Analyze three important elements from the years 1945–2000 and their current effects

/in /by

Week 5: New Advancements and New Threats

Change, growth, determination, and aspiration… all important ingredients in the recipe for a new world order!

While President George H.W. Bush’s first-time reference to a new world order accurately predicted many positive developments, those references also had unintended consequences.

“What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future” (President G.H. Bush, 1991).

As you read last week, one such consequence was the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. From negative occurrences during the Cold War era came growth and positive results, as the Cold War ended and new European nations emerged and began to grow.

While the changes in Europe were occurring, African and Asian markets began to open up and technological advancements begin to appear within those nations. In addition, they also witnessed other long-awaited positive transformations, such as improved living conditions and an increase in the medical care available to the people of those nations.

Democracy began to move to the forefront as many of these emerging nations continued to work to achieve economic stability and as they welcomed economic competition. India and China began to compete with the United States by providing an inexpensive labor force, which led to an increase in consumerism. This increase went hand-in-hand with the demand for technology and scientific advancements.

This week you will analyze, in more detail, the top global advancements and threats in the last half of the 20th century.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this week, you should be able to:
  • Evaluate the top three global threats that affect people and assess how these threats have altered relationships among local communities as well as the nations of the world
  • Analyze three important elements from the years 1945–2000 and their current effects
  • Outline elements from the years 1945–2000 that will continue to have an effect on the next 20 years
  • Identify countries that experienced great change and advancements during the late 20th century

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Ivanov, I. (2000). The Missile-Defense Mistake – Undermining Strategic Stability and the ABM Treaty. Foreign Affairs, 79(5), 15-20.

Gilbert, M. (2014). History of the twentieth century.

Read Chapters 11 and 12.

Moss, W. G. (2008). An age of progress? Clashing twentieth-century global forces. 

Read Chapter 5

Martinez, J. M. (2012). Terrorist attacks on American soil: From the civil war era to the present. 

Read Chapter 12

Discussion: Global Threats

Nuclear war! Terrorism! Hunger epidemics! Disease epidemics, including AIDS! These are examples of the complex minefield of threats faced by the nations of the world. Impacts were felt on environmental, political, military, and economic levels. Alliances were hard-won and easily forgotten as the world braced itself for the dawn of a new century. As alliances changed, so did the threats that went hand-in-hand with those international relationships. Decades later, the world continues to feel the effects of this era.

In this Discussion, you will evaluate threats faced by the world and their lasting effects today.

To prepare for this Discussion:

  • Review the Gilbert, Moss, and Martinez readings as well as all articles from this week’s Learning Resources.
  • Reflect upon the types of threats that people faced in the 20th century.
  • Call to mind the groups and/or nations that pose physical threats to others. How were they a threat? Why?
  • Draw from this week’s readings and reflect upon the unlikely alliances that were created and if they were formed under duress or necessity.
  • Consider the correlation between threats to certain nations and international relationships. What is the connection between threats and relationships in the local communities?
  • Think about how the world is still feeling the effects of the threats of this era.

With these thoughts in mind:

By Day 3

Post by Day 3 an analysis (3–4 paragraphs) of the major challenges nations across the world faced at the end of the 20th century. Pay close attention to the extent to which events between 1945-2000 shaped issues related to human rights and freedom (politically, socially, economically, etc).

Be sure to support your ideas by properly citing at least one of week’s Learning Resources, in APA format, within your initial post. As this is a post-first discussion board, you will not be able to see the work of your peers until you have posted the initial discussion requirement for the week.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 5

Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:

  • Ask a probing question.
  • Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
  • Offer and support an opinion.
  • Validate an idea with your own experience.
  • Make a suggestion.
  • Expand on your colleague’s posting.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.

Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria

To access your evaluation criteria:
Discussion Evaluation Criteria

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 5

To participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion

Social Psychology Content Summary

/in /by

PSYC 512

Content Summary Assignment Instructions

 

Overview

Before learning how to apply social psychological research and theory in real life scenarios, it is important to be able to synthesize complex information and relay this information in an understandable way. These Content Summary Assignments are a great way to learn how to take several different sources and to synthesize them into a concise and understandable way.

Just as a hint: your Content Summary Assignments will provide you with terrific study guides for the quizzes.

