'Factors of Bullying\r'

' hector: The identify proficiency and its major find computes Dr. Kasetchai Laeheem1, Dr. Metta Kuning2, Dr. Nittaya McNeil2 1. Department of Educational Foundation, faculty of devoid Arts, Prince of Songkla University 2. Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, efficacy of Science and Technology, Prince of Songkla University. Abstract The purpose of this bailiwick was to sight the proficiency for identifying intimidate cases, and to go over the endangerment factors associated with hector doings at Pattani prime get winds, southern Thailand. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1,440 scholars.Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s chi-squ atomic number 18d test, and logistic lapse were used for data summary. In this contemplate, factor analytic thinking and standardize fit techniques were used to identify deterrence outcome. It was plant that 301 (20. 9%) assimilators could be set as a hood. sourceing sustainal corporeal twist and ta ste perception for natural process sketchs were major lay on the line factor for b every last(predicate)yrag others. Students having riseal personal aversion experiences were to a greater completion than(prenominal) in all likelihood to boss around others than were those who had neer witnessed agnatic physical mistreat ( odds symmetry 7. 11, 95% self-confidence intervals 5. 6-9. 60). Students who favourite(a) litigate arenas tended to push around much than did students who preferent comedy cartoons (odds dimension 2. 96, 95% confidence intervals 1. 99-4. 43). Key words: determent, cartoon, factor depth psychology, p arntal physical mistreat, risk factors The second foreign meeting on humanities and complaisant Sciences April 10th, 2010 cleverness of open Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †literature †Lifestyle_002 1 1. Background and implication of problem browbeat behaviour in essential naturalises is considerably-known to students, parents, instructors and educational personnel. cultivate hector is a effective problem which affects students’ quality of life, inflicting psychological, worked up, and physical dam era and occurs end-to-end the world. prepare blustery can be delimitate as any blackball accomplishments repeatedly inflicted by a stronger student or student multitude toward a nonher student (Olweus, 1999). This negative go through must be deliberate and carried out with the intent of make harm to the victim (Farrington, 1993). deterrence big businessman be classified in a variety of ship canal including physical assaults and psychological or emotional or verbal harassment.Beale (2001) explained that physical blustering(a) is march orient and intended to intimidate or physically stomach the victim through pinching, runing, spareing, and hitting, while verbal blusterous is using words to humiliate or wounded someone’s feelings through teasing, displease ing, or grim behaviour. The major reasons that fryren bully others are to enjoy example agency and status over their victims, boredom, jealousy, attention seeking, demonstrate off, anger, revenge, and self encourageion (Besag, 2006). In this way, determent eases the way for children to be drawn into a path of delinquency, vandalism and criminality (Junger, 1996).The targets or victims of drill ballyrag are at risk of a variety of negative outcomes. They are more believably than nonvictimized children to become anxious, in good, lonely, depressed, to be rejected by their peers, drop out of tutor, feud, or decide to protect themselves by carrying guns/weapons to enlighten (Craig, 1998). in that respect are umpteen causes of intimidation, such as domestic violence (Baldry, 2003), preferring cartoon violence (Blumberg, et al, 2008), sure-enough(a)er students (Wolke et al, 2001), and sons (Mouttapa et al, 2004).Studies amaze indicated that 38% of students in Netherlands ( Veenstra, 2005), 30% in Nigeria (Egbochuku, 2007), 22% in Italy (Gini, 2008), 21% in Canada (Hawkins et al, 2001), 20% in Malaysia (Wan Salwina et al, 2009) and 42% in Thailand (Tapanya 2006). This instruct aims to development the technique for identifying bullyrag outcomes, to investigate the prevalence of intimidation and the risk factors associated with push around in Pattani basal naturalizes, southern Thailand.By identifying students who are belike to bully others, educational regimen can introduce expose strategies for reducing and preventing this problem. 2. Objectives 2. 1 To study the technique for identifying hector outcomes 2. 2 To estimate the prevalence of bullies at primary develops in Pattani, southern Thailand 2. 3 To analyze the risk factors associated with blusterous, in Pattani primary schools 3. Technical terms The second supranational company on humanities and complaisant Sciences April 10th, 2010 module of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla Univer sity Beliefs †belles-lettres †Lifestyle_002 â€Å"Bullying” has traditionally referred to a person’s actions to cause physical or psychological harm to another person. physical blusterous is the most visible and easily recognizable form of ballyrag. It might share the form of a kick, hit, fire, push, throw of something at someone, bite, or pinch. psychological hector includes gather up-calling, sniffy the victim’s name, carriage, economic status, faculty member achievement, or parent’s stage business, or do negative statements almost a victim’s physical disability. 