en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 12/2014 
Issue 22

Bystanders On A Structural Minefield: An Examination Of The Relationship Between Structural Characteristics Of The Group And The Scope Of Reaction To Aggressive Behaviour

Agata Komendant-Brodowska
Uniwersytet Warszawski

12/2014 (22) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.36

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyse group characteristic related to the problem of bullying, from a game-theoretical perspective. Bullying is a specific type of violence that happens in schools and it is a group phenomenon. The behaviour of bystanders can either encourage or discourage potential bullies. The paper presents a game-theoretical model of bystanders’ behaviour. It is assumed that bystanders feel morally obliged to defend the victim (internalised norm) but they also want to conform (conformity). In order to analyse the factors that can infl uence the scope of group reaction, a structurally embedded sequential coordination game was played for different initial conditions. Computer
simulations were conducted for networks of a specifi c type (Erdős–Rényi random graph). The main aim of analyses was to identify structural features of the group that can enable or block the intervention of bystanders. There is a non-linear relationship between network density and the scope of reaction. Both low and high density can make it harder for the bystanders to oppose the bully. Interactions between structural and non-structural features of the group have been observed. Depending on the strength of the internalized norm and conformity level, different structural characteristics may improve or lower the
chances of group intervention. As far as non-structural group characteristics are concerned, there is a positive relationship between the scope of group reaction and the strength of the internalized norm, whereas the level of conformity affects the chances of group intervention in a negative way.

References

  1. Chwe, M.S.Y. (2000). Communication and coordination in social networks. Review of Economic Studies, 67(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  2. Coleman, J.S. (1986). Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action. American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 91), 1309–1335. [Google Scholar]
  3. Coloroso, B. (2002). The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander. Nowy Jork: Quill. Harper Collins. [Google Scholar]
  4. Easley, D., Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, Crowds, and Markets (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press. Haman, J. (2014). Gry wokół nas. Socjolog i teoria gier. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hawker, D.S.J., Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty Years’ Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Cross-Sectional Studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41 (4), 441–455. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson, M.O. (2008). Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Poskiparta, E., Salmivalli, C. (2010). Vulnerable Children in Varying Classroom Contexts: Bystanders’ Behaviors Moderate the Effects of Risk Factors on Victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 56 (3), 261–282. [Google Scholar]
  8. Komendant-Brodowska, A. (2009). Grzech zaniechania. Świadkowie przemocy szkolnej w perspektywie teorii gier. Decyzje, 11, 5–47. [Google Scholar]
  9. Komendant-Brodowska, A. (2013). Między głosem sumienia a więzami przyjaźni. Zachowanie świadków dręczenia (bullying) a struktura klasy szkolnej. Decyzje 20. [Google Scholar]
  10. Komendant-Brodowska, A., Baczko-Dombi, A., Giza-Poleszczuk, A. (2011). Przemoc w szkole. Raport z badań. www.szkolabezprzemocy.pl [Google Scholar]
  11. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we Know and what we can Do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rigby, K. (2010). Przemoc w szkole. Jak ją ograniczać. Poradnik dla rodziców i pedagogów. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. [Google Scholar]
  13. Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the Peer Group: A Review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15 (2), 112–120. [Google Scholar]
  14. Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between Attitudes, Group Norms, and Behaviour in Bullying Situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28 (3), 246–258. [Google Scholar]
  15. Straffi n, P.D. (2006). Teoria gier. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Bystanders On A Structural Minefield: An Examination Of The Relationship Between Structural Characteristics Of The Group And The Scope Of Reaction To Aggressive Behaviour. (2014). Bystanders On A Structural Minefield: An Examination Of The Relationship Between Structural Characteristics Of The Group And The Scope Of Reaction To Aggressive Behaviour. Decyzje, (22), 117-145. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.36 (Original work published 12/2014AD)

MLA style

“Bystanders On A Structural Minefield: An Examination Of The Relationship Between Structural Characteristics Of The Group And The Scope Of Reaction To Aggressive Behaviour”. 12/2014AD. Decyzje, no. 22, 2014, pp. 117-145.

Chicago style

“Bystanders On A Structural Minefield: An Examination Of The Relationship Between Structural Characteristics Of The Group And The Scope Of Reaction To Aggressive Behaviour”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 22 (2014): 117-145. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.36.