This document summarizes a study that examines the relationship between family structure and bullying among 9-year-old children in Ireland. It analyzes data from over 8,000 children and finds that while 21% of parents reported their child being bullied, 40% of children reported being bullied themselves. It splits the data into groups of children who were bullied and not bullied, and uses non-parametric tests to determine if family structure has an effect on whether a child is bullied. The Kruskal-Wallis test results suggest that family structure does have an effect on a child being bullied.

1. Bullying and bullied in Ireland:
E¤ect of family structure
Soumyadeep Mukhopadhyay; 17235308
John Fergus; 03649571
J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, NUI Galway
1718-EC515 Group Project
24th
November, 2017
Abstract
Bullying is a social phenomenon when someone is repeatedly picked
on or treated unfairly by another person or group of people. Bullying
creates stress in a child and if it continues over a period of time there
is a high risk that it will result in an erosion of self-esteem. This is a
major problem in the modern society and Ireland is not an exception.
This report explores the ‘Growing Up in Ireland’dataset to inspect the
scenario of bullying among the 9-year-old children across Ireland. It is
interesting to note that only half of the bullying taking place have been
reported to the family. It is a well-accepted across cultures that a healthy
family structure, well-educated primary caregiver (PCG) and …nancial
stability are some essential conditions in raising a well-mannered child.
This work attempts to …nd whether these traits of a family have any e¤ect
on the child being bullied to bullying other children. The statistical tests
suggest that family structure has an e¤ect on being bullied, but it has no
e¤ect on becoming a bully. It was found that almost half of the bullying
were not reported to the parents and the lower income group children
were more prone towards bullying behaviour. Also, verbal bullying and
exclusion were two of the most reported types of bullying among 9 years
old children. Implementation of anti-bullying policy in schools and strong
social boding among the teachers, parents and students are required to
…ght this menace.
1 Introduction
The Irish Department of Education and Skills in the 1993 Guidelines de…nes
bullying as:
... repeated aggression, verbal, psychological or physical con-
ducted by an individual or group against others. Isolated incidents
of aggressive behaviour, which should not be condoned, can scarcely
1

2. be described as bullying. However, when the behaviour is systematic
and ongoing it is bullying.. (Department of Education, 1993)
According to Swearer and Hymel (2015), bullying is a unique but complex
form of interpersonal aggression, which takes many forms, serves di¤erent func-
tions, and is manifested in di¤erent patterns of relationships. It is not about
high spirited verbal and physical games but rather it involves a very deliberate
act on the part of the aggressor to cause the targeted child or teen to feel upset
and hurt, for example, by humiliating, ridiculing, intimidating or threatening
them. Common forms of direct bullying are verbal attacks, physical aggression
or assaults, gestures and extortion while indirect bullying are the circulation of
o¤ensive notes, the writing of unpleasant gra¢ ti and damage to personal prop-
erty. Relational and social bullying can also be both direct and indirect. This
form of bullying sets out to manipulate and damage a child’s reputation and/or
relationships by ignoring, excluding, isolating, passing notes or spreading false
information and malicious rumors. According to experts, bullying creates stress
and if it continues over a period of time there is a high risk that it will result in
an erosion of con…dence and self-esteem. Other frequent symptoms are raised
anxiety, fear, loneliness, reluctance to go to school, isolation, educational under-
performance and depression (Mc Guckin et al., 2011). Bullying creates stress
and if it continues over a period of time there is a high risk that it will result in
an erosion of con…dence and self-esteem (Boulton et al, 2008). Therefore, it is of
utmost importance that the socioeconomic and behavioural angles of bullying
are studied carefully to uncover the dark corners of this social menace. The
GUI dataset provides a valuable insight into the world of about 8000 nine year
old children across all the socioeconomic background in Ireland.
1.1 Bullying and family dynamics
It has been accepted by researchers that communication among the family and
the relationships aspects among family members play important roles in shap-
ing bully and the victim behaviours. There can be important di¤erences be-
tween families of bullies, victims which can be uncovered by looking at the
family functioning and parent–child interactions from the perspective of the
children. Studies have investigated di¤erences between families of victims, bul-
lies, bully/victims, and uninvolved children on family functioning, child-rearing
practices, and problem-solving strategies in hypothetical con‡ict situations and
perception di¤erences between children and their parents on those dimensions
(Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2002).
Broadly speaking, bullies perceive their family as less cohesive (Bowers et al.,
1992) and experience more hostility (Rigby, 1994; Smith et al., 1993). Peer ag-
gression was found to be associated with an avoidant attachment history (Smith
et al., 1993). Moreover, bullies perceive a strong power imbalance between fa-
ther and mother, the fathers being more powerful. A power imbalance was
also observed between siblings and themselves, the siblings being more power-
ful (Bowers et al., 1992). According to the bullies, their family encourage less
2