4.Framework of the study antigenic determinants School factors School graphic symbol School location Demographic factors Gender bestride stem Environment factors paternal physical rib Preference of cartoon example fall of be quiet friends Outcome Bullying behaviour 5. interrogation mannerological analysis 5. 1 Study design and sampling technique This study used a cross-sectional study design involving interviews and surveys of primary school students care school surrounded by November 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006. The participants were selected by using a multi-stage sampling method.The freshman stage knotty selecting school location by using goal-directed sampling, with the measuring stick being a clump of four attributes of school ( unrestricted school of Basic Education Office (B. E. O. ), public school of municipalities, Islamic hush-hush school, and Chinese private school). Pattani City was selected as the urban location and Saiburi regularize as the rural one, because these were the only two districts that met the school- fictitious character cluster criterion. In the second stage, public schools were selected by transparent random sampling and private schools were selected by purposive ampling ( in that respect was only one of each such school in each district). Finally, participants in each school crisscross were selected by using a positive sampling technique which was done proportionate to creation coat across each class; choosing all(prenominal) 4th seat number where there was a single class in a grade and every 6th seat number where there was more than one class in a grade. Sample size calculations followed an Italian study of bully (Baldry, 2003) and were based on the main outcome and flick to parental violence and non-exposure to parental violence.The prevalence of bullying by the Italian primary school students in the ‘nonThe second external Conference on Humanities and complaisant Sciences April 10th, 2010 power of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 3 exposure to parental violence’ group was 45. 7%. This information was then(prenominal) used to calculate the ask sample size for this study, obtaining an estimate by substitute ? = 0. 05, 1-? = 0. 2, OR = 1. 344 so Z? /2 and Z? are 1. 96 and 0. 84 respectivel y, r = 1 (ratio of non bully to bully subjects), p2 = 0. 6 (prevalence of bullying in non exposure to parental violence group), p = 0. 50, p1 = 0. 53, into a formula for sample size namen by the following (McNeil, 1996), namely ? ? Z? / 2 ? ? 1 ? 1? + Z? ?1 + ? ? r ? p (1 ? p ) ? 1 1 ? + p1 (1 ? p1 ) rp 2 (1 ? p 2 ) ? ? 2 n1 = (InOR) 2 Where p1 = p2 p + rp2 , and p = 1 p2 + (1 ? p2 ) / OR 1+ r This gives n1 = n2 = 719. It was thereby concluded that a minimum sample size of 1,438 was required for this study. 5. 2 entropy collection literal consent to participate in the study was obtained from students later assurance of confidentiality was given to separates and group administered.The collection assistants were teachers in target schools, who volunteered to participate and were studying for a potash alum Diploma in paid Teaching at Yala Islamic University. These teachers were trained in the interviewing techniques and the details of the questionnaire. They were asked to assum e care not to rush through the questionnaire and overly to record responses accurately. The teachers interviewed students in the classroom after authority was granted by the school principal. Each individual was interviewed with grades 1 to 3 students. Interviewed lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes.Group administered (narrated) surveys of grades 4 to 6 students took approximately 40 to 60 minutes. With older students, the interviewer read the instructions to them and then allowed the student to write their own responses. Most of these responses were uncomplicated and involved just ticking a box. 5. 3 Data management and statistical analysis The data were examine using Webstat (a set of programs for graphical and statistical analysis of data stored in an SQL database, written in hypertext mark-up language and VBScript), and R program Factor analysis was first conducted to identify possible factors for future analysis.Descriptive statistics were calculated as measures of the pr evalence of bulling. Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to task the tie-ins between the outcome and the various categorical determinants. logistic regression was used to estimate the relative odds of having bullied others, for risk factors. 6. Conclusions The second International Conference on Humanities and neighborly Sciences April 10th, 2010 might of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 4 6. Identifying bullying outcome The technique for identifying bullying outcome in this study is using statistical method; factor analysis and exchangeable pass water as follows. The first method involved an alpha factor analyses using maximum likelihood method with varimax rotation, eigenvalue greater than one, and item loadings greater than 0. 