The aim of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is to explore in detail how participants are making sense of their personal and social world, and the main currency for an IPA study is the meanings particular experiences, events, states hold for participants. The approach is phenomenological (see Chapter 3) in that it involves detailed examination of the participant’s lifeworld; it attempts to explore personal experience and is concerned with an individual’s personal perception or account of an object or event, as opposed to an attempt to produce an objective statement of the object or event itself. At the same time, IPA also emphasizes that the research exercise is a dynamic process with an active role for the researcher in that process. One is trying to get close to the participant’s personal world, to take, in Conrad’s (1987) words, an ‘insider’s perspective’, but one cannot do this directly or completely. Access depends on, and is complicated by, the researcher’s own conceptions; indeed, these are required in order to make sense of that other personal world through a process of interpretative activity. Thus, a two-stage interpretation process, or a double hermeneutic, is involved. The participants are trying to make sense of their world; the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world. IPA is therefore intellectually connected to hermeneutics and theories of interpretation (Packer and Addison, 1989; Palmer, 1969; Smith, in press; see also Chapter 2 this volume). Different interpretative stances are possible, and IPA combines an empathic hermeneutics with a questioning hermeneutics. Thus, consistent with its phenomenological origins, IPA is concerned with trying to understand what it is like, from the point of view of the participants, to take their side. At the same time, a detailed IPA analysis can also involve asking critical questions of the texts from participants, such as the following: What is the person trying to achieve here? Is something leaking out here that wasn’t intended? Do I have a sense of something going on here that maybe the participants themselves are less aware of?

/pdf/interpretative-phenomenological-analysis-1rd3eyxs1j.pdf

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

BULLYING AMONG SCHOOL-AGED youth is increasingly being recognized as an important problem affecting well-being and social functioning. While a certain amount of conflict and harassment is typical of youth peer relations, bullying presents a potentially more serious threat to healthy youth development. The definition of bullying is widely agreed on in literature on bullying.1–4 Bullying is a specific type of aggression in which (1) the behavior is intended to harm or disturb, (2) the behavior occurs repeatedly over time, and (3) there is an imbalance of power, with a more powerful person or group attacking a less powerful one. This asymmetry of power may be physical or psychological, and the aggressive behavior may be verbal (eg, name-calling, threats), physical (eg, hitting), or psychological (eg, rumors, shunning/exclusion).

The majority of research on bullying has been conducted in Europe and Australia. Considerable variability among countries in the prevalence of bullying has been reported. In an international survey of adolescent health-related behaviors, the percentage of students who reported being bullied at least once during the current term ranged from a low of 15% to 20% in some countries to a high of 70% in others.5,6 Of particular concern is frequent bullying, typically defined as bullying that occurs once a week or more. The prevalence of frequent bullying reported internationally ranges from a low of 1.9% among 1 Irish sample to a high of 19% in a Malta study.1,7–12

Bullying takes many forms, and findings about the types of bullying that occur are fairly similar across countries. A British study involving 23 schools found that direct verbal aggression was the most common form of bullying, occurring with similar frequency in both sexes.13 Direct physical aggression was more common among boys, while indirect forms were more common among girls. Similarly, in a study of several middle schools in Rome, the most common types of bullying reported by boys were threats, physical harm, rejection, and name-calling.14 The most common forms for girls were name-calling, teasing, rumors, rejection, and taking of personal belongings.

Research examining characteristics of youth involved in bullying has consistently found that both bullies and those bullied demonstrate poorer psychosocial functioning than their noninvolved peers. Youth who bully others tend to demonstrate higher levels of conduct problems and dislike of school, whereas youth who are bullied generally show higher levels of insecurity, anxiety, depression, loneliness, unhappiness, physical and mental symptoms, and low self-esteem.1–4,8,15–25 Males who are bullied also tend to be physically weaker than males in general.2 The few studies that have examined the characteristics of youth who both bully and are bullied found that these individuals exhibit the poorest psychosocial functioning overall.15,17,19,26

The current research provides a foundation for an understanding of the bullying problem. However, it is insufficient to guide intervention and policy development. Moreover, little is known specifically about bullying among US youth.6 In one county-wide middle school survey, 24.1% of youth reported bullying others at least once in the past semester26; it is not known whether this is characteristic of the rest of the nation.

