Adolescent Mental Health. This is a presentation on sensation seeking and emotional intelligences as predictors of school bullying among adolescents in Ghana.

1. Sensation Seeking and Emotional
Intelligence as Risk Factors for
School bullying among
Adolescents in Ghana
Beatrice Dwumfour Williams, Richard A. Boateng and
Adote Anum
Department of Psychiatry
College of Health Sciences
University of Ghana School of Medicine and Dentistry

2. Bullying
The core descriptions of school bullying:
• Physical, verbal or psychological attack or
intimidation - intended to cause fear, pain or damage
• An imbalance of power (psychological or physical)
• Repeated incidents (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1993).
Four groups
• The bully (The perpetrator)
• The bullied (victim)
• The bully/victim
• Neutrals (Those who neither bullied or victimised
bully)
(Cohn & Canter, 2003)

3. Forms
Direct (physical and verbal) and Indirect (Mishna &
Alaggia, 2005).
• Physical: hitting, smacking, theft
•Verbal: name-calling, insults
•Social (relational): gossiping, rumour spreading
and convincing others to socially exclude the victim
(Underwood, 2003)
•Indirect - damaging the victim’s social status and
is often much less detectable

4. Gender issues
• Boys experience and tend to engage in higher
rates of direct bullying
• Girls are more often the targets of indirect
bullying (Craig & Pepler, 2003).
• In a recent study by Goldstein, Young and
Boyd (2008) gender was not reported as
significant predictor of either form of bullying

5. Risk factors and Psychological
outcomes
Risk factors
• The quality of parental attachment
• Sensation seeking
• Emotional Intelligence (EI)
• Self-esteem
Outcomes
• Depression
• Suicidal ideations

6. Aims and objectives
How the adolescent’s –
•attachment to their primary caregiver
•self esteem
•sensation seeking behaviour
•emotional intelligence
predict the likelihood of the individual engaging in
bullying behaviour.
•To investigate the association between bullying
behaviour, depression and suicidal ideation among
adolescents aged 12-19.

7. Hypothesis
H1: Sensation seeking would account for a significant variance in
bullying behaviour after controlling for age, gender and
parental attachment and self esteem.
H2: Emotional intelligence would account for a significant
variance in bullying behaviour after controlling for age,
gender, parental attachment and self esteem.
H3: Sensation seeking would account for a significant variance in
victimisation behaviour after controlling for age, gender,
parental attachment and self esteem.

8. H4: Emotional intelligence will account for a significant variance
in victimisation behaviour after controlling for age, gender and
parental attachment and self esteem.
H5: Bullying and Victimisation behaviour would account for a
significant variance in depression among adolescents after
controlling for age, gender, parental attachment, self esteem,
sensation seeking and emotional intelligence.
H6: Bullying and Victimisation behaviour would account for a
significant variance in suicide ideations among adolescents
after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment, self
esteem, sensation seeking and emotional intelligence.

9. Proposed model
Parental
attachment
Sensation seeking
Emotional
intelligence
Self esteem
Bullying
Perpetration
Bullying
Victimisation
Depression
Suicidal ideations

10. METHODOLOGY
• Population
Male and female adolescent students between the ages of 12
and 19 years in Junior and Senior High schools with the
Accra Metropolis.
Sample
Three hundred and fifty five (355) students
(180 males and 175 females)
255 from Senior High School
100 from Junior High School
• Sampling technique
The study used two non-probability sampling techniques -
Convenience and the Purposive sampling techniques
Probability sampling technique which is the stratified random
sampling technique.

11. Study Design
•Cross sectional research design
Instruments / Measures
•Demographic Information
•Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument: Bully/Target (APRI-BT)
Parada, Marsh and Craven (2010).
•Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ, West, Rose,
Spreng, Sheldon-Keller & Adam, 1998).
•Sensation seeking scale : Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire (ZKPQ) (1993) – Zuckerman and Kuhlman
(1993)
• Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Schutte, Malouff, Hall,
Haggerty , Cooper, Golden & Dornheim, 1998).
•Rosenberg Self esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
•Columbia Depression Scale (Zuckerbrot, Maxon, Pagar, Davies,
Fisher & Shaffer, 2007).