30. Factor analysis resulted in the identification of four faces of bullying: a serious physical bullying factor comprising ‘kick’, ‘hit’, and ‘bite’ , a small-scale hysical bullying factor comprising ‘push’, ‘throw something at’, ‘ whip’, ‘pinch’ and ‘scold’, a psychological bullying by maligning a parent factor comprising ‘ affront parent’s occupation’, and ‘ ill-treatment parent’s name’, and a psychological bullying by maligning the student factor comprising ‘insult students appearance’ and ‘insult students economic status’, as listed in bow 1. In the second method, the natural tally for four causes of bullying were calculated by using discrete tally to compare with the criteria that were adapted from a Likert rating scale: loadings 0. 00-0. 25 scored as 0, 0. 26-0. 50 scored as 1, 0. 51-0. 5 scored as 2, and 0. 76-1. 00 scored as 3. The resulting modernistic scores were thusly as follows: kick, hit, and bite: 3, 3 and 1, respectively; push, throw something at, beat, pinch and scold: 3, 2, 2, 1 and 1, respectively; insult parent’s occupation: 3 and insult parent’s name: 1; and insulting students appearance is 3 and insulting students economic status: 1. The resulting new scores are listed in Table 1. Factor loading Psychological Bullying behaviour categories Serious Minor bullying (Maligning physical Physical parent) bullying bullying take a hop 0. 822 (3) Hit 0. 825 (3) Bite 0. 380 (1) Pinch 0. 783 (3) Beat 0. 587 (2) hurtle something at 0. 07 (2) Push 0. 458 (1) Scold/ name-calling 0. 366 (1) spite parent’s occupation 0. 878 (3) Insult parent’s name 0. 399 (1) Insult economic status Insult appearance Eigenvalue 1. 85 1. 77 1. 21 air division explained 15. 4% 14. 7% 10. 1% none: deem in the ( ) is resulting new scores for each slip of bullying Psychological bullying (Maligning student) 0. 765 (1) 0. 448 (1) 1. 01 8. 4% Table 1: Factor loading scores and resulting new scores for each type of bullying The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 In the third gear method, the total scores for each type of bullying were calculated by using new scores for four types of bullying. The resulting total scores are thus as follows: serious physical bullying (scores 0-7): (3*hit) + (3*kick) + bite; minor physical bullying (scores 0-9): (3*pinch) + (2*beat) + (2*throw something at) + push + scold; psychological bullying by maligning a parent (scores 0-4): (3*insult parent’s occupations) + insult parent’s names; and psychological bullying by maligning the student (scores 0-4): (3*insult students economic status) + insult students appearance.In the fourth method, the bullying scores were analyzed by combining the total scores for each type of bullying: serious physical bullying (scores 0-7) + minor physical bullying (scores 0-9) + psychological bullying by maligning a parent (scores 0-4) + psychological bullying by maligning the student. The fifth method, transform the bullying scores into Z-scores (standardized to a mean of 0 and a standard diversionary attack of 1). Finally, the students were identified into two categories for bullying, ‘bullied’ or ‘not bullied’. The students who had a standardized score greater than 1 were identified as a bully. 6. Descriptive statistics of bullying and risk factors The distributions of sevensome determinants in this study involved one-one-half of students being from an urban school, 72. 2% were from public school, and 55. 4% were female. Slightly more than one third (34. 5%) were 8 historic period or less of age, 34. 0% were aged 9-10 long time, and 31. 5% were 11 years old or more. Most of students (79. 7%) reported that they had not witnessed physical cry out between their parents. Nearly half (48. 2%) of the students preferred ‘mystery’ cartoons type, 26. 0% preferred ‘action’ and 25. 8% ‘comedy’. Regarding number of fold friends, 41. % had 3-5 close friends, 32. 2% had two close friends or fewer and 26. 4% had half dozen close friends or more. In this study, bullying outcome was identified as a dichotomous variables; ‘not bullied others’ (1,139 students) and ‘bullied others’ (301 students). The percentage of students insurance coverage that they had bullied others in school was 20. 9%. 6. 3 Associations between bullying and risk factors The associations between the outcome and the seven study determinants are shown in Table 2. Bullied behaviour Determinants School type Private Public School location Urban Rural Not bullied (1,139) 78. 2 80. 0 82. 5 77. Had bullied (301) 21. 8 20. 0 17. 5 22. 2 Total (1,440) 50. 0 50. 0 0. 7 27. 8 72. 2 0. 399 Chisquared 3. 9 p-value 0. 049* The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 6 Gender womanish Male Age group 8 yrs or less 9-10 yrs 11 yrs or more Parental physical twist Not witnessed Witnessed sketch type preference Comedy natural action Mystery Number of close friends 2 persons or less 3-5 persons 6 persons or more 31. 1 84. 5 72. 4 82. 9 79. 6 74. 4 87. 0 48. 1 86. 5 64. 5 83. 0 80. 6 80. 7 74. 7 15. 5 27. 17. 1 20. 4 25. 6 13. 0 51. 9 13. 5 35. 5 17. 0 19. 4 19. 3 25. 3 55. 4 44. 6 10. 3 34. 5 34. 0 31. 5 213. 5 79. 7 20. 3 66. 9 25. 8 26. 