 

You will complete Content Summary Assignments throughout this course. The Content Summary Assignments are the core learning/building block for this course. As such, be careful to read all of the material and to make worthwhile summaries of the information presented. You will use this information for every other assignment in this course.

 

Instructions

Include the following components in your Content Summary Assignments:

1. Content Summary Assignments must be at least 1.5–2 pages

2. Each summary must include an integration of the Kassin et al. text chapters, Chadee theory chapters, and two journal articles related to each module (found in the Learn Section).

· Use your Kassin et al. textbook to navigate the summary. Then, explore specific issues from the text that the Chadee theories book and the required articles also discuss.

3. The Content Summary Assignments must be in current APA format, including a cover page, a reference page, and appropriate subheadings (i.e. introduction, summary points, conclusion, etc.)

4. Using sources outside the required Learn Section reading is allowed, but not required

5. Cite all your sources you used (should include all read items from the Learn Section, as well as any outside sources used) in current APA format

 

Use the following outline in your Content Summary Assignments:

1. Introduction

a. The introduction should be an overall summary of the Learn Section’s reading material (1–2 paragraphs).

2. Body (Summary Points)

a. The body of your summary should include 3–5 subsections, covering 3–5 of the major points that span across all reading sources in the module.

b. Each subsection should not only summarize a major point, but also integrate the information gleaned from different sources about this major point.

c. Subsections should be about 1–2 paragraphs long.

d. Each subsection should have a minimum of 2 sources cited to support the major points. (This is to ensure that you are integrating the information, rather than summarizing the sources independently.)

3. Conclusion

a. Tie together the major themes you introduced in the body of the summary.

 

Make sure to check the Content Summary Grading Rubric before you start your Content Summary Assignment.

 

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

 

 

Page 2 of 2

Discussion 2: Diffusion Of Responsibility

/in /by

For this Discussion, you will examine conditions that influence diffusion of responsibility. Consider the following scenario of Brenda:

    Brenda was completing a 1-year internship in Baltimore. Luckily, she found an apartment not far from school. To get     some exercise, acquaint herself with her new surroundings, and listen to her music, she walked to and from school     every day. The 2-mile route took her past Johns Hopkins University, an extremely busy campus teeming with     students and passersby. On her way home one day, music blasting in her ears, Brenda suddenly found herself head     down in a muddy ravine right in front of the university’s main quad. Someone had come up from behind and pushed     her…hard. She was not hurt, but at that moment, she was head down, feet sticking up in the air, in full view of everyone on the Hopkins’ campus. Attempting to right herself, she wondered why none of the many onlookers offered their assistance.

To Prepare

  • Review the Learning Resources for this week and examine how social psychology theory and research explain the diffusion of responsibility.
  • Consider the reasons why none of the onlookers stopped to help Brenda.

By Day 4

Post an explanation about why none of the onlookers offered their assistance. Your explanation must be informed by social psychology theory and research.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the social psychology theory and research. In addition to the Learning Resources, search the Walden Library and/or Internet for peer-reviewed articles to support your post and responses. Use proper APA format and citations, including those in the Learning Resources.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1968, Vol. 8, No. 4, 377-383

BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES:

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY3

JOHN M. BARLEY

New York University

BIBB LATANfi

Columbia University

Ss overheard an epileptic seizure. They believed either that they alone heard the emergency, or that 1 or 4 unseen others were also present. As predicted the presence of other bystanders reduced the individual’s feelings of personal responsibility and lowered his speed of reporting (p < .01). In groups of size 3, males reported no faster than females, and females reported no slower when the 1 other bystander was a male rather than a female. In general, personality and background measures were not predictive of helping. Bystander inaction in real-life emergencies is often explained by “apathy,” “alienation,” and “anomie.” This experiment suggests that the explanation may lie more in the bystander’s response to other observers than in his indifference to the victim.

Several years ago, a young woman was stabbed to death in the middle of a street in a residential section of New York City. Al- though such murders are not entirely routine, the incident received little public attention until several weeks later when the New York Times disclosed another side to the case: at least 38 witnesses had observed the attack— and none had even attempted to intervene. Although the attacker took more than half an hour to kill Kitty Genovese, not one of the 38 people who watched from the safety of their own apartments came out to assist her. Not one even lifted the telephone to call the police (Rosenthal, 1964).