3. autonomy (Rican et al., 1993), lacks structure, and primarily adopts rules that
reinforce aggressive behavior (Oliver et al., 1994; Rican et al., 1993). For boys
in particular, an association was found between bullying and inadequate com-
munication structures in the family (Rigby, 1994). On the other hand, bully
victims perceive their families as characterized by high levels of cohesion (Bow-
ers et al., 1992) and low scores on negotiation (Oliver et al., 1994; Rican et
al., 1993). An association was found between victimization and ambivalent at-
tachment relationships. Compared with a group of controls, victims of bullying
reported that their fathers had more power than did their mothers. They per-
ceived siblings as being slightly less powerful compared to themselves (Bowers et
al., 1992). Furthermore, it was found that victims perceive small di¤erences on
parental monitoring compared to control children, thus revealing a less accurate
monitoring style (Bowers et al., 1994).
1.2 Bullying and parenting
From a social learning perspective, it has been argued that external environ-
ment contributes to acquiring and maintaining aggression (Bandura, 1986), and
parents’child rearing behavior may serve as a model upon which children base
their behavior and expectations of future relationships (Ladd, 1992). It was
found that maladaptive parenting, marked by high levels of hostility, hitting
and shouting, was related to increased risk of peer victimization at school (e.g.
Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004). On the other hand, children of authoritative par-
ents (high on demanding and high on responsiveness) were found to do better at
school and have less adjustment problems (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). The exam-
ination of individual parenting characteristics enable the exploration of relative
independent e¤ects of these characteristics on child outcomes (Grolnick & Ryan,
1989). For example, previous research identi…ed several factors that are impor-
tant for the socialization of children. These include the extent of supervision
(Georgiou, 2008), warmth (Booth, 1994) and overprotection (Finnegan, Hodges,
& Perry, 1998). Knowing which parenting factors increase or decrease the risk
of victimization is necessary in order to develop prevention or intervention pro-
grams that go beyond the school context. Research on the impact of family
structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children
living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical,
emotional, and academic well-being. With the exception of parents faced with
unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at main-
taining the marriage (El-Sheikh et al., 2008).
1.3 Reporting of bullying
The victims of bullying may not be reporting their ordeal at home. Children
who are bullied— and especially those who are frequently bullied— continue to
be at risk for a wide range of poor social, health, and economic outcomes- this
has been proved from other researcher’works (Ryu Takizawa et al., 2014). Re-
porting was found to be generally more frequent among girls than boys, and
3

4. among lower grade levels. Students who perceived the school climate to be tol-
erant of bullying, and students who described their parents as using coercive
discipline were less likely to report being bullied (Unnever & Cornell, 2004).
Authors have proved that bullying perpetration and victimization rates were
higher when reported by students than parents, and parents were particularly
unaware of their children bullying others. Family support was related to stu-
dents telling their parents about peer victimization and youth getting in trouble
at home for bullying perpetration. One of the costs of reporting that victims
of bullying considered is whether authorities will act on the information they
provide (Baumer, 2002). Victims might also fear retaliation, particularly if they
believe that authorities will be ine¤ective in responding to their problem (Cata-
lano et al., 1999) and if the perpetrator is someone they know (Felson et al.,
2002). These factors highlight the need to increase parental awareness about
bullying and to include parents in school-based bullying prevention programs
(Holt et al., 2008).
1.4 Importance and objective of the study
Bullying is a global problem with an average of 32% of children being bullied
across 38 countries/regions (WHO, 2012). As highlighted in the above studies, a
strong family structure is extremely important for overall wellbeing of the child
and prevent bullying. Family structure is indicated by marriage status of the
primary caregiver (PCG). Insecurity arising from a number of socioeconomic
factors as well as lack of proper education at home environment may give rise
to the menace of bullying at school. In the present study in Ireland, it was
observed from the given dataset consisting of 8568 data, that when the question
about whether the study child is being bullied is posed to the parent, 21% of the
respondents responded in positive, however, the same question when asked to
the children themselves, an alarming 40% responded in positive. That signi…es
that only half of the bullying is reported in home. Also, about 12% of the
children admitted of bullying someone. The null hypothesis addressed by this
report is that bullying happens across all family structure. This report attempts
to …nd a correlation between the educational background, family structure and
household income on the children those who have been bullied and those who
admitted to bullying in Ireland.
4