0 48. 2 5. 9 32. 2 41. 4 26. 4 0. 000** 0. 006** 0. 000** 0. 000** 0. 051 * p-value < 0. 05 ** p-value < 0. 01 Table 2: Associations between bullying and study determinants Table 2 shows that school type, gender, age group, parental physical abuse, and cartoon type were potently associated with bullying. odds ratio plots of bullying categorized by tailfin assorted risk factors are shown in experiences 1. Bullying behaviour (Bullying/Not bu llying) (Public/ Private) (Male/ Female) School type Witness/ Not witness) Gender Parental physical abuse Years Favorites cartoon type Age (group) Cartoon type Figure 1: Odds ratio plots of bullying categorized by four incompatible risk factors The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 7 Figures 1 shows that the students from public schools reported bullying others significantly more often than did students from private schools (OR 1. 35, 95% CI 1. 01-1. 82). More males than females reported that they bullying others (OR 2. 07, 95% CI 1. 59-2. 69).The students who had witnessed physical abuse between their parents were more likely to be a bully than did those who had never witnessed physical abuse between their parents (OR 7. 22, 95% CI 5. 39-9. 67). The students aged 11 years or more were more likely to bully others than students aged 9-10 ye ars and 8 years or less, (OR 1. 49, 95% CI 1. 13-1. 95). The students who preferred action cartoons tended to bully more than students who preferred mystery or comedy cartoons (OR 2. 93, 95% CI 5. 39-9. 67). 6. 4 Logistic regression analysis of bullying Logistic regression was used to examine the association between bullying and risk factors.The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. Table 3 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis after omitting determinants with p-values more than 0. 05 using backward elimination. In this reduced mildewing the four factors least significantly associated with the bullying are omitted. The smallest p-values indicate the factors most strongly associated with the bullying were gender, age group, parental physical abuse and cartoon type. Determinant Gender Female Male Age group 8 yrs or less 9-10 yrs 11 yrs or more Parental physical abuse Not witnessed Witnessed Cartoon type preference Comedy Action MysteryOR 0 1. 87 0 1. 29 1. 89 0 7. 11 0 2. 96 1. 33 (95% CI) p-value 0. 000 (1. 40,2. 50) 0. 000 0. 001 0. 160 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 147 (0. 90,1. 85) (1. 33,2. 69) (5. 26,9. 60) (1. 99,4. 43) (0. 90,1. 96) Table 3: Reduced model of association between bullying and risk factors Figure 2 shows the odds ratio plot of the results from able the final exam logistic regression model. It was found that witnessing parental physical abuse was clearly the most strongly associated determinant for bullying others.Students having witnessed parental physical abuse were more likely 7. 11 times to bully others than were those who had never witnessed parental physical The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 8 abuse (95% CI 5. 26-9. 60). Preference for action cartoons was also a major risk factor for bullying others; students who preferred action cartoons tended to bully mor e than did students who preferred comedy cartoons (OR 2. 6, 95% CI 1. 99-4. 43). Among the age groups studied, older students (11+ years) were more likely to be a bully than did younger students (8 years or less); 1. 89 times (95% CI 1. 33-2. 69). Males were 1. 87 times (95% CI 1. 40-2. 50) more likely to incur reported having bullied others than were females. Bullying others mystery Cartoon type action comedy Parental physical abuse yes no 11+ Age group 9-10 -8 boy Gender girl 1/8 1/4 1 2 4 8 Odds Ratio Figure 2: assay factors of bullying in logistic regression; final model 7.Discussion In this study, factor analysis and standardized score techniques were used to identify bullying outcome; a student with a standardized score more than 1 was identified as a bully. Using an exploratory factor analysis for carve up type of bullying is in accordance with a study by Parada et al (2005) in which six factors were found of 36 items. Beran (2005) found four factors of 21 items. Carlyle a nd Steinman (2007) found two factors. Using a standardized score for identifying bullying in which a student with a standardized score more than 1 was identified as a bully (Scholte et al, 2007; Gini, 2008).In this study, the identifying techniques light-emitting diode to findings that witnessing parental physical abuse and cartoon type were major risk factors for bullying. Witnessing parental physical abuse was clearly the most strongly associated determinant relate to bullying than those who had never witnessed parental physical abuse (7. 11 times more likely). Exposure to parental family violence has been found to be related to negative behaviours of students; the students who had witnessed parental physical abuse were more likely to bully others, when compared to those who had not itnessed parental physical abuse. This is in accordance with the studies of Herrera et al (2001) and Baldry (2003) who all reported that parental modeling of aggression The 2nd International Conferenc e on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 9 and violence promotes the development of a child’s negative behaviour; the child might double the parent’s physical actions and might then become a bully to gain victor in their own favorable moveions.Preference for action cartoons was also highly associated with bullying (2. 