12. Table 1
Demographic characteristics of participants (N=355)
Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Age (Mean, SD) 15.85(1.98)
Gender
Male 180 50.7
Female 175 49.3
Form
JHS1 6 1.7
JHS2 58 16.3
JHS3 37 10.4
SHS1 47 13.2
SHS2 79 22.3
SHS3 69 19.4
SHS4 59 16.9
SHS1 47 13.2

13. Table 2
Summary of the Cronbach’s alpha for tests used in the current
study
Scale Psychometric
property
Study value
(α)
Pilot value
Adolescent Peer
Relations Instrument
(Bully)
.89 - .93 .89 .90
Adolescent Peer
Review Instrument
(Target)
.87 - .93 .89 .89
Adolescent Attachment
Questionnaire
.81 .84 .78
Sensation Seeking
Scale
.84 .62 .62
Emotional Intelligence
Scale
.90 .85 .81
Rosenberg Self Esteem .80 - .88 .71 .72

14. Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Variables in the Study and
Alpha coefficients of Key Study Variables
Variable M SD N Skew
Age 15.83 1.95 355
-.26
Bullying Behaviour 31.23 12.37 355 1.31
Victimization 33.85 13.93 355 1.16
Parental
Attachment
35.66 7.50 355 .91
Sensation Seeking 10.61 3.11 355 -1.52
Emotional
Intelligence
124.85 15.07 355 -.05
Self Esteem 19.55 4.60 355 -.66

15. Hypothesis One
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis
One
• Note. R2
= .181, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2
= .045, (p <.001) for Step 2. **p <.01, ***p < .001.
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 3.31 0.45
Age 0.48 0.09
.27***
Gender
-0.35 0.09
-.20***
Parental attachment
0.22 0.06
.19***
Self esteem
0.16 0.09
.09
Step 2
Constant 4.62 0.54
Age 0.52 0.09 .29 ***
Gender
-0.29 0.09 -.17**
Parental attachment 0.19 0.06 .17**
Self esteem 0.11 0.09 .06
Sensation seeking -0.36 0.09 -.22***

16. Hypothesis Two
Table 5
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Two
• 2 2
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 3.26 0.45
Age 0.51 0.09 .29***
Gender -0.33 0.09 -.19***
Parental attachment 0.21 0.06 .19***
Self esteem 0.16 0.09 .10
Step 2
Constant 3.19 0.45
Age 0.45 0.10 .26***
Gender -0.31 0.09 -.18***
Parental attachment 0.19 0.06 .17**
Self esteem 0.10 0.10 .06
Emotional intelligence 0.09 0.04 .14*

17. Hypothesis Three
Table 6
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Three
• Note. R2
= .145, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2
= .037, (p <.001) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01,***p<.001.
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 3.37 0.53
Age 0.32 0.11
.16**
Gender
-0.40 0.11
-.20***
Parental attachment
0.27 0.07
-.20***
Self esteem
0.25 0.11
.12*
Step 2
Constant 4.71 0.63
Age 0.37 0.11
.18 ***
Gender -0.33 0.11
-.16**
Parental attachment 0.23 0.07
.18**
Self esteem 0.19 0.11
.10
Sensation seeking -0.38 0.10
.20***

18. Hypothesis Four
Table 7
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Four
Note. R2
= .145, (p < .001) for Step 1; ∆R2
= .003, (p <.344) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01<.01,***p<.001.
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 3.36 0.53
Age 0.32 0.11
.15**
Gender
-0.39 0.11
-.19***
Parental attachment
0.26 0.08
.2***
Self esteem
0.26 0.11
.13*
Step 2
Constant 3.36 0.53
Age 0.29 0.12
-.14 *
Gender
-0.38 0.11
-.19***
Parental attachment
0.26 0.08
.20***
Self esteem
0.22 0.12
.11
Emotional intelligence 0.04 0.05
.06