5. 2 Methodology
2.1 Descriptive statistics of variables of interest
The following variables were selected from more than 500 variables available in
the GUI data. The equivalised income parameters were selected for quintiles
and deciles as well:
J18. Study Child been a victim of bullying last year (Ques to PCG)
18. child picked on someone (Question asked to child)
20. child was bullied (Question asked to child)
L37 Highest level of education by primary caregiver (PCG)
S14. Current Marital Status of PCG
Equivalised Household Annual Income - Quintiles
Equivalised Household Annual Income –Deciles
Equivalised Household Annual Income
The descriptive statistics have been given in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 show
the frequency distribution and frequency tables of the selected variables across
the sample.
This is to be noted that utmost care was taken to ensure that the vari-
ables chosen had minimum numbers of missing data. Household incomes had
626 missing data while questions relating to bullying had below 300 missing
data. Therefore, e¤ectively speaking, the dataset considered had over 7,500
valid responses, which was decided to give a good result. All of the variables
had various levels of skewness, but the education level of PCG were almost
normally distributed. This will be tested in the next subsections. Four of the
variables chosen were nominal or categorical in nature while two others were
scale variables. Especially, the equivalised household income in deciles was used
for all the calculations. This is a scale because its values represent ordered cat-
egories with a meaningful metric, so that distance comparisons between values
are appropriate. Highest education level of PCG was also scale variable.
5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 2.2 Splitting of …le to answer the research question
The …les were split and the frequency of the following variables were found out:
J18. Study Child been a victim of bullying last year (Ques to PCG)
18. child picked on someone (Question asked to child)
L37 Highest level of education by primary caregiver (PCG)
S14. Current Marital Status of PCG
Equivalised Household Annual Income - Deciles
The data were split twice and the frequency of other factors were obtained:
Split 1: 20. child was bullied (Question asked to child)
Split 2: 18. child picked on someone (Question asked to child)
8

9. 2.3 Tests of Normality
Since the dataset is big, with above 8000 samples, the K-S test (Kolmogorov-
Smirnov) was used to determine the skewness of the data distribution and to
test for normality (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). The K-S table is given below.
The null hypothesis for this normality test is:
H0: The data is normally distributed for all the 6 variables
HA: The data are not normally distributed for all the 6 variables
The K-S test has been shown in Table 4. For all of the 6 variables, p =
0.000 suggest strong evidence of non-normality. So the null hypothesis cannot
be accepted at the 0.05 level of signi…cance. K-S test suggests using appropriate
non-parametric test for all variables.
However, in order to be doubly con…dent in this result, a graphical test was
conducted on the variables. The normal Q-Q plot is a graphical method of
assessing normality where the scatter should lie as close to the line as possible
with no obvious pattern coming away from the line for the data to be considered
normally distributed. This has been shown in the Figure 1. Interestingly, the
variable ‘L37 The highest level of education for the PCG’demonstrated nor-
mality. On closer inspection and after referring to Table 2, the skewness was
only found to be +0.142 which was very low. Therefore, this variable was de-
cided to be treated as normally distributed. According to the obtained results
from the normality tests, the variables will be subjected to the parametric and
non-parametric tests in the Table 5:
9