96 times more likely). This finding shows that the children who watch action cartoons or cartoon with superhero images were more likely to present aggressive or bullying behaviour. This was invariable with the studies of Kirsch (2006) and Blumberg et al (2008), who argued that cartoon violence may also twine young viewers to transfer violent acts from programs to realworld situations and has a significant additional effect in predicting bullying others.Students often copy the physical actions of parents or of action cartoon characters and so through their life experiences learn to be aggressive. By personally observing others playacting aggressively to achieve some goal the children might learn to act aggressively. With this modeling, the child might then become a bully to gain success in his or her own social interactions. This score is in line with finding by Larson (2003) and Williams (2007) who found that children use the same aggressive tactics that they abide by; they learn to act aggressively when they model the behaviour of violent acts.The children are more likely to copy someone they are looking at, and children fork up a greater tendency to imitate the modeling of those with whom they have the most contact (Cooke, 1993; Kirsch, 2006). 8. Recommendations 8. 1 Implications of the study This study showed that bullying is a serious problem in Pattani primary schools. Witnessing parental physical abuse and preferring action cartoons were the highest risk factors associated with bullying. Parents are the mos t important persons in providing leadership and direction for the successful prevention and hinderance of bullying.They should supply close attention and talk on a regular basis with their children about their feelings and births with friends at school. They should work in confederacy with the school to encourage positive behaviour. Moreover, they must have patience, try to avoid using violence, and closely rede and control the cartoon program viewing of their children. Findings from this study should help in the development of prevention and interpellation policies in the primary schools and assist educational authorities to introduce better strategies for reducing the problem.School administrators and teachers are the bordering most important persons for preventing the prevalence of bullying in schools. The school surroundings should be safe, orderly, and bullyfree. Teachers have to provide positive and mature subprogram-modeling in techniques to students and teach them h ow to interact with one another. They should develop a program that teaches The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 0 students about the dangers of bullying, develop school personnel in formulation bully-free practices and teach students about all forms of bullying: verbal, emotional, psychological, and physical, as well as teach students about disadvantages of cartoon violence viewing and physical abuse between parents. 8. 2 Recommendations for future studies Results of our study reveal the extent of bullying in primary schools within Pattani responsibility to be a serious problem.Future research could boil down on comparing prevalence rates among different types of schools or in one specific type of school across districts within Pattani province or nearby provinces, such as Yala, Naratiwat, and Songkhla provinces. Results may give the necessary information to teachers and administrators responsible for improving animate awareness programs, as well as go along to educate our children in the safest and best study environment possible.In order for bullying to be prevented or decreased in our schools, school personnel need to extract to the ideal that bullying is unacceptable, is serious, and should not be tolerated. Bullying is not a rite of passage that students must work out for themselves. When one incident of bullying occurs it is serious. Silence from students does not imply acceptance. Teachers need training that volition help them to identify students who suffer in silence. The training needs to include strategies for victims as well as bullies. School personnel need to step in appropriately in order to gain the confidence of the students.To gain that confidence, teachers need to be aware that victims of bullying who remain silent will rarely take the initiative to tell teachers they are being bullied and would earn from having someone pro-active and notice their circumstance and offer them help. There is also a large, silent majority of bystanders in our schools. These students are usually well-developed socially but they do not know how to reclaim the power from the bullies. virtually of these students may be afraid to confront the come out and thus ignore or avoid bullying situations.If we can tap into this silent majority and teach these students the skills they need, we can take in a positive school climate with this silent majority