is not the only place bullying is occurring.
Technology allows for a new type of digital electronic aggression,
cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging,
social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication.
Simultaneously, the demographics of cities and towns in the United States are
in flux, with resulting major changes in the ethnic and racial composition of
schools across the country. Numerical-minority ethnic groups appear to be at
greater risk for being targets of bullying because they have fewer same-
ethnicity peers to help ward off potential bullies. Ethnically diverse schools
may reduce actual rates of bullying becausethe numerical balance of power is
shared among many groups.

14. 14
Composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms,
and modern technology are contextual factors that must be considered to
understand and effectively react to bullying in the United States. Youth are
embedded in multiple contexts, and each of these contexts interacts with
individual characteristics of youth in ways that either exacerbate or attenuate
the association between these individual characteristics and being a target or
perpetrator of bullying. Even the definition of bullying is being questioned,
since cyberbullying is bullying but may not involve repetition—a key
component in previous definitions of bullying—because a single perpetrating
act on the Internet can be shared or viewed multiple times.
Although the public health community agrees that bullying is a problem, it has
been difficult for researchers to determine the extent of bullying in the United
States. However, the prevalence data that are available indicate that school-
based bullying likely affects between 18 and 31 percent of children and youth,
and the prevalence of cyber victimization ranges from 7 to 15 percent of
youth. These estimates are even higher for some subgroups ofyouth who are
particularly vulnerable to being bullied (e.g., youth who are lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender [LGBT]; youth with disabilities). Although these are
ranges, they show bullying behavior is a real problem that affects a large
number of youth.

15. 15
REFERENCES
https://www.nap.edu/read/23482/chapter/2
https://prezi.com/kxyb8wuk4pks/bullying-justification-and-
consequences/
http://time.com/96848/bullying-can-make-a-bully-healthier/
https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/PreventingBullying/STEPS/Pages/Theory.aspx
http://www.actionantibullying.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic
le&id=4&Itemid=788
http://eyesonbullying.org/objectives.html
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/bullystoppers/Pages/teachin
ter.aspx