10. 10

11. Q-Q plot for normality testing
11

12. 3 Results and Discussion
Depending on the focus of the topic, two null hypotheses were chosen. The
results of these two separate hypotheses have been discussed under separate
headings.
3.1 The Bully Victims
Instead of reported bullying cases, the feedback from the children were used,
i.e. variable CCS20. The family structure, i.e. marital status of the primary
caregiver (PCG) was correlated with the mean of two groups – the children
su¤ering from bullying and the children who are not experiencing bullying.
Let us take 1= Mean of family structure of bullied children and 2= Mean
of family structure of children not bullied
The null hypothesis can be stated as:
H0 : 1 = 2
HA : 1 6= 2
Since the variables involved are non-parametric in nature, the hypothesis
needs to be tested using non-parametric tests e.g. Kruskal-Wallis Test. The
Kruskal-Wallis test is a nonparametric (distribution free) test, and is used when
the assumptions of one-way ANOVA are not met. Both the Kruskal-Wallis test
and one-way ANOVA assess for signi…cant di¤erences on a continuous depen-
dent variable by a categorical independent variable (with two or more groups).
In the ANOVA, we assume that the dependent variable is normally distributed
and there is approximately equal variance on the scores across groups. How-
ever, when using the Kruskal-Wallis Test, we do not have to make any of these
assumptions. Therefore, the Kruskal-Wallis test can be used for both continu-
ous and ordinal-level dependent variables. However, like most non-parametric
tests, the Kruskal-Wallis Test is not as powerful as the ANOVA. The distribu-
tion of the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic approximates a chi-square distribution,
with k-1 degrees of freedom, if the number of observations in each group is 5 or
more. If the calculated value of the Kruskal-Wallis test is less than the critical
chi-square value, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. If the calculated
value of Kruskal-Wallis test is greater than the critical chi-square value, then
we can reject the null hypothesis and say that at least one of the samples comes
from a di¤erent population. This test results are shown in the Table 6.
12

13. Therefore, given the null hypothesis that the correlation between
family structure and the children being bullied, the p value of less
than 0.000 indicates that there is a signi…cant di¤erence in the bullied
child among the di¤erent family structures. Therefore, we should
reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative hypothesis. i.e.
family structure matters on case of bullying.
At this point of time, it is not possible to show whether a good family
structure results in less probability of being bullied. For understanding that, we
will need to explore the data further. This is done by splitting the entire data
according to bullying experience, which were of 4 types, viz.: yes, no, don’t know
and no response. The sample frequencies were separately represented according
to these 4 types of responses and this has been shown in Table 7. However, from
this table, not much information was retrieved because it only represented the
valid answers under each options.
Therefore, the Figure 2 was drawn using crosstab function to correlate be-
tween various variables around the main question whether the child was bullied.
Crosstabs is an SPSS procedure that cross-tabulates two variables, thus dis-
playing their relationship in tabular form. In contrast to Frequencies, which
summarizes information about one variable, Crosstabs generates information
about bivariate relationships. Crosstabs creates a table that contains a cell for
every combination of categories in the two variables.
Because Crosstabs creates a row for each value in one variable and a column
13

14. for each value in the other, the procedure is not suitable for continuous variables
that assume many values. Crosstabs is designed for discrete variables–usually
those measured on nominal or ordinal scales. Therefore, it is perfectly suitable
for the variables being dealt with in this project.
The crosstab bar graphs were used to …nd any actual evidence in support of
Kruskal-Wallis test. For household income, the distribution of bullying follows
similar trend for both the groups of children who were bullied and who were
not bullied. No e¤ect of household income was observed in case of the victim of
bullying. Similar observations were observed for other variables in relation to
bullying victims, i.e. not much e¤ect of level of education, family structure and
whether the child himself is a bully followed similar distribution for both victims
and non-victims. These values did not support the Kruskal-Wallis test
for signi…cance which stated that the family structure had signi…cant
e¤ect on bully victims.
14