holding the power and helping to make the school safe and secure for all. Further research should examine specific teacher referrals after bullying incidents and whether there is a reconciled method of reporting these incidents throughout the grade levels and among all teachers. The administration of disciplinary actions, when dealing with the types of bullying incidents should consistent throughout the school.An increase in student learning is an overall goal of this study. If students feel safe at school, if they are not worried about the glory in which they learn, then greater student achievements will be likely to The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 11 exist. In order to create and maintain a safe and orderly school environment, all stakeholders must take an active role in combating the bullying problem in Pattani primary schools today. . References Baldry, A. C. 2003. Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. kidskin Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713â€732. Beale, A. 2001. â€Å"Bully busters”: Using drama to charge students to take a stand against bullying behaviour. Professional School Counseling, 4, 300-306. Beran, T. 2005. A new perspective on managing school bullying: Pre-service teachers’ attitudes. Journal of Social Science, 8: 43-49. Besag, V. E. 2006. Understanding girls’ friendships, fights and feuds: A practical approach to girls’ bullying. Milton Keynes: bluff University Press.Blumberg, F. C. , Bierwirth, K. P. 2008. Schwartz AJ. Does Cartoon Violence Beget Aggressive manner in Real Life? An Opposing View. other(a) Childhood Educ J. 2008; 36:101â€104. Carlyle, K. E. , and Steinman, K. J. 2007. Demographic differences in the prevalence, cooccurrence, and correlates of adolescent bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 77: 623-629. Cooke, P. 1993. TV causes violence? Says Who?. The invigorated York Times. Craig, W. 1998. The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety and aggression in elementary children.Personality and soul Differences, 24, 123-130. Egbochuku, E. O. 2007. Bullying in Nigerian schools: prevalence study and implications for counselling, J. Soc. Sci. , 14(1): 65-71. Farrington, D. P. 1993. Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds. ), umbrage and Justice (Vol. 17). pelf: University of Chicago Press. Gini, G. 2008. Associations between bullying behaviour, psychosomatic complaints, emotional and behavioural problems. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 44: 492†497. Hawkins, D. L. , Pepler D. J. , and Craig, W. M. 001. Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10 (4): 512-527. Herrera, V. M. , and McCloskey, L. A. 2001. Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among spring chicken exposed to family violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25: 1037â€1051. Junger, T. J. 1996. jejuneness and violence in Europe. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 5(1): 31-58. The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 12 Kirsch, S. 2006.Cartoon violence and aggression in youth. Aggression and fierce Behavior. 11: 547à ¢â‚¬557. Larson, M. S. 2003. Gender, Race, and Aggression in Television Commercials That characteristic Children. Sex Roles. 48: 67-75. McNeil, D. 1996. Epidemiological research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Mouttapa, M. , Valente, T. , Gallaher, P. , Rohrbach, L. A. , and Unger, J. B. 2004. Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39: 315-336. Olweus, D. 1999. The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. capital of the United Kingdom: Routledge. Parada, R. H. , Marsh, H. W. and Craven, R. G. 2005. There and back again from bully to victim and victim to bully: A reciprocal effect model of bullying behaviours in schools. Sydney, Australia: SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney. Scholte, R. J. , Engels, R. E. , Overbeek, G. , Kemp, R. T. , and Haselager, G. T. 2007. Stability in Bullying and victimisation and its Association. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35: 217-228. Tapanya, S. 2006. A survey of bullying problem of students in Thailand. Chiang-Mai: Faculty of Medicine, Chiang-Mai University. Veenstra, R. , Lindenberg, S. Oldehinkel, A. J. , De Winter, A. F. , Verhulst, F. C. , and Ormel, J. 2005. Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41: 672-682. Wan Salwina, W. I. , Susan, M. K. , Nik Ruzyanei, N. J. , Tuti Iryani, M. D. , Syamsul, S. , Aniza, A. , and Zasmani, S. 2009. School bullying amongst standard students attending primary national schools in the federal territorial dominion of Kuala Lumpur: The prevalence and associated socio demographic factors, Malaysian Journal of Psychiatry, 18(1): 5-12.Williams, G. 2007. Gabriel Tarde and the faux of Deviance. Available at: http://www. criminology. fsu. edu/crimtheory/ tarde. htm. [Accessed date: September 21, 2007]. Wolke, D. , Woods, S. , Stanford, K. , and Schulz, H. 2001. Bullying and victimization of primary scho ol children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology. 92: 673â€696. The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Beliefs †Literature †Lifestyle_002 13\r\n'