19. Hypothesis Five
Table 8
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Five
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 3.20 0.82
Age -0.01 0.08
-.01
Gender -0.08 0.07
-.07
Parental attachment -0.02 0.11
-.01
Self esteem -0.24 0.08
.19**
Sensation seeking 0.18 0.07
.16*
Emotional intelligence 0.05 0.03
.11
Step 2
Constant 2.96 0.90
-.020
Age -0.02 0.08
-.060
Gender -0.08 0.07
-0.003
Parental attachment -0.01 0.11
-.020

20. Table 8 .. CONTD..
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Five
Self esteem -0.23 0.08 -.192**
Sensation seeking 0.19 0.07 .17**
Emotional intelligence 0.05 0.03 .096
Bullying perpetration 0.04 0.05 .054
Bullying victimisation -0.01 0.05
-.008
.
Note. R2
= .071, (p < .01) for Step 1; ∆R2
= .002, (p =.754) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01

21. Hypothesis Six
Table 9
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Six
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 1.717 0.43
Age -0.019 0.04
-.030
Gender 0.097 0.04
.157**
Parental attachment 0.002 0.06
.002
Self esteem -0.071 0.04
-.115
Sensation seeking 0.057 0.04
.096
Emotional intelligence -0.012 0.02
-.046
Step 2
Constant 1.758 0.46
Age -0.014 0.04
-.022
Gender 0.098 0.04
.159*
Parental attachment -0.001 0.06
-.001

22. Table 7 .. CONTD..
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Hypothesis Five
Self esteem -0.076 0.04 -.124
Sensation seeking 0.055 0.04 .092
Emotional intelligence -0.011 0.02 -.043
Bullying perpetration -0.025 0.03 -.070
Bullying victimisation 0.022 0.24
.071
.
Note. R2
= .067, (p < .004) for Step 1; ∆R2
= .004, (p =.569) for Step 2. *p <.05, **p < .01

23. Summary of findings
 Hypotheses one, two and three were supported
• Sensation seeking accounted for a significant variance in bullying
behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self
esteem
• Emotional intelligence accounted for a significant variance in bullying
behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self
esteem
• Sensation seeking accounted for a significant variance in victimization
behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental attachment and self
esteem.
 Hypothesis four, five, and six were not supported
• Emotional intelligence did not account for a significant variance in
victimization behaviour after controlling for age, gender, parental
attachment and self esteem.
• Bullying and victimisation behaviour did not account for a significant
variance in depression among adolescents after controlling for age, gender,
parental attachment, self esteem, sensation seeking and emotional
intelligence.
• Bullying and victimisation behaviour did not account for a significant
variance in suicide ideation among adolescents after controlling for age,
gender, parental attachment, self esteem, sensation seeking and emotional
intelligence.

24. Model based on current findings
Parental attachment
Sensation seeking
Emotional intelligence
Self esteem
Perpetration
Suicidal ideations
Depression
Victimisation

25. Implications
Educational stakeholders and adolescents encouraged to show interest
in activities designed at regulating sensation seeking.
• Relaxation techniques, use of self talk, sports lessons (hiking,
paragliding) .
Necessity for teachers, policy-makers and mental health professionals
to emphasize the promotion of emotional education.
EI - has relevance for success in many areas of life, not only antisocial
behaviours in educational settings (Goleman, 1995). Its
development may also assist to better equip students to be successful
in other aspects of life.
Parents and caregivers should continually reinforce appropriate and
desirable behaviours with unconditional positive regard as depicted
by Carl Rogers. This informs healthy self-esteem development.
Students should also be taught self-efficacy techniques so as to help
them have the confidence to solve and deal with problems when
they occur – depressive episodes
The need to have and hire school psychologist

26. Conclusion
• The current findings reinforce the need to
broaden our investigations of bullying and
victimization in Ghana.
• The results lend support to further
investigating these phenomena in an attempt to
add to our cultural understanding, prediction,
and control of bullying and victimization
behaviour.

27. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• PROF. ANGELA L. OFORI-ATTA (UGSMD)
• PROF. C.C. MATE-KOLE
• DR. CHARLES D. WILLIAMS (SMCU)
• DRS. AKOENSI & ANNOR (CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY)
• DR. ADOTE ANUM (UG)
• DR. RICHARD A. BOATENG (UG)
• RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS (ADOLESCENT
STUDENTS)
THANK YOU…