15. Crosstab of bullied child (self-reported) vs other variables
15

16. 3.2 The Bully
Let us take 3= Family structure of children bullying others and 4= Family
structure of children not bullying others
The null hypothesis can be stated as:
H0 : 3 = 4
HA : 3 6= 4
As earlier, the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed and the result has been
presented in Table 8. Given the null hypothesis that the correlation
between family structure and the children being bullied, the p value
of 0.013 indicates that there is no signi…cant di¤erence in the child
bullying others among the di¤erent family structures. Therefore, we
fail to reject the null hypothesis. i.e. family structure does not matter
when it comes to a bullying child.
At this point of time, it is not possible to show whether a good family
structure results in less probability of a child bullying others. For understanding
that, we will need to explore the data further. This is done by splitting the
entire data according to bullying behaviour of the study child, which were of 4
types, viz.: yes, no, don’t know and no response. The sample frequencies were
separately represented according to these 4 types of responses and this has been
shown in Table 9. However, from this table, not much information was retrieved
because it only represented the valid answers under each options.
Therefore, the Figure 3 was drawn using Crosstab function to correlate be-
tween various variables around the main question whether the child is a bully.
16

17. The Crosstab bar graphs were used to explore evidence in support of Kruskal-
Wallis test. For household income, the distribution of bullying chil-
dren did not follow similar trend for both the groups of children who
displayed bullying behaviour and who did not. This is notable and
indicated that the lower income group children were more prone to
turning a bully in comparison to the higher income group children.
For other variables in relation to bullying children, not much e¤ect of level of
education, family structure and whether the child himself is a victim of bul-
lying were observed. They followed similar distribution for both bullies and
non-bullies. These values support the Kruskal-Wallis test for signi…cance which
stated that the family structure had no signi…cant e¤ect on bully victims.
17

18. Crosstabs for bullying child (self-reported) vs other variables
The Table 7 shows the distribution of types of bullying faced by the bully
victims. This was obtained …rstly splitting the dataset by the variable ‘20. child
was bullied (Question asked to child)’and then looking for descriptive statistics.
The following Table 8 was obtained through crosstab option. This reveals that a
signi…cant part of the children was subjected to verbal bullying or by exclusion.
This was understood because these variables on type of bullying were answered
only in case of positive occurrence.
18

19. 19

20. 4 Conclusions
Bullying in Ireland prompts an extremely strong reluctance on the part of young
people to report it. Only 21.6% children of 9 years’age reported bullying to the
primary caregiver. However, when the children were asked directly, more than
38% revealed to be a victim of bullying. This …nding is in line with the …ndings
of O’Moore (2013) who stated that only 20% boys aged 6 –12 and 26.7% girls
(out of all the victims) reported that they were cyberbullied to their parents.
This trend makes it extremely di¢ cult for adults to intervene and to provide the
much needed support, especially for those who are both cyber and traditionally
bullied as this increases the risk of depression, low self-esteem, loneliness and
suicide (Gradinger et al., 2009). Reasons put forward for not reporting bullying
to parents is the fear that parents will over react. Children believe also that
they by themselves can put a stop to bullying. However, there is evidence to
indicate that young children and teens are using coping strategies which may
lead to an escalation of the bullying. For example, almost one third of Irish
teens sent an angry response when bullied as compared to 16.3% who asked the
aggressor to stop (O’Moore, 2012).
From this study of the Growing Up in Ireland data, it was proved by Kruskal
Wallis test that the victim of bully had some correlation with family structure.
However, on examination through crosstab, no such pattern could be observed.
The bullying child is at the other end of the spectrum. It was seen through
Kruskal Wallis test that the bullying behaviour did not depend upon family
structure. However, through crosstab, it was observed that the pattern of bul-
lying child did not follow the distribution of the income scales and a proportion
of children from lower end of the income were more prone to show bullying
behaviour. This observation warrants further inspection.
A range of measures could be taken to make things right and a large num-
ber of research is going on in this …eld. Strong Anti-Bullying Policy at school
must send out a strong message to all its members that bullying is unacceptable
behaviour and that it will not be tolerated. Once a strong policy is in place
it must be followed by developing the understandings and competencies which
will assist all members of the school community to prevent, identify and respond
e¤ectively to bullying behaviour. Collaborative School-Family Community Re-
lations should be used to tackle bullying. One form of bullying should not be
ignored for the sake of another. All members need to be empowered to report
incidents of bullying, to recognise that the problem lies with the aggressor and
that the sooner the bullying is addressed the sooner it will stop. They need also
be made aware of external agencies and organisations where they can seek in-
formation, advice, guidance and counselling if a¤ected by bullying. Supportive
social environment must build positive relationships between sta¤, students and
parents. When families feel connected to their schools, the children are more
likely to achieve academic success, to hold positive attitudes towards self and
others, to refrain from bullying, not to skip or drop out of school and to have
fewer health problems (Bond et al., 2007).
20

