Eliza Ahmed

Bullying and Victimization: Cause for Concern for both Families and Schools

This study examines the roles of family variables (authoritarian and authoritative parenting, family disharmony) and school variables (liking school, perceived control of bullying and school hassles) in discriminating non-bully/non-victims, victims and bullies. Participants were parents and their children aged 9–12 years (N = 610). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and discriminant function analysis (DFA). Two significant functions emerged, both of which appeared important in discriminating children according to their bullying status. Together they allowed for the correct classification of 76% of the non-bully/non-victims, 57% of victims, and 61% of bullies. The main conclusion is that family and school systems working together may provide the most effective means of intervention for bullying problems.

“What, Me Ashamed?” Shame Management and School Bullying

This study focuses on the prediction of self-initiated bullying from family, school, personality, and shame management variables. Reintegrative shaming theory provided a theoretical framework for data gathered from students (n = 1,401) and their parents (n = 978). To test the importance of shame management in relation to bullying, the MOSS-SASD instrument (Management Of Shame State-Shame Acknowledgment and Shame Displacement) was developed. Bullying was related to a child’s unacknowledged shame and its displacement to other-directed blame and anger. The results of path analysis indicated that shame management partially mediated the effects of family, school, and personality variables on bullying. The implications of these findings for creating a safer school environment are discussed.

Forgiveness, Shaming, Shame and Bullying

Abstract This study predicts self-initiated bullying from three variables: shaming, forgiveness and shame. Data were collected from 1875 Bangladeshi school children (60% girls; mean grade = 8.28) using the Bengali version of the Life at School Survey. Results demonstrated that reintegrative shaming and forgiveness were related to less bullying. High shame acknowledgment (accepting responsibility, making amends) and low shame displacement into anger or blaming others were also associated with less bullying. Liking school protected children who experienced (a) less reintegrative shaming, and (b) more stigmatising shaming at home. Equally, more reintegrative shaming and less stigmatising shaming protected children against bullying when liking for school was absent. The forgiveness main effect on bullying (22.4% reduction) was much bigger than the main effect of reintegrative shaming (11.3% reduction). These results are consistent with the view that forgiveness is a more powerful restorative practice than reintegrative shaming.

Understanding Small Business Taxpayers Issues of Deterrence, Tax Morale, Fairness and Work Practice

This study investigates how the self-employed define themselves and their businesses in relation to taxation issues, and whether there is evidence that this segment engages with taxation in ways that are different from other segments of the population. Data are collected from a random sample of 2040 Australians. Four domains are chosen for comparison: perceived deterrence for non-compliance, tax morale, perceived fairness, and work practice. As evident in the discriminant function analysis, the self-employed are distinguished by not receiving an annual tax refund, perceiving themselves as paying less than their fair share of tax, having less tax competence and independence, perceiving greater power in the tax office to elicit compliance, favouring small government and minimum government interference, and opposing tax expenditure for redistributive programmes such as health, welfare and education. Findings are discussed in a regulatory context.

‘Stop it, that's enough’: Bystander intervention and its relationship to school connectedness and shame management

Bystanders are an invaluable source of information about school bullying. Anti-bullying efforts to deliver justice are hampered if bystanders remain reluctant to discourage bullying; but given that bystanders who intervene to prevent bullying may be at increased risk of retaliation, why would they do so? This study aims to answer what promotes bystander intervention in the context of school bullying using a restorative justice approach. Data were collected through the Cross-national School Behaviour Research Project from 1,452 secondary school students (49% girls) in grades 7–10 in Bangladesh. Students who scored higher on school connectedness were more likely to intervene. High shame acknowledgement (accepting responsibility, making amends) and low shame displacement (blaming or hitting out at others) were also significant predictors of intervening in bullying. Regression analysis indicates that school connectedness compensates for the adverse effect of non-adaptive shame management (low acknowledgement and high displacement) on bullying prevention. Under a ‘whole-of-school’ approach, bystanders who can be referred to as ‘soft targets’ are moved more easily by a sense of collective shame/guilt and responsibility than ‘hard targets’ (such as bullies) whose emotional shell protects them from being ashamed/guilty. Establishing an ethical climate within schools that encourages a culture of mutual respect, shared responsibility and social inclusion may be a positive step towards promoting bystander intervention.

Pastoral Care to Regulate School Bullying: Shame Management among Bystanders

Bystanders can reveal valuable information about bullying to school personnel to take action on it. If they remain reluctant, of course, they frustrate our efforts to stop bullying. But then, why would they get involved if doing so might make them victims of aggression too? This paper investigates the importance of adaptive shame management in encouraging bystanders to prevent bullying. Data were collected through the Cross-national School Behaviour Research Project from 1452 secondary school students (49% girls) in grades 7–10 (mean=8.42) in Bangladesh. As predicted, students who scored higher on shame acknowledgement (admitting shame, accepting responsibility, making amends) were more likely to intervene to prevent bullying. Those with low shame displacement (blaming or hitting out at others) were also likely to intervene to stop bullying. Implications of these findings pertaining to pastoral staff, counsellors and school teachers working with students to encourage coming forward against bullying are discussed.