The purpose of this study was to report the prevalence of bullying in a nationally representative sample of US youth in grades 6 through 10, along with information on differences in the prevalence of bullying by sex, grade, and race. In addition, the relationships among bullying, being bullied, and psychosocial adjustment are explored for 3 distinct groups: bullies only, those bullied only, and those who both bully and are bullied.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/193774/JOC01746.pdf

Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment

Self-esteem has become a household word. Teachers, parents, therapists, and others have focused efforts on boosting self-esteem, on the assumption that high self-esteem will cause many positive outcomes and benefits-an assumption that is critically evaluated in this review. Appraisal of the effects of self-esteem is complicated by several factors. Because many people with high self-esteem exaggerate their successes and good traits, we emphasize objective measures of outcomes. High self-esteem is also a heterogeneous category, encompassing people who frankly accept their good qualities along with narcissistic, defensive, and conceited individuals. The modest correlations between self-esteem and school performance do not indicate that high self-esteem leads to good performance. Instead, high self-esteem is partly the result of good school performance. Efforts to boost the self-esteem of pupils have not been shown to improve academic performance and may sometimes be counterproductive. Job performance in adults is sometimes related to self-esteem, although the correlations vary widely, and the direction of causality has not been established. Occupational success may boost self-esteem rather than the reverse. Alternatively, self-esteem may be helpful only in some job contexts. Laboratory studies have generally failed to find that self-esteem causes good task performance, with the important exception that high self-esteem facilitates persistence after failure. People high in self-esteem claim to be more likable and attractive, to have better relationships, and to make better impressions on others than people with low self-esteem, but objective measures disconfirm most of these beliefs. Narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually. Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of relationships. High self-esteem makes people more willing to speak up in groups and to criticize the group's approach. Leadership does not stem directly from self-esteem, but self-esteem may have indirect effects. Relative to people with low self-esteem, those with high self-esteem show stronger in-group favoritism, which may increase prejudice and discrimination. Neither high nor low self-esteem is a direct cause of violence. Narcissism leads to increased aggression in retaliation for wounded pride. Low self-esteem may contribute to externalizing behavior and delinquency, although some studies have found that there are no effects or that the effect of self-esteem vanishes when other variables are controlled. The highest and lowest rates of cheating and bullying are found in different subcategories of high self-esteem. Self-esteem has a strong relation to happiness. Although the research has not clearly established causation, we are persuaded that high self-esteem does lead to greater happiness. Low self-esteem is more likely than high to lead to depression under some circumstances. Some studies support the buffer hypothesis, which is that high self-esteem mitigates the effects of stress, but other studies come to the opposite conclusion, indicating that the negative effects of low self-esteem are mainly felt in good times. Still others find that high self-esteem leads to happier outcomes regardless of stress or other circumstances. High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of self-esteem are negligible. One important exception is that high self-esteem reduces the chances of bulimia in females. Overall, the benefits of high self-esteem fall into two categories: enhanced initiative and pleasant feelings. We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes. In view of the heterogeneity of high self-esteem, indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its less desirable consequences. Instead, we recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement.

/pdf/does-high-self-esteem-cause-better-performance-interpersonal-4hc57lu380.pdf

Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?

The authors first describe individual differences in the structure of the self. In the independent self-construal, representations of others are separate from the self. In the interdependent self-construal, others are considered part of the self (H. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991). In general, men in the United States are thought to construct and maintain an independent self-construal, whereas women are thought to construct and maintain an interdependent self-construal. The authors review the psychological literature to demonstrate that many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emotion, and social behavior may be explained in terms of men's and women's different self-construals. Recognition of the interdependent self-construal as a possible alternative conception of the self may stimulate new investigations into the ways the self influences a person's thinking, feeling, and behaving.