21. References
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for
concern for both families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1), 35-54.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of communica-
tion, 28(3), 12-29.
Baumer, E. P. (2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police noti…cation by vic-
tims of violence. Criminology, 40(3), 579-616.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G.
(2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late
teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. J. Adolesc. Health,
40, 357.
Booth, C. L. (1994). Predicting social adjustment in middle childhood: The role of
preschool attachment security and maternal style. Social Development, 3(3), 189-204.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1992). Cohesion and power in the families
of children involved in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Family Therapy,
14(4), 371-387.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of
bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11(2), 215-232.
Catalano, R., Junger-Tas, J., Morita, Y., Olweus, D., Slee, P., & Smith, P. K.
(2014). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective: Routledge.
Department of Education. (1993). Guidelines on countering bullying behaviour
in primary and post-primary schools. Dublin: The Stationary O¢ ce. Government of
Ireland, Available at https://goo.gl/HGbBzm.
El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E. M., Kouros, C. D., Elmore-Staton, L., & Buckhalt,
J. (2008). Marital Psychological and Physical Aggression and Children’s Mental and
Physical Health: Direct, Mediated, and Moderated E¤ects. Journal of consulting and
clinical psychology, 76(1), 138-148.
Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2002). Reasons for
reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology, 40(3), 617-
647.
Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers:
Associations with children’s reports of mother–child interaction. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 75(4), 1076.
Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 109-125.
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A
Guide for Non-Statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism,
10(2), 486-489.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional Bullying and Cy-
berbullying. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205-213.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s
self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of educational psychology, 81(2),
143.
21

22. Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm:
Testing hypotheses from general strain theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
39(5), 446-459.
Holt, M. K., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). Parent/Child Con-
cordance about Bullying Involvement and Family Characteristics Related to Bullying
and Peer Victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 42-63.
Ladd, G. W. (1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family-
peer relationships. Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage, 3-34.
Mc Guckin, C., O’Moore, M., & Crowley, N. (2011). Cyberbullying - The situation
in Ireland. In J. A. Mora-Merchán & T. Jäger (Eds.), Cyberbullying - A cross-national
comparison (pp. 189-204). Landau, Germany, Empirische Paedagogik.
O’Moore, M. (2012). Cyber-bullying: the situation in Ireland. Pastoral Care in
Education, 30(3), 209-223.
O’Moore, M. (2013). Bullying of young people in Ireland: what we know and what
we can do. Barnardos Childlinks(1).
Oliver, R., Oaks, I. N., & Hoover, J. H. (1994). Family issues and interventions in
bully and victim relationships. The School Counselor, 41(3), 199-202.
Rican, P., & Klicperova, M. i KoucNa, T.(1993): Families of bullies and their
victims: A children’s view. Studia Psychologica, 35, 261-266.
Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and parents as a
function of peer relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(4), 501-513.
Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent
schoolchildren involved in bully/victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16(2),
173-187.
Ryu Takizawa, Barbara Maughan, & Louise Arseneault. (2014). Adult Health
Outcomes of Childhood Bullying Victimization: Evidence From a Five-Decade Longi-
tudinal British Birth Cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7), 777-784.
Sharp, S., & Smith, P. K. (2002). School bullying: Insights and perspectives:
Routledge.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2002). Relationship of the
Family Environment to Children’s Involvement in Bully/Victim Problems at School.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(6), 419-428.
Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bully-
ing: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis–stress model. American Psychologist,
70(4), 344.
Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who
reports being bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 373-388.
WHO (Ed.) (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young
people. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: International report
from the 2009/2010 survey (Vol. (Health Policy for Children and Adolescents, No. 6)).
Copenhagen: WHO Regional O¢ ce for Europe.
22