PEER bullying and influencing factors among 5th and 7th grade elementary school students in a central district in Manisa

Aim:The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of peer bullying and to identify the factors affecting peer bullying in 5th and 7th grade inclusive and non-inclusive students in urban and semi-urban schools in the central district of Şehzadeler, Manisa. Materials and Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted between 17.03.2022 and 12.05.2022 among 5th and 7th grade students in secondary schools of a central district in Manisa. A total of 718 students (349 7th graders and 369 5th graders) participated in the study. The study had three dependent variables: being bullied, bullying, and bully/victim. The independent variables were sociodemographic characteristics, the type of class in which the student was studying, whether the student was mainstreamed or not, school and residence region, characteristics of parents and family (social class, job, communication characteristics with the child, education), friendship relations inside and outside the classroom, school achievement, physical and social activities of the student, presence of mental illness in the family, and problems in the child's life obtained from the GGA. The predicted clinical risk classification of GGA was used in the study. Being bullied, bullying and being a bully/victim were evaluated with the Olweus Peer Bullying Questionnaire for Students. SPSS 15.0 statistical package program was used for data analysis. Data were evaluated with descriptive statistics (number, percentage, mean, standard deviation). In univariate analyses, Chi-square, Propensity Chi-square, Fisher's Exact Test and Student's t test were used. Logistic regression analysis was used in multivariate analyses. Type 1 error was taken as 0.05. Results: The mean age of the students who participated in the study was 11.5±1.2 years. 51.4% of the research group were 5th grade students and 48.6% were 7th grade students. 51.3% of the research group were girls. 60.9% of the research group belonged to the lower social