Models of the Self: Self-Construals and Gender

In this article the concept of mobbing is introduced Mobbing means harassing, ganging up on someone, or psychologically terrorizing others at work Although mobbing is a very old phenomenon, it was not described and systematically researched until the early 1980s The article begins with a case example, some historical notes, and a definition of mobbing, and then regards mobbing in the context of medical and psychological stress research Several stages in the development of mobbing are described, based on about 800 case studies Some epidemiological findings from a representative sample of the Swedish work population are reported Causes and consequences of mobbing are discussed, and conclusions for prevention and intervention are drawn

The content and development of mobbing at work

Bullying was investigated as a group process, asocial phenomenon taking place in a school setting among 573 Finnish sixth-grade children (286 girls, 287 boys) aged 12-13 years. Different Participant Roles taken by individual children in the bullying process were examined and related to a) self-estimated behavior in bullying situations, b) social acceptance and social rejection, and c) belongingness to one of the five sociometric status groups (popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average). The Participant Roles assigned to the subjects were Victim, Bully, Reinforcer of the bully, Assistant of the bully, Defender of the victim, and Outsider. There were significant sex differences in the distribution of Participant Roles. Boys were more frequently in the roles of Bully, Reinforcer and Assistant, while the most frequent roles of the girls were those of Defender and Outsider. The subjects were moderately well aware of their Participant Roles, although they underestimated their participation in active bullying behavior and emphasized that they acted as Defenders and Outsiders. The sociometric status of the children was found to be connected to their Participant Roles..

Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group

Gender differences in regard to aggressive behaviour were investigated in a series of studies of schoolchildren of different age cohorts: 8-year-olds (N = 85), 11-year-olds (N = 167), and 15-year-olds (N = 127). Different types of aggressive behaviour were measured with peer nomination techniques, supported by self-ratings. The social structure of the peer groups were also studied. The results of the 11-year-old cohort were previously presented by Lagerspetz et al. [1988; Aggressive Behavior 14:403-4141, but they are compared here with the other age groups. The principal finding was that girls of the two older cohorts overall make greater use of indirect means of aggression, whereas boys tend to employ direct means. Previously, the main difference between the genders has been thought to be that boys use physical aggressive strategies, while girls prefer verbal ones. Our studies suggest that the differentiation between direct and indirect strategies of aggression presents a more exact picture. Indirect aggressive strategies were not yet fully developed among the 8-year-old girls, but they were already prominent among the 11-year-old girls. Aggressive behaviour was assessed overall by the children themselves to be the highest in this age group.

Do Girls Manipulate and Boys Fight? Developmental Trends in Regard to Direct and Indirect Aggression

Relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggressive behavior were studied. Peer-estimation techniques were used to measure all major variables. Altogether, 526 Finnish schoolchildren from three age groups (10, 12, and 14 years old) participated in the study. As was hypothesized, indirect aggression correlated positively and significantly with social intelligence in every age group studied. Physical and verbal forms of aggression had almost zero correlation to social intelligence. Empathy correlated negatively and significantly with every type of aggression except indirect aggression in 12-year-old children. The major findings are in Line with the developmental theory by Bjorkqvist et al. [1992. Aggr Behav 18:117-127] suggesting that indirect aggression requires more social intelligence than direct forms of aggression.

The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression

5 – The Development of Direct and Indirect Aggressive Strategies in Males and Females

Three dimensions of self-esteem (SE) (self-evaluated, peer-evaluated, defensive egotism) were related to each other and to adolescents’ social behavior. In addition to exploring links between single variables, five SE profiles were formed by means of a cluster analysis and connected to adolescents’ behavior in situations of bullying. Self-and peer-evaluated SEs were significantly correlated, whereas defensive egotism was not connected to either self-or peer-evaluated SE. Adolescents’ SE profiles were associated with their behavior in bullying situations; these connections were stronger among boys than among girls. Bullying others and assisting or reinforcing the bully were typical of adolescents with so-called defensive SE. Defending the victims of bullying was typical of adolescents with genuine high SE. Being victimized by peers was most typical of adolescents with low SE and, among girls, of those in the cluster thed authors named “humble pride.” The social behavior of so-called self-belittlers did not...

Ari Kaukiainen

Papers

Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group

Do Girls Manipulate and Boys Fight? Developmental Trends in Regard to Direct and Indirect Aggression

The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression

5 – The Development of Direct and Indirect Aggressive Strategies in Males and Females

Self-Evaluated Self-Esteem, Peer-Evaluated Self-Esteem, and Defensive Egotism as Predictors of Adolescents’ Participation in Bullying Situations