Preachers, professors, and news commenta- tors sought the reasons for such apparently conscienceless and inhumane lack of interven- tion. Their conclusions ranged from “moral decay,” to “dehumanization produced by the urban environment,” to “alienation,” “anomie,” and “existential despair.” An anal- ysis of the situation, however, suggests that factors other than apathy and indifference were involved.

A person witnessing an emergency situa- tion, particularly such a frightening and

1 This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grants GS1238 and GS1239. Susan Darley contributed materially to the design of the experiment and ran the subjects, and she and Thomas Moriarty analyzed the data. Richard Nisbett, Susan Millman, Andrew Gordon, and Norma Neiman helped in preparing the tape recordings.

dangerous one as a stabbing, is in conflict. There are obvious humanitarian norms about helping the victim, but there are also rational and irrational fears about what might happen to a person who does intervene (Milgram & Hollander, 1964). “I didn’t want to get involved,” is a familiar comment, and behind it lies fears of physical harm, public embar- rassment, involvement with police procedures, lost work days and jobs, and other unknown dangers.

In certain circumstances, the norms favor- ing intervention may be weakened, leading bystanders to resolve the conflict in the direc- tion of nonintervention. One of these circum- stances may be the presence of other on- lookers. For example, in the case above, each observer, by seeing lights and figures in other apartment house windows, knew that others were also watching. However, there was no way to tell how the other observers were reacting. These two facts provide several reasons why any individual may have delayed or failed to help. The responsibility for help- ing was diffused among the observers; there was also diffusion of any potential blame for not taking action; and finally, it was possible that somebody, unperceived, had already initiated helping action.

When only one bystander is present in an emergency, if help is to come, it must come from him. Although he may choose to ignore it (out of concern for his personal safety, or desires “not to get involved”), any pres-

377

 

 

,178 JOHN M. DARLEY A N D BIBB LATANTC

sure to intervene focuses uniquely on him. When there are several observers present, however, the pressures to intervene do not focus on any one of the observers; instead the responsibility for intervention is shared among all the onlookers and is not unique to any one. As a result, no one helps.

A second possibility is that potential blame may be diffused. However much we may wish to think that an individual’s moral behavior is divorced from considerations of personal punishment or reward, there is both theory and evidence to the contrary (Aronfreed, 1964; Miller & Bollard, 1941, Whiting & Child, 19S3). It is perfectly reasonable to assume that, under circumstances of group responsibility for a punishable act, the pun- ishment or blame that accrues to any one individual is often slight or nonexistent.

Finally, if others are known to be present, but their behavior cannot be closely observed, any one bystander can assume that one of the other observers is already taking action to end the emergency. Therefore, his own intervention would be only redundant—per- haps harmfully or confusingly so. Thus, given the presence of other onlookers whose behavior cannot be observed, any given by- stander can rationalize his own inaction by convincing himself that “somebody else must be doing something.”

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this propostion it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each sub- ject should also be blocked from com- municating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situa- tion should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions.

PROCEDURE

Overview. A college student arrived in the labora- tory and was ushered into an individual room from which a communication system would enable him to talk to the other participants. It was explained to him that he was to take part in a discussion

about personal problems associated with college life and that the discussion would be held over the intercom system, rather than face-to-face, in order to avoid embarrassment by preserving the anonym- ity of the subjects. During the course of the dis- cussion, one of the other subjects underwent what appeared to be a very serious nervous seizure simi- lar to epilepsy. During the fit it was impossible for the subject to talk to the other discussants or to find out what, if anything, they were doing about the emergency. The dependent variable was the speed with which the subjects reported the emer- gency to the experimenter. The major independent variable was the number of people the subject thought to be in the discussion group.

Subjects. Fifty-nine female and thirteen male stu- dents in introductory psychology courses at New York University were contacted to take part in an unspecified experiment as part of a class requirement.

Method. Upon arriving for the experiment, the subject found himself in a long corridor with doors opening off it to several small rooms. An experi- mental assistant met him, took him to one of the rooms, and seated him at a table. After filling out a background information form, the subject was given a pair of headphones with an attached microphone and was told to listen for instructions.

