Journal of Society & Technology 6:22-36 (2016)

A Profile of Bullying, Peer Aggression, and

Victimization in Philippine Junior High School
Magnolia A. Laus
University of the Philippines, Cebu, Philippines

Abstract
Bullying affects 50 percent of the Filipino school children. However, there is still the
lack of literature that discusses this problem in a Philippine setting. This paper employed
descriptive research technique to determine the profile of school bullying, peer aggression,
and victimization among junior high school students of the UP High School in Cebu. Results
of the survey revealed that bullying exists in the school with classmates as the perpetrators;
direct verbal and relational are the most common forms of bullying; gender is not a factor
in bullying and victimization, both sexes are involved in bullying and peer victimization, and,
there is a significant relationship between bullying and victimization. Results underscore the
need to implement a bullying prevention program focusing on awareness of the problem and
their long-term impact to students is highly recommended. There is a need for the school to
organize a peer counseling group to address the high rate of bullying cases reported only to
their peers instead of school officials.

Keywords: Bully; Victims; Bully-Victims; Cyber-bullying

Introduction in curbing the problem of bullying and other

Bullying has long been a problem of schools
worldwide. However, it was only in the recent
years that this issue has become an increasing
concern of schools due of the escalating
number of reported cases which affects the
school children (Hymel, 2005). Around 30
percent of the youth are said to have
experienced being bullied and have
participated in bullying (Bradshaw, 2007). In
the Philippines, 50 percent or one in two
Filipino school children are being bullied or
abused in school (Ancho, 2013). These
alarming statistics prompted the Department
of Education (DepEd) to issue Department
Order No. 40, s. 2012 entitled DepEd Child
Protection Policy, thereby, all elementary and
secondary high school in the country are to
set up a system that will address bullying,
discrimination, exploitation, violence and
other forms of abuse committed in the school
premises. The Philippine Congress also
enacted the Republic Act 10627
(Anti-Bullying Law of 2013) to provide legal
reinforcement to the department’s initiatives
related abuse in Philippine schools.
The 2015 DepEd Report, however, still
showed an increasing trend in bullying despite
the measures implemented by the Department
and the Congress. In 2014, the recorded
bullying incidences totalled to 6,363 or around
31 cases per school day, 21 percent higher
than the previous year (Diaz, 2015). These
figures still caused concern among parents
and school authorities though many of the
cases were already attended to, knowing that
the biggest threat to the school children is not
street criminals but rather their fellow
students. Also, the data may also give one an
idea that the society as a whole is still
struggling to understand the problem and in
finding resolutions to the escalating social
concern.
Bullying is the hostile behavior repeatedly
committed and over time towards a person or
persons who has the difficulty in defending
herself or himself (Olweus, 1993). The
definition highlighted three critical
components of the act, namely: 1) bullying is
a hostile behavior that entails unwelcome,

*Correspondence: malaus1@up.edu.ph
Journal of Society & Technology
adverse actions; 2) an intentional and
repeated actions; and, 3) it involves power or
strength differences between the bully and the
victim. Bullying can also take on many forms
such as making derogatory comments and bad
names; social exclusion or isolation; being hit,
kick, shove, and spit upon; stealing or being
asked to steal money or damage things of
others students; spreading lies and false
rumors, threatening or forcing others to do
things; making racial and sexual remarks; and
cyber-bullying (Halzeden Publishing, n.d.).
Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007)
also mentioned the same list of aggressive
behaviors but categorized them into three
groups. These are direct verbal, direct
physical and indirect or relational bullying.
Direct verbal includes name-calling, threats,
teasing and sexual comments or gestures.
Direct physical covers actions like pushing or
shoving, hitting, slapping or kicking, and
stealing belongings. Indirect or relational
involves sending hurtful messages through
email, blogging, spreading rumors or lie, and,
leaving out from social connections.
Peer Aggression
Not all negative actions committed against
individuals or groups who are presumed to be
of weaker strength can be called bullying.
Aggressive behaviors are considered bullying
when performed over and over and to a less
influential person or group of individuals.
Aggression that intends to cause injury,
physical and emotional pain, including a
degree of fear or intimidation, is called peer
aggression. The nature and purpose of
bullying and peer aggression are the same- to
cause harm, pain or injury, but the former is
committed in the context of repetition and
imbalance of power between the victim and
perpetrator (Cascardia, 2014).
The Anti-bullying Act of the Philippines
(2013) also takes into account harassment
repeatedly expressed through ”the use of
technology or any electronic means” as
bullying (Republic Act 10627, 2013). Termed
23
Laus
cyber-bullying, the harassment can range from
simple sending messages containing threats,
sexual and racist comments, to ganging up in
public forums like group chats and social
media, and publishing blogs or posting false
statements aimed to embarrass the victims in
web pages (Foxborough Regional Charter
School).
Bullying and peer aggression expose
children, particularly the victim, to several
consequences such as depression, anxiety,
loneliness, psychosomatic sickness, low
self-esteem, and absenteeism. The prevalence
of bullying is quite high among kindergarten
children and adolescents that are aging eight
to 12 years old (O’Malley, 2014). Researchers
defined peer victimization as the “physical,
verbal or psychological abuse of victims by
perpetrators who intend to cause them harm”
(Olweus, 1993; Graham, 2006; O’Malley,
2014). In short, it refers to the experience of
the victim or victims of being the target of
persistent harassment by individuals who are
not siblings and usually not from the same
age groups. Victimization differs from simple
peer conflict because of the presence of an
imbalance power relation and the objective of
harming the other party.
O’Malley (2014) also noted that the victim
or the bullied person might display
provocative or passive roles or both. Victims
of recurring aggression have the tendency to
exhibit emotional distress and loneliness and
are “submissive and unassertive” which made
them more vulnerable to the potential
offenders. Passive victims, however, are rarely
passive, are sensitive, restless, fight back when
attacked, and, are observed as the one that
starts the trouble.
Psychologists view bullying as aggressive
behavior that works within relationships of
power and abuse. According to Rodkin,
Espelage and Hanish (2015), bullying can be
cultivated by both the presence and absence
of the network of friends. Youth who bully
other children may either be socially
marginalized young people who are exposed to
violence and those who find temporary
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

gratification in bullying other youth. The 2014-2015. This number comprised 96

authors further suggested the application of percent of the student population. Six
relation approach in understanding this type students were absent during the conduct of
of aggression. the survey. Table 1 shows the sex and grade
Group Relational Theory distinguishes level distribution of the respondents.
victimization by individual and victimization
by a group. Victimization conducted by a Data gathering procedure
single person can lead to personal harassment.
A structured survey questionnaire was used to
While, in group victimization, the harassment
collect for this study. The questionnaire
may occur amongst individuals in a group or
comprised of 30 questions related to the
between one or more groups against others,
objectives of the study. The OBQ Standard
may result in more complex outcomes since
School Report was made as a reference in
those who see the bullying activities
framing the survey questions for this study
(spectators) may then become involved in
(Olweus Bullying Questionnaire Standard
bully activities as well (Darmawan, 2010).
School Report, 2007). The instrument was
pilot-tested and revised before the
Methodology administration of the survey.
The researcher utilized the simple statistical
Locale of the study treatment in presenting and analyzing the
data gathered such as frequency counts,
This study focused on determining the profile totals, and percentages, ranking and weighted
of bullying, peer aggression, and victimization means, for the descriptive measures of the
among the students of the University of the study. Also, chi-square test of independence
Philippines High School in Cebu (UPHSC), a was used to determine the significant
public high school located in Cebu City, relationship of the bullying, victimization and
Philippines. The school which operated under sex, and of bullying and victimization.
a state university caters specifically to the
”economically disadvantaged but intellectually
deserving students in the region”(UPCHS
Results and Discussion
Handbook, 2013). An entrance test is
a. Profile of bullying
administered every year to determine the
and victimization
students who will be admitted in Grade 7 and
11.The school offers Grades 7 to 10 for Junior Prevalence and frequent of involvement
High School and Grades 11 and 12 for Senior in bullying.
High School. Each grade level has a total of
40 students. The results of the survey show a high
prevalence of bullying and victimization
Research design and respondents among UPHSC students. A total of 88 (58%)
out of 151 respondents reported that they
This study employed the descriptive research were bullied in the past couple of months
design. The information on the profile of before the conduct of the survey and, only 63
bullying, peer aggression, and victimization, (42%) said otherwise (Table 2). These data
characteristics of the bully, victim, and bully- show a higher incidence of bullying in the
victim, and their reaction towards bullying school where the study was conducted
were gathered from the respondents using a compared to that of the global and national
survey questionnaire. The respondents of the figures mentioned by Bradshaw (2007) and
study were the 151 out 157 junior high Ancho (2013). Table 2 shows that Grade 7
students of UPHSC in the school year had the highest number of students (72%)

24
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 1: Frequency distribution of the respondents according to sex and grade level
Sex/ Grade Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 TOTAL
Female 25 21 29 20 95
Male 14 18 10 14 56
TOTAL 39 39 39 34 151

Table 2: Distribution of the respondents per grade level according to their experience of being
bullied
Occurrence of
Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 TOTAL
Bullying
Never been bullied 11 (28%) 24 (62%) 14 (36%) 14 (41%) 63 (42%)
Bullied/Victim 28 (72%) 15 (32%) 25 (64%) 20 (59%) 88 (58%)
TOTAL 39 (100%) 39 (100%) 39 (100%) 34 (100%) 151 (100%)

Table 3: Summary of the respondents’ ratings on their frequent involvement in bullying per
grade level
Number of Bullied Weighted Mean
Prevalence of Bullying
Respondents Rating
Grade 7 28 (32%) 2.14
Grade 8 15 (17%) 1.73
Grade 9 25 (28%) 1.88
Grade 10 20 (23%) 1.9
Overall 88 (100) 1.99

who were victimized by bullying, followed by
Grade 9 (64%) and Grade 10 (59%). This
result confirmed previous studies that peer
victimization and bullying are more prevalent
among younger children than the older ones
(Huang, 2013) because older children are
more physically and psychologically developed
compared to the younger ones which made
them more capable of protecting themselves
from peer victimization or bullying(Zhang,
2002).
An act to be considered bullying must be
repetitive in nature. The respondents were
also asked about the number of times did
they experienced being bullied in the past
couple of months. Figure 1 reveals the overall
reported frequency of the students’ frequent
involvement in bullying. In Figure 1, it can
be presumed that a good number of
respondents have experienced “frequent”
bullying in the past couple of months.
Fifty-two percent (46) of the subjects
reported of being bullied, but ”Seldom” did it
happen (only once or twice) in the past
months. On the other hand, 48 percent of the
respondents admitted being bullied more than
double in the past couple of month with 16
percent of the respondents answered
”Always,” 15 percent for “Often”, and 17
percent for ”Sometimes.” Solberg and Olweus
described frequent bullying as aggression that
happened at least twice or more in the past
semester (Solberg, 2003), and chronic
bullying happened at least once a week to
several times a week (Olweus, 1993).
Table 3 summarizes the weighted mean of
the respondents’ rating of their frequent
involvement in bullying and victimization per
grade level. Data in the said Table vividly
shows that UPHSC students are frequently
involved in bullying. The overall weighted
mean is 1.99 (Sometimes). Grade 7 has the
highest weighted mean among the four classes
with 2.14 (Sometimes); followed by Grade 10

25
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their frequency of involvement

in bullying

Figure 2: Common forms of bullying experienced by the respondents who were bullied in
school

and Grade 9 with 1.90 (Sometimes) and 1.88, Forms of Bullying

respectively. Grade 8 has the lowest incidence
of bullying with 15 cases of bullying and a
weighted mean of 1.73 (Seldom). This data
negates the findings of previous studies that
mentioned that bullying and victimization are
less prevalent as the children aged (Zhang,
2002; Huang, 2013)
Figure 2 reveals that the top 3 common forms
of bullying are direct verbal (41%), indirect or
relation bullying (35 %) and physical bullying
(15%). Only seven percent (28) of the
respondents claimed that they were
cyber-bullied, or they received rude messages
and comments through text and the Internet
(email and social media). This result has
affirmed Lai’s (2008) finding that the most
common forms of bullying among Filipino

26
Journal of Society & Technology
children are verbal and indirect or relational.
Bradshaw (2007) also mentioned that verbal
bullying was the most common form of peer
victimization in US schools, and though there
is an increasing awareness about
cyber-bullying, relatively few students have
reported being victimized by this method.
Involvement in the different forms of
bullying and victimization
Table 4 presents the summary of the
respondents’ ratings of their constant
participation in the various forms of bullying
and victimization. It shows that the top 3
most prevalent form of bullying in the school
is name calling, teasing or taunting with a
weighted mean of 2.19 (Sometimes);
spreading rumors or lies with 1.68 (Seldom),
and, social exclusion with 1.56 (Seldom)
weighted mean. This result confirmed earlier
findings that the most common form of
bullying and victimization was direct verbal
bullying. Other types of bullying mentioned
are comments about gender (i.e., Bayot or
gay), body size (i.e., fat), blackmail, and
other indirect hurtful comments. It also
implies that this type of verbal bullying is the
most frequent among the forms of bullying or
has occurred at least twice in the past months
before the survey. This result affirmed the
findings of Huang (2013) that most of the
Chinese students (49.8%) were targeted of
teasing and taunting. See also Table 4 details
on other forms of bullying.
Location
Figure 3 reveals that the top 3 sites or places
where bullying happens in school are
playgrounds, athletic fields, open court or
stage (36%), locker (24%) and corridors,
stairways, lobby (22%). These findings
affirmed previous studies which indicated that
the frequently reported location of bullying is
playgrounds and cafeteria (Bradshaw, 2007;
Olweus, 1993) and school building (Petrosino,
2010). Previous researchers have indicated
27
Laus
that in these places, there is an observed lack
of adult supervision. Hence, bullying and
victimization are more likely to occur.
Duration of bullying
Table 5 shows that on the overall, bullying
and victimization in UPHSC usually lasted for
about a month, with a weighted mean of
2.01. Grade 7 had the highest weighted mean
with 2.29 (about a month) and followed by
Grade 10 and Grade 9 with 2.26 and 1.79
(about a month) weighted mean, respectively.
The shortest duration of bullying and
victimization is among Grade 8 students with
a weighted mean of 1.33 or it lasted about
one to two weeks only. Schaefer’s study on
bullying among college students linked
duration and age of bullying and victimization
to long-term psychological effects. Those
students who reported being bullied during
their elementary and high school years
exhibited greater physiological distress
compared to those who were victimized only
in college (Schafer, 2010).
Reporting bullying incidence in school
The data of the study (Figure 4) show that
most of the respondents (40%) preferred to
tell their friends about the bullying incidents
in school. Only 28 percent of the respondents
said that they report bullying incidents to
adults in school such as teachers other than
the class adviser, principal, guidance counselor
or school staff. The homeroom teacher or
class adviser (20%) only ranked third in the
list of persons whom victims are most likely to
turn to when bullied. These data may imply
that the victims of bullying are afraid of
reporting the incidence because the bully may
come after them.
The UPHSC Disciplinary Committee Report
indicated a total of 11 student violations for
S.Y. 2014-15 (Table 6). A total of five
bullying incidents have been reported to the
Committee for the entire year. This number is
only six percent of the total number of
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 4: Summary of the respondents’ ratings on the common forms of bullying experienced
by the respondents who were bullied in school
Frequency (% Weighted
Forms of Bullying Description
of Total) Mean Rating
A. Direct Verbal 173 (41%)
· Name calling, teasing, taunting 88 (21%) 2.19 Sometime
· Racist remarks 46 (11%) 1.55 Seldom
· Sexual comments 39 (9%) 1.44 Seldom
C. Relational 149 (35%)
· Social exclusion or isolation 67 (16%) 1.56 Seldom
· Spreading rumors or lies 52 (12%) 1.68 Seldom
· Extorting money or other things 30 (71%) 1.24 Seldom
B. Direct Physical 65 (15%)
· Kicked, shoved, hit, slap, locked
33 (8%) 1.32 Seldom
indoors
· Threatened of forced to do bad things 32 (8%) 1.24 Seldom
D. Cyber-bullying 28 (7%) 1.12 Seldom
E. Others 7 (2%) 1.58 Seldom
Legend: 3.26-4:00, Always; 2.51-3.25, Often; 1.76-2.50, Sometimes; 1.00-1.76, Seldom

Figure 3: Frequency of the respondents’ responses to the location/ place where bullying
usually happens

respondents (88) who reported having b. Characteristics of victim, bully,

experienced bullying in school. The data also and bully-victim
implied that majority of the bullying incidents
in school remain unreported to school Figure 5 shows that out of 151 respondents,
authorities. 69 (46%) were bully-victims; 43 (28%) were
neither victim nor involved in bullying others;
21 (14%) were ”pure bullies”; and, 18 (12%)
were ”pure victims.” These findings negated
the results of previous studies which cited

28
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 5: Summary of the respondents’ ratings of the duration of bullying and victimization
per grade level
Grade Frequency Weighted Mean Rating Description
7 21 2.29 About a month
8 9 1.33 One to two weeks
9 19 1.79 One to two weeks
10 19 2.26 About a month
Overall 68 2.01 About a month
Legend: 4.21- 5.00, Several years; 3.41-4.20, About a year; 2.61-3.40, About six months; 1.81-2.60,
About a month; One to two weeks

Figure 4: Person/s whom bullying in school is usually reported by the respondents

substantial numbers of bully-victims, but still
lower in percentage compared to pure bullies
and pure victims (Olweus, 1991; Solberg &
Olweus, 2003; Hymel, 2005; Petrosino, 2010).
However, researchers also noted that the
bully-victims phenomenon is increasing in the
recent years (Benitez, 2006).
Victim
The results show (Table 7) that most of the
respondents who were victims of bullying were
Grade 7 (32%), and the majority are female
(62%). Victimization was also high among
Grade 9 (28%) and Grade 10 (23%)
respondents, while only 17% of the Grade 8
respondents were victims of school bullying.
These results confirmed the studies of Huang
(2013); and that of Espelage and Horne
(2008) and Kokkinos (2012), that the boys,
the more aggressive gender and are more
likely to be involved more in bullying
compared to girls. However, the results
contradicted Astor’s findings that in some
cultures (i.e., Malaysia and Ethiopia) where
age and rank are vital, the older students are
less likely to experience being bullied
compared to the younger ones(Asto, 2005).
Bully
Table 8 reveals that 75 (97%) respondents
who were subjected to bullying identified their
classmates as the perpetrators. Bullies are
usually composed of a group of two to three
students (35 or 46 %%) and with both boys

29
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 6: Summary of reported student violations, S.Y. 2014-15

Nature of violation Frequency
Bullying 5
Cheating/ dishonesty/ tampering of documents 2
Cutting classes 1
Non-participation in school activities 1
stealing 1
Loitering/ making unnecessary noise in the classroom 1
TOTAL 11
Source: UPHSC Disciplinary Committee Report

Figure 5: Respondents’ involvement in bullying

and girls (38 or 50%). This finding affirmed Bully-victim

previous studies in bullying that mentioned
bullying occurs among friends (Griffin, 2004),
both boys and girls are equally capable of
bullying others (Baldry 1999), and, that apart
from personal factors, peer influence or peer
conformity is one of the reasons why
individuals engaged in bullying (Cho, 2011;
Baldry, 1999). It is also shown in Table 8 that
the most frequent participation in bullying
others is once or twice in the past few of
months. The combined data on involvement
in bullying suggests that 48 percent of the
reported bullies have habitual tendencies in
victimizing other students. The said
respondents have been involved in bullying
others two or more times in a month.
Haynie et. al. (2001) and Veenstra et al.
(2005) identified the bully-victim or those
who are both perpetrators and victims by
others. In this study, 69 out of 181
respondents were bully-victims. Forty-two
(61%) respondents who reported being
bully-victims were female while 27 (39%) were
males (Table 9). This result is alarming since
previous studies have indicated that the
bully-victim are more likely to suffer more
psychological effects of aggression such as
depression, anxiety, loneliness and aggressive
behavior compared to pure bullies and victims
(Dewar, 2008; O’Brennan, 2009; Stein, 2007).

30
Journal of Society & Technology
Table 7: Profile of victims of bullying according to sex and grade level
Grade Level Girls
7 19 (68%)
8 5 (33%)
9 21 (84%)
10 10 (50%)
TOTAL 55 (62%)
Relationship between bullying, witnessed bullying while 62 (41%) said they
victimization, and sex
Based on the chi-square test of independence,
bullying, victimization, and sex has no
significant relationship, χ2 = 2.394, p =.495,
where p is greater than ∝ = 0.05 (Table 10).
It means that sex is not a factor in bullying
and victimization, or both sexes are capable of
bullying others and of being a victim of
bullying. This result is in contrary to the
finding of previous studies that one of the
factors in the variation of bullying and
victimization is sex or gender (Swearer, 2001;
Dake, 2003; Shafer, 2010; Xa, 2010;
Espelage, 2008; Kokkinos, 2012).
Relationship of victimization and
bullying others
A good number of respondents are
bully-victims or those who are both victims
and also involved in bullying others. Based on
the chi-square test of independence, the
computed χ2 = 33.111, p = .000, where p is
greater than ∝ = 0.05; hence, Significant
(Table 10). These findings may imply that
victimization is a factor in bullying or students
who are victims of bullying are more likely to
counter by also bullying others. Experts
explained that once the maximum limits for
enduring bullying have been reached, victims
are more apt to ”strike back” in many ways
(Hallard, 1999).
Respondents’ responses and
perception on bullying
A total of 72 respondents (48%) reported
that they tried to help the victim when they
31
Laus
Boy Total
9 (32%) 28 (32%)
10 (77%) 15 (17%)
4 (16%) 25 (28%)
10 (50%) 20 (23%)
33 (38%) 88 (100%)
did nothing but considered helping the
students victimized by bullying. There were
only four students who reported that they just
observed or watched while bullying was
committed; two of which said that bullying is
okay (Table 11). Literature indicated that
spectators or those who watch bullying
happen or hear about it are seldom neutral
even if they thought so (EDC, 2008).In fact,
Atlas, R., & Pepler, D.(1998) study on
bullying revealed that 18 percent of the
subjects said that they are more likely to join
their friends in bullying other kids. There are
four types of bystanders or spectators. One is
the outsiders or those who did not experience
bullying among their friends. Second is the
defenders or those who were likely to help the
victims of bullying. Third is the guilty
bystanders or those who witnessed bullying
but felt guilty for not being of help to the
victim. And lastly, the indifferent spectators
or those who saw but felt that the act is okay.
According to Obermann (2011), the apathetic
bystanders have higher moral separation
compared to the guilty ones.
The data on reporting school violence
revealed that most of the respondents (40%)
preferred to report bullying to their peers
rather to their teachers or adult in school
(Figure 3). However, such does not imply
that the respondents are unsatisfied of the
school’s capacity to deal with the problem
since the respondents’ rated ”Satisfactory” on
the question regarding the teacher’s action to
address school bullying (Table 11). The
respondents seem to think that they can deal
with bullying among themselves since it
involved mostly their classmates. Also, it can
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 8: Reported characteristics of the bully

Characteristics Frequency Rank
A. Class or Grade Level
- The same grade level (classmate/s) 75 (97%) 1st
- Higher grade level 1 (1.5%) 2nd
- Different grade levels 1 (1.5%) 3rd
Total 77 (100%)
B. Sex composition of bullies
- By both boys and girls 38 (50%) 1st
- Several boys 13 (17%) 2nd
- One girl 11 (14%) 3rd
- One boy 8 (10%) 4th
- Several girls 7 (9%) 5th
Total 77 (100%)
C. Number of students who do the bullying
- A group of 2-3 students 35 (46%) 1st
- A group of 4-9 students 21 (27%) 2nd
- Mainly by 1 student 13 (17%) 3rd
- Several groups of students 7 (9%) 4th
- A group of more than 9 students 1 (1%) 5th
Total 77 (100%)
D. Frequency of participation in bullying
- Once or twice in the past months 52 (68) 1st
- 2 to 3 times a month 11 (14%) 2nd
- Once a week 13 (17%) 3rd
- Several times a week 1 (1%) 4th
Total 77 100%)

Table 9: Respondents’ participation in bullying & victimization according to sex

Not Victim &
Sex Victim Bully Victim & Bully TOTAL
Not Bully
Female 10 12 42 31 95
Male 8 9 27 12 56
TOTAL 18 21 69 43 151

be gleaned in Table 11 that the respondents
are “Seldom” afraid of bullying. The
information found in Table 12 confirmed the
respondent’s perception towards the problem.
The said Table listed bullying as the least
(Rank 6 of 6) of the identified causes students
failure in UPHSC. Furthermore, though a
substantial number of respondents would
prefer to report bullying to their friends rather
than their teachers or any adult in school,
many still tried to help the victims. This
result may imply that many of the students
still considers bullying and peer victimization
as morally wrong despite the high incidence of
unreported (to school authorities) bullying
and peer victimization in the school.
Conclusion and
Recommendations
Bullying and peer victimization exist among
students of UP High School Cebu. The profile
of bullying and victimization may imply that
the problem is not as severe compared to the
schools in the West. However, there is a high
incidence of bullying unreported to school

32
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 10: Relationship between variables

Variables Computed χ2 p-value
Bullying, victimization & sex 2.394a 0.495
Bullying & victimization 33.111b 0
a b
Not Significant; Significant

Table 11: Respondents’ reactions and perception toward school bullying

Reaction Frequency Rank
A. Response towards bullying
- Try to help victim 72 (48%) 1st
- Do nothing but think of helping the student being
62 (41%) 2nd
bullied
- No knowledge about bullying in school 9 (6%) 3rd
- Participated in bullying 4 (3%) 4th
- Bystander (just watch) 2 (1%) 5th
- Bullying is Okay 2 (1%) 6th
Total 151 (100%)
B. Weighted Mean Rating on their reaction Weighted Mean
Description*
towards bullying Rating
- Afraid of bullying 2.48 Seldom
- on teacher’s action to address school bullying 3.25 Satisfactory
*Legend: 4.21- 5.00,Very often/ excellent; 3.41-4.20, Often/very satisfactory; 2.61-3.40, Sometimes/
satisfactory; 1.81-2.60, Seldom/ Moderately Satisfactory; 1.00-1.80, Never/ Needs Improvement

authorities which involve students of the same
grade levels, and, the significant number of
respondents who are bully-victims exposed the
students to possible and long-term mental and
psychological problems such as depression,
anxiety, lack of self-confidence and aggressive
behavior. If not addressed immediately,
bullying may lead to more serious problems
such as absenteeism, violence, involvement in
crime and moral separation among the
students. These findings also confirmed the
Group Relational Theory, which states that
the bullies are usually not alone but by a
group or groups of friends.
campaign and integrating the topic in
classroom discussions. Second, a peer
counselor program must also be set-up under
the supervision of School Guidance Specialist
to ensure that the problem is addressed and
appropriately reported to school authorities.
Third, training on how to deal with bullying
should be conducted so that the students will
know how to avoid being bullied, where and
to whom they should report bullying cases in
school. And lastly, further studies of bullying
and victimization, its causes and impact
should be made to better understand this
social concern.

Based on the results mentioned above, it is

recommended that the UPHSC implements a
bullying prevention program which promotes
”no tolerance” to any forms of bullying in
school. The student should be informed of
the various impact of bullying, peer aggression
and victimization to victims, bully,
bully-victims, bystanders and to the entire
community by conducting awareness

33
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Table 12: Causes of student failure in UPHSC, S.Y. 2014-15

Causes Frequency Rank
Lazy to study, poor study habit, poor memory, low scores in
54 1st
quizzes and other school requirements
Home condition, family problems, heavy responsibilities at home 24 2nd
Difficulty in understanding the subject, teacher does not explain
20 3rd
well the lessons
Others (lack of sleep, unhappy/can not get along with classmates) 14 4th
Illnesses, physical impairment 8 5th
Bullied in school 1 6th
Source: Survey on causes of student failure for S.Y. 2014-2015 conducted by the UPHSC Guidance
Office

References Cascardia, M. C. (2014). The Problem With

Ancho, I. a. (2013). School Violence in the
Philippines: A Study on Programs and
Policies. Advance Science and Technology
Letters (Education), Vol. 36 , 27-31.
Overly Broad Definitions of Bullying:
Implications for the Schoolhouse, the
Statehouse, and the Ivory Tower. Journal
of School Violence, Volume 13, Issue 3,
253-276.

Asto, R. B. (2005). Making the Case for an Cho, Y. &.-B. (2011).
International Perspective on School
Violence: Implication for Theory,
Research, Policy and Assessment.
International Perspectives , 103-117.
Atlas, R. &. (1998). Observations of bullying
in the classroom. Journal of Educational
Research, 92 , 1-86.
Baldry, A. F. (1999). Types of Bullying
among Italian school children. Journal
Adolescence, 423-426.
Benitez, J. &. (2006). Bullying: description
and analysis of the phenomenon. Journal
of Research in Educational Psychology,
No. 9, Vol 4(2), 151-170.
Bradshaw, C. P. (2007). Bullying and Peer
Victimization at School: Perceptual Espelage, D. H. (2008). School violence and
Differences Between Students and School
Staff. School Psychology Review, 361.
Bradshaw, C. P. (2007). Bullying and
Peer Victimization at School: Perceptual
Differences Between Students and School
Staff. School Psychology Review, 2007,
361.
A Mediated
Moderation of Conformative Peer
Bullying. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 520-529.
Dake, J. P. (2003). The Nature and Extent of
Bullying at School. Journal of School
Health, Vol. 73, No. 5, 173-180.
Dewar, G. (2008). When bullies get bullied by
others: Understanding bully-victims.
Parenting Science.
Diaz, J. (2015, September 28). 31 bullying
incidents take place daily in schools. The
Philippine Star.
EDC. (2008). Eyes on Bullying. Retrieved
May 22, 2016, from eyesonbullying.org
bullying prevention: From research-based
explanation to empirical based solution.
In S. &. Brown, Handbook of counselling
psychology, 4th edition (pp. 588-606).
NJ: Wiley.

34
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Foxborough Regional Charter School. (n.d.). Education, Vol.15. , 41-58.

Retrieved May 15, 2016, from
www.foxboroughhrcs.org Lai, S. (2008). Bullying in Middle Schools An
Asia-Pacific Regional Study. Asia Pacific
Graham, S. A. (2006). Peer Victimization, Review, Vol.9, 503-515.
Aggression, and Their Co-Occurrence.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Obermann, M. (2011). Moral Disengagement
Vol. 34, No. 3, 363–378. Among Bystanders to School Bullying.
Journal of School Violence, Vol. 10, Issue
Griffin, R. &. (2004). Childhood bullying: 3, 239-257.
Current empirical findings and future
direction for research. Aggression and O’Brennan, L. B. (2009). Examining
Violent Behavior, Vol. 9, 379-400. development differences in the
social-emotional problems among frequent
Hallard, M. A. (1999, May). Bullying and bullies, victims, and bully/victims.
School Violence: A Proposed Prevention Psychology in the Schools, Vo. 46, Issue
Program. NASSP Bulletin, pp. 38-47. 2,100-115.

Halzeden Publishing. (n.d.). Violence Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/Victim problems

Prevention Works. Safer Schools, Safer
Communities. Retrieved May 4, 2016,
from http://www.
violencepreventionworks.org/ public/
recognizing bullying.page
among school children: Basic facts and
effects of a school-based intervention
program. In D. &. Pepler, The
development and treatment for childhood
aggression. New Jersey: Lea.

Haynie, D. L.-C. (2001). Bullies, victims, and Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. What
bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk we know and what we can do. Oxford,
youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, England: Blackwell.
29–49.
Olweus, D. (2007). Olweus Bullying
Huang, H. J. (2013). Understanding Factors Questionnaire Standard School Report.
Associated with Bullying and Peer Minneapolis, Minnesota: Halzeden
Victimization in Chinese Schools Within Publishing.
Ecological Context. J. Child and Family
Study, 880-892. O’Malley, M. D. (2014). Prevailing
Interventions to Address Peer
Hymel, S. N.-H. (2005). Moral Victimization at school: A Study of
Disengagement: A Framework for California School Psychologist. The
Understanding Bullying Among California School Psychologist, Volume 14
Adolescents. Journal of Social Sciences, Issue 1, 47-57.
Special Issue No. 8 1-11, 1-11.
Petrosino, A. G. (2010). What characteristics
Kokkinos C.M. & Kipritsi, E. (2102). The of bullying, bullying victims, and schools
relationship between bullying, are associated with increased reporting of
victimization, trait emotional intelligence, bullying to school officials? Washington,
self-efficacy, and empathy among DC.: Institute of Education Science.
preadolescents. Social Psychology

35
Journal of Society & Technology Laus

Republic Act 10627. (2013).Anti-bullying Swearer, S. E. (2001). The Relationship

Law.
Rodkin, P.C, Espelage, D., & Hanish, L.,
(2015). A Relational Framework for
Understanding Bullying, Developmental UPCHS Handbook. (2013).
Antecedents and Outcomes. American
Psychologist, Vol. 70, No. 4, 311–321.
Schafer, M. e. (2010). Lonely in the crowd:
Recollections of bullying. British Journal
of Development Psychology, Vol. 22,
Issue 3, 379-394.
Solberg, M. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence
estimation of school bullying with the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire.
Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 30, 123-145.
Solberg, M. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence
estimation of school bullying in
Olweus/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive
Behavior, 239-268.
Between Depression, Anxiety, and
Bully/Victim Status. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, Vol. 2, Issue 2-3,
95-121.
Veenstra, R. L. (2005). Bullying and
victimization in elementary schools: A
comparison of bullies, bully/victims, and
uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 41, 672–682.
Xa, X. (2010). Bullying and Being Bullied:
To What Extent Are Bullies Also Victims?
American Educational Research Journal,
351-370.
Zhang, W. (2002). Prevalence and Major
Characteristics of bullying/victimization
among primary and junior middle school
students. Acta Psychologica Sinca,4,
387-394.

Stein, J. D. (2007). Adolescent Male Bullies,

Victims, and Bully-Victims: A
Comparison of Psychosocial and
Behavioral Characteristics. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 273-282.

36