Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 1

Title of Paper

Lydia Nuñez Landry

University of Houston-Clear Lake

School of Social Work

SWRK 4633 Research Methods

Dr. Nicole Willis, PhD, LMSW

March 29, 2011

Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 2

Title of Paper (Does not Count as Heading)

Along with the recent proliferation of research describing the phenomena often known as

bullying, there has also been a plethora of overlapping definitions and terminology. [Research

into the phenomena known as bullying has recently proliferated, spawning a plethora of

overlapping definitions and terminology.] Various terms such as mobbing, relational aggression

—with proactive and reactive subtypes—sexual harassment, psychological harassment,

workplace aggression, and hostile work environment have all been employed to describe similar

incidents. [As a result, various terms ostensibly describe similar incidentsBullying is most

frequently used as an umbrella term to describe the willful intent to cause either physical or

psychological harm to another. It usually involves an imbalance of power and covert or overt

aggression (Crawshaw, 2009). Psychologically, those engaged in these behaviors wish to induce

fear and terror through the use of humiliation, intimidation, social isolation or exclusion.

Though bullying does frequently involve physical assault, within institutional settings such a

schools or work environments, it is generally manifest by use of covert or relational tactics.

The term “relational aggression” has, often erroneously, become associated primarily

with girls or women, although it is a variant of aggression that is employed regardless of sex,

age, or gender. Because girls traditionally are less likely to engage in physical battery, but more

likely to use covertly aggressive tactics, the occurrence of relational aggression has a tendency to

be misappropriated due to androcentric gender stereotypes of girls often behaving more

maliciously than their male counterparts, engaging in scheming, manipulative and sneaky

behaviors. The research, however, indicates that stereotypical socially constructed hyper-

masculine traits are more commonly associated with various forms of aggression (Young &

Sweeting, 2004). There is evidence indicating that when girls engage in relational aggression,
Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 3

issues of institutionalized sexism are contributing factors: it is often the tendency of dominant

groups to instigate conflict in order to maintain prevailing systems of dominance and

subordination (Brown, 2003). Relational aggression is a covert form of aggression with the

intent to inflict psychological harm upon the targeted individual. Its purpose is to damage

interpersonal relationships or social status by use of gossip, rumors, shaming, humiliation, social

isolation and exclusion, discrediting perceptions or accomplishments, “crazy-making,” and often

the use of defamatory rhetoric (Remillard & Lamb, 2005). Within the context of relational

aggression, there are two subtypes: proactive relational aggression is goal-oriented and

deliberate, whereas reactive relational aggression is a defensive response to perceived hostility

acted upon out of frustration (Mathieson & Crick, 2010). Although quite similar to relational

aggression, the term “mobbing” is used to describe collective aggression involving emotional

assault. In these situations, the perpetrators enlist the involvement of others in systematic

malevolence; generally in institutional settings, creating hostile work or school environments.

The stratagems employed in mobbing are essentially the same as in relationally aggressive acts,

although in some research, the term relational aggression is only used to signify hostile acts

between intimate friends or family members. “Hostile work environment” and “workplace

aggression” are used interchangeably to explain the same phenomena, but are exclusive to the

formal labor sector. And last, but not least, is sexual harassment, which encompasses the same

goals as the other variants of aggression, utilizing terror, social isolation or exclusion,

humiliation, shame, intimidation, purposeful abuse with the intent to manipulate or inflict

psychological and social harm, with the combined influence of power differentials and gender.

The essential distinction between sexual harassment and other forms of aggression is that “sexual

harassment is more directly and clearly related to hegemonic masculinity and therefore taps into
Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 4

potent structural and culturally-sanctioned roles and meanings that are central components of

social stratification” (Gruber & Fineran, 2008).

Once considered a mere rite of passage, innocuous phase in youth development, or even an

unexceptionable aspect of the work environment, the prevalence of bullying has forced its way to

the forefront of both national and international dialogue due to an alarming rate of recent teen

suicides and school shootings. It has come to be recognized as a social epidemic with far

reaching consequences impacting physical and psychological health, undermining organizational

well-being, which in turn affects productivity and the profit-margin. The Center for Disease

Control reports that approximately 30% of school-aged children have experienced or perpetrated

bullying (Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004), while, in the workplace, it is

estimated that 25% of United States workers experienced bullying within any six-month period

and that between 35% and 50% experienced some form of long-term workplace aggression ( ).

School and workplace harassment are responsible for a variety of adverse physical and

psychosocial problems with further consequences negatively impacting academic achievement

and workplace productivity. In school-aged children, research estimates that 90% of those

tormented experienced a decline in grade point average, decreased concentration abilities, and

significant increases in absenteeism, truancy, tardiness, and attrition (Gruber & Fineran, 2008).

In youth, those bullied had difficulties forming friendships, exhibited loneliness and high levels

of anxiety, depression, and insecurity. More detrimental effects included major depression,

suicide ideation, parasuicide, and even suicide (Young & Sweeting, 2004). In both youth and

adults, the trauma of harassment resulted in long-term consequences to physical health, mental

health, and significantly impacted self-esteem, with many of these individuals suffering from

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 5

As with youth, bullied adults are subject to serious long lasting biopsyhocsocial trauma.

Adults also experience high levels of anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, often resulting in

permanent psychological damage, high blood pressure, increased risk of heart disease, substance

abuse, and suicide ( ). There are also significant economic considerations, particularly for those

individuals who must abandon jobs because of the torment. Besides exhibiting pernicious

repercussions for the rights of targeted individuals, workplace and school aggression also

impinges upon the welfare of others within these institutions. Research indicates that witnesses

experience elevated levels of anxiety, threats to their sense of well-being, and job dissatisfaction.

Essentially, the civility of the organization becomes ruptured creating dysfunction that permeates

all aspects of the work environment ( ).

There is abundant research on all aspects of bullying behavior, a great deal of it focusing on

the target/perpetrator dyad, with comprehensive analysis on characteristics of both, often to the

detriment of those most victimized by such terror ( ). The problem with research of this nature,

which appears to be immersed, although perhaps inadvertently, in functionalist perspectives, is

that, while it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena of physical

and psychological aggression, research which concentrates on those targeted tends to shift the

focus away from destructive maladaptive behaviors, which are perhaps the result of larger

structural inequalities, resulting in both blame and the invalidation of the unique aspects and

differences of those made vulnerable by dynamics of marginalization. Perhaps these

functionalist approaches fail to recognize the necessity and importance of heterogeneity to the

viability of the group ( ), although not personally beneficial for the aggressor/s or group

homogeneity. Often those singled out for abuse tend to be individuals that exhibit unique

characteristics. They may be people who, for whatever reason, repudiate or transcend hyper-
Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 6

masculine stereotypes involving aggression, competition, beliefs of dominance and submission,

ego-centric traits of individualism as opposed to collectivism, those who are “moral rebels,”

those who manifest altruism and empathy, individuals who deviate from bifurcated gender

assignations (Gini & Pozzoli, 2006), or simply individuals who lack affiliation or adherence to

the dominant group and its characteristics. Instead, recent research focuses on group processes,

structures, biases, and how complex relationships within these spheres (Rigby, 2005) interact.

For instance, groups may, in certain circumstances, reject individuals who contribute less to the

group than the benefits they receive. Interestingly, these collectives also oftentimes, through

aggressive acts, expel members who exhibit highly benevolent characteristics of contributing

significantly more than they receive. In the latter case, these members are repudiated because

they deviated from the accepted norm or refused to adhere to acceptable standards (Parks &

Stone, 2010). Generosity or high degrees of moral behavior are generally viewed as threatening

to insecure individuals who may feel the need to compete and contribute more toward the group.

In other situations, benevolence or moral behavior somehow signifies personal condemnation or

reproach. Imagined rejection or the misconstrual of the intent of the behavior of others was a

significant factor in aggression toward another with both children and adults.

The significance of social influences and processes within collective relations is important

when examining ally behavior. As the research indicates, status, social position, social costs and

benefits are integral factors in bullying tendencies. These individuals, like other humans, strive

for affection and social recognition (Veenstra, Siegwar, Lindenberg, Munniksma, & Dijkstra,

2010). Social tyrants strategically maneuver existing imbalances of power in order to gain status

and assert dominance. Targets tend to be chosen by their group assignation and level of

acceptance or lack thereof. These are individuals who have, for whatever reason, been assigned
Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 7

diminished positions within the hierarchical structure. By selecting those already marginalized or

in vulnerable positions, social tyrants gain dominance with minimal social costs to themselves.

In mobbing situations, the common denominator is generally a shared lack of sympathy on

behalf of the targeted person accompanied by peer expectations and influences. If one’s social

group expected one to intervene in these situations, ally behavior was more likely to occur.

Conversely, the influence of the group generally determined the level of support the bully was

offered (Rigy, 2005). Positions of status within the group were also significant factors in ally

behavior.
Running head: SHORT FORM OF TITLE (now appears on every page) 8

References

American Greyhound Association. (2004). Internet document with no publications date (assume

this is the title of the article). Retrieved from

http://www.americangreyhound.org/content.asp?contentid=173

Janes, J. T. (Ed.). (1991). Cooking for the disabled. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, S. L. (2008). Autism in the Amish. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 12(2), 209-235.

doi:15.1067/0028-147X.138.2.252

Notes: Note that in the reference list, only one space is used after the period at the end ot the
sentence. Also, don't tab or space at the beginning of the line. Instead use a hanging indent. This
offers you one other advantage in the latest version of word: you can auto sort them. This means
that you can do a long paper and type references as they come rather than alphabetize. Then, you
can auto-alphabetize. To do this, Make sure you use auto-hanging indents. Then highlight the
first word of the first reference in the list. Highlight everything up to and including the last word
of the last reference, but don't highlight the title "References". Once you have done this, click
"home". In the middle of menu screen there is a sort icon (AZ with an arrow). Click this. Then
choose Paragraph, text, ascending (which is usually the default, unless you have somehow
changed it). Click okay, and it will sort the references for you. Once you have read this, you can
delete it.