Over the intercom, the experimenter explained that he was interested in learning about the kinds of personal problems faced by normal college students in a high pressure, urban environment. He said that to avoid possible embarrassment about dis- cussing personal problems with strangers several precautions had been taken. First, subjects would remain anonymous, which was why they had been placed in individual rooms rather than face-to-face. (The actual reason for this was to allow tape recorder simulation of the other subjects and the emergency.) Second, since the discussion might be inhibited by the presence of outside listeners, the experimenter would not listen to the initial discus- sion, but would get the subject’s reactions later, by questionnaire. (The real purpose of this was to remove the obviously responsible experimenter from the scene of the emergency.)

Discussion 1: The Influence Of Peers

/in /by

“If Johnny jumps off a cliff are you going to jump, too”? This is a cliché used often by parents wanting to convince their children that doing what “everyone else does” is not always a good idea.

For example, binge drinking is an increasing problem on college campuses, often with dire consequences (e.g., alcohol poisoning, unprotected sex, expulsion from school). Given the consequences, one wonders what compels college students to engage in such risky behavior. We know that fitting in—being accepted by others—is a primary motive for doing what others do. In this case, conforming to one’s referent group’s norms (i.e., getting drunk is cool) gains one’s acceptance to that group (Talbott, Wilkinson, Moore, & Usdan, 2014; Wardell & Read, 2013). Refusal to comply means rejection by the group.

Binge drinking, clearly, is not in the best interest of individual college students, unless you consider the importance of belonging to and acceptance by the group.

For this Discussion, you explore persuasion strategies with respect to the effects of peer influence on behavior.

References:
Talbott, L. L., Wilkinson, L. L., Moore, C. G., & Usdan, S. L. (2014). The role of injunctive norms and alcohol use during the first-semester of college. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 58(1), 60–81.
Wardell, J. D., & Read, J. P. (2013). Alcohol expectancies, perceived norms, and drinking behavior among college students: Examining the reciprocal determinism hypothesis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(1),
191–196.

To Prepare

  • Review the Learning Resources for this week and examine how social psychology theory and research explain the effects of peer influence on behavior.
  • Consider persuasion strategies that a social psychologist might use to convince someone to defy peer pressure.

By Day 3

Post an explanation for how you might persuade someone to “do what is in her or his best interest” when it means defying group demands. Use social psychology theory and research to support your persuasion strategy.

Theory Into Practice, 53:265–270, 2014

Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2014.947217

Marion K. Underwood

Samuel E. Ehrenreich

Bullying May Be Fueled by the Desperate Need to Belong

Human beings have a fundamental need to

belong, for ongoing positive interactions with

others who provide companionship and caring

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Children may hit,

exclude, or harass others electronically because

when their own needs for belongingness are

threatened, or when they want to enhance their

own status, they lash out and hurt others in the

way they think will be most painful, by engaging

in behaviors that undermine the target’s sense

of belongingness. For reasons discussed herein,

children and adolescents might be especially

vulnerable to desperate needs for belongingness.

Viewing bullying as motivated by the need to

belong has profound implications for prevention

and intervention programs to reduce bullying.

F ROM THE TIME WHEN YOUNG children learn to walk and talk, most (at least some-

times) hurt others physically (Tremblay et al., 1999), by hitting, kicking, biting, and shoving; and socially (Crick, Casas, & Moshier, 1997), by social exclusion, friendship manipulation, and spreading rumors. These physically and socially

Marion K. Underwood is the Ashbel Smith Professor of Psychological Sciences at The University of Texas at Dallas and Samuel E. Ehrenreich is a Research Sci- entist in the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at The University of Texas at Dallas.

Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Marion K. Underwood, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road, GR41, Richardson, TX 75080. E-mail: undrwd@utdallas.edu.

aggressive behaviors are characterized as bul- lying when they chronically occur between the same perpetrators and victims and when there is an imbalance of power between the aggressor and the victim (Olweus, 1978). As children ma- ture, online communication offers a context for experiencing connectedness with peers, but also a venue for engaging in bullying. Cyberbullying is defined as “intentional behavior aimed at harm- ing another person or persons through computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices, and perceived as aversive by the victim” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 588).

Many theories for why children and adoles- cents engage in bullying focus on individual characteristics, most of which are deficits: inade- quate parental socialization (Baldry, 2003; Bauer et al., 2006), difficult temperament (Georgiou

265

 

 

Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying

& Stavrinides, 2008), lack of emotional control (Shields & Cicchetti, 2001), lack of empathy (Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009), lack of social skills (Crick & Dodge, 1994), moral disengagement (Correia & Dalbert, 2008), large physical size (Olweus, 1993), and interest in dominating others (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). All of these factors likely explain, at least par- tially, why some individuals engage in high levels of bullying behaviors.

However, there may also be more basic de- velopmental forces at work for all children, and possibly adults, that may explain why some break others’ hearts with bullying behaviors from such early ages. Children and adolescents may en- gage in different forms of bullying because they desperately want, and need, to belong. Human beings have a fundamental need to belong, for ongoing positive interactions with others who provide companionship and caring (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which builds and is transformed across development (Buhrmester, 1996). The fun- damental need to belong may explain why social exclusion is so distressing, and in studies with adults, has been related to aggressive behavior toward others (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), self-defeating behavior (Twenge, Cantanes, & Baumeister, 2002), and even physi- cal pain (MacDonald & Leary, 2005).

Although it may seem counterintuitive to view such negative behaviors as bullying as deriving from the desperate need to belong, we argue that the need to belong may fuel bullying behaviors in children and adolescents (and likely adults, too, but the focus here will be youth). Children may hit, exclude, or harass others electronically because when their own needs for belongingness are threatened or when they want to enhance their own status, they lash out and hurt others in the way they think will be most painful, by engaging in behaviors that undermine the target’s sense of belongingness. For reasons discussed in the following, children and adolescents might be especially vulnerable to desperate needs for belongingness. Viewing bullying as motivated by the need to belong has profound implications for prevention and intervention programs to reduce bullying.

Children and Adolescents Desperately

Want to Belong

Needs for belongingness may be particularly strong in middle childhood and adolescence (Buhrmester, 1996; Gottman & Mettetal, 1986; Sullivan, 1953). Needs for belongingness may be especially powerful for girls, whose self- construals rely heavily on relationships (Cross & Madson, 1997) and who crave intimacy in close relationships (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Girls’ peer groups emphasize close dyadic relationships and intimate self-disclosure (Maccoby, 1998), so the pain of being excluded might be especially acute for girls.

How, exactly, might the need to belong lead some children to engage in bullying and cyber- bullying? In his Interpersonal Theory of Psychi- atry, Sullivan (1953) proposed that individuals’ personalities and relationships are formed around social needs, qualities people desire in their rela- tionships with others, including warmth, compan- ionship, acceptance, and intimacy (Buhrmester, 1996). These social needs expand with develop- ment: infants most desire tenderness from care- givers; preschool children also need play part- ners; children in the early elementary years need also to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance; preadolescents additionally desire an intimate relationship with a same-sex peer (chumships), and adolescents wish also for sexual involvement. Sullivan argued that one’s character and one’s personality difficulties result from the ways in which one manages to meet these needs, or to de- fend one’s self when one cannot meet these needs and become anxious (Buhrmester, 1996; Sullivan, 1953). When people feel anxious, they engage in defensive attempts to avoid or ameliorate the anxiety, called security operations. These security operations may help individuals reduce immedi- ate anxiety, but they can create serious problems in relationships. For example, a preschool child who is frequently ignored by his overwhelmed parents might learn that he only gets his parents’ attention when he hits or kicks. Hitting and kick- ing are an effective security operation in the short term because they get the parental attention the child so desperately craves. However, hitting and

266

 

 

Underwood and Ehrenreich Bullying May Be Fueled by the Desperate Need to Belong

kicking to get adults’ attention when that same child goes to kindergarten will likely undermine his relationships with peers and teachers and lead to peer rejection and serious academic difficulty (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2007).

Some forms of bullying may be security op- erations, behaviors that children and adolescents engage in to reduce their anxious feelings about being excluded. One security operation described by Sullivan (1953) is disparagement, and this phenomenon resembles some forms of bully- ing, such as social aggression. Disparagement is speaking derogatorily about those to whom we feel compared. According to Sullivan, when some youth feel a strong need to be liked by everyone and superior in every way, they cope with the inevitable disappointment resulting from other’s success by disparaging the other, by maligning the other person’s personality char- acteristics or abilities, and by “pulling down the social standing of others” (Sullivan, 1953, p. 242). Many features of social aggression re- semble Sullivan’s description of disparagement. Relationship manipulation and social exclusion disrupt others’ friendships and reduce their social standing, and the content of gossip is often dis- paraging rumors: “One of the feeblest props for an inadequate self-system is the attitude of dis- paraging others, which I once boiled down to the doctrine that if you are a molehill, by God, there shall be no mountains” (Sullivan, 1953, p. 309).

One of the most challenging features of Sul- livan’s theory is that the security operations, including but not limited to disparagement, arise from one’s efforts to meet the social needs char- acteristic of developmental stages and to contain one’s anxiety when one’s efforts are unsuccess- ful. Therefore, following Sullivan’s (1953) ar- gument, security operations are both normative and adaptive in that people engage in them in response to frustrated efforts to meet their developmental needs, but also maladaptive in that they serve only to contain their immediate anxiety and, in the long run, create persistent difficulties in interpersonal relationships. Sullivan proposed that some children develop tendencies toward disparagement as a way of coping with the disappointment of others being superior in

various ways, and disparagement provides imme- diate relief from the anxiety of not being as good as someone else. However, if disparagement per- sists, it undermines the individual’s sense of self- worth because no accomplishments, one’s own or those of others, can be viewed as worthwhile and the person becomes just as disparaging of herself as she is of others. In Sullivan’s words (1953), “Since you have to protect your feeling of personal worth by noting how unworthy everyone around you is, you are not provided with any data that are convincing evidence of your having personal worth, so it gradually evolves into, ‘I am not as bad as the other swine’ ” (p. 242).

The Need to Belong Might

Fuel Bullying

Bullying might be a type of security operation that children and adolescents engage in when their own sense of belongingness is threatened. Youth may engage in bullying to harm others’ relationships as a way of protecting their own, and as a way of coping with their intense feelings of anxiety about feeling excluded. For example, a junior high school girl who feels excluded from a group of high-profile, affluent girls may start shoving the girl she perceives to be the leader of the group down the stairs daily after gym class. An elementary school boy who loves sports and takes pride in excelling may be threatened when a new student who moves to town is even larger and more athletic, and may spread the rumor that the new student uses performance enhancing drugs. A high school girl who is upset that a girl one year younger has started dating a boy she has a crush on may go on the younger girl’s Facebook page and make insulting, vulgar comments on every single one of her profile pictures.

All of these bullying behaviors may quell intense feelings of anxiety about being excluded or left out, at least in the short term. The girl who shoves the ringleader of a group she desperately wants to join may feel some satisfaction at having hurt someone she believes hurt her. The boy who spreads the rumor that a superior athlete uses steroids may take some short-term satisfaction

267

 

 

Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying

in having smeared the person’s good name, in perhaps leading people to doubt that he achieved his academic prowess through talent and effort. The girl who writes nasty comments on all of a younger girl’s Facebook profile pictures may fantasize that she will lead the boy she is interested in to break up with the other girl, or at least bring down her rival’s standing in the eyes of other peers.

However, the relief provided from anxiety about belongingness by these behaviors is likely brief. The girl who shoves the ring leader down the stairs every day is likely to realize that her physical aggression makes the group she so desperately wants to join even more likely to exclude her. The boy who spreads the rumor that a stronger athlete uses drugs realizes that, in the absence of proof, his repeated claims start to make him look petty and envious to his peers. The girl who writes profane comments about another girls’ appearance on Facebook profile pictures may realize, upon reflection, that she has gone too far, when no one likes her mean comments or when a peer with the courage to intervene says, “Stop it. We all know you are writing these mean things because you are jealous.” And, of course, all of these bullying behaviors may lead to adult intervention, but should that happen, it might actually be less painful than the enduring realization that bullying behaviors only exacerbate the perpetrator’s sense of being excluded, and perhaps lead to looking pathetic in the eyes of peers.

Individual differences in bullying may relate to factors that determine the extent to which ado- lescents meet their own needs for belongingness by harming others. When children and adoles- cents’ needs for belongingness are threated, they have other options besides hurting others. The girl who wants to join a peer group could look for opportunities to engage in similar activities, could start making friendly conversation with the girls, and could ask them if she could sit with them at lunch, or could even invite them to do something with her. The boy who feels threatened by the superior athlete could talk to him about how he trains and what he has done to achieve his higher level of skill, and could invite him to

work out together. The girl who is distressed by the younger peer dating someone she also likes could talk with the boy and make her interest clear, or could make a conscious effort to direct her romantic interests elsewhere. However, all of these alternatives require skills in regulating emotions and building relationships that children and adolescents who engage in bullying may not have. Most youth desperately want to belong, but some may lack the skills to cope with that need in developmentally appropriate ways, and therefore may lash out with bullying behaviors when they feel threatened or excluded.

The desperate need to belong may also, in part, explain why it can be so very difficult for most children and adolescents to stand up to bullying behavior and to defend victims. Bullying involves not only perpetrators and victims, but also bystanders, reinforcers, and defenders (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). Defending peers against all types of bullying may be daunting for some, precisely because children’s own desperate needs to belong lead them to believe that if they challenge the bullying behaviors, they will be the next targets.

To date, the little evidence available supports a relation between the need to belong and bullying behaviors. In a large study with middle and high school students, students identified as being in a high-involvement group for bullying reported lower feelings of belonging than children not involved in bullying (Goldweber, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2013). For 10- to 13-year-old boys, engaging in antisocial bullying was related to a desire to be accepted by other antisocial boys and that bullying was related to peer rejection by the larger peer group of boys (Olthof & Goosens, 2007). Additional research is needed to understand more precisely how the need to belong may fuel bullying behaviors and prevent more youth from defending victims.

Implications for Prevention

and Intervention

If bullying is driven, in part, by the need to belong, then prevention programs could be

268

 

 

Underwood and Ehrenreich Bullying May Be Fueled by the Desperate Need to Belong

augmented by addressing this issue explicitly. Children and adolescents could be helped to understand that people all desperately need and want to belong, and that it can be tempting to be mean to other people when one’s own sense of belongingness is threatened. Youth could be helped to reframe some of their bullying impulses and fantasies as motivated by the need to belong, and encouraged to consider other, more effective strategies for meeting these needs. Because these needs might be easier to recognize in others than in oneself, prevention programs could begin by discussing examples of others, with the goal of generating compassion for those who desperately want to belong.

If bullying is viewed as fueled by the need to belong, intervention programs for those already engaging in high levels of bullying will also need to be refined. When children and adoles- cents engage in high levels of bullying, it is often appropriate for there to be consequences, both the natural consequences of peer with- drawal and the more formal consequences im- posed by authorities. However, sometimes these consequences, especially the natural ones, outlast the duration of the bullying behaviors. Even a child who engages in physical aggression only occasionally could become saddled with a peer reputation as someone who always fights, and even if that child’s behavior improves, few peers include or give the individual a chance. This could exacerbate feelings of exclusion and in- crease the sense that belongingness is threat- ened, which could further fuel bullying behav- iors. Even the formal consequences of bullying imposed by authority figures may also under- mine a sense of belonging, because these pun- ishments often involve isolating youth through detention, in-school suspension, or suspension from school.

Youth who have been involved in high levels of bullying could be helped to reframe these behaviors as driven by the need to belong. They could be taught more effective, appropriate strategies for achieving these goals. Peers could be helped to see that others engage in bullying behavior at least in part because they feel left out, and could be encouraged to include those who

sometimes bully when they are behaving well or when it makes sense in terms of shared interests or activities. The same youth with the courage to defend and intervene might be those brave and prosocial enough to try including a child with a history of bullying behavior.

Viewing bullying as fueled by the need to belong could also be extremely helpful for de- velopmental theorists and researchers. This per- spective humanizes those who engage in bullying behaviors, reminds one that the negative behavior may be driven, at least in part, by a basic, devel- opmental need, and forces everyone to remember that bullying is a type of behavior, not a type of person. Viewing a young person as a bully makes it too easy to assume he or she will continue to engage in this behavior, too tempting to give up trying to help him or her, and blinds one to situations and contexts in which these children do well and are able to meet their needs for belongingness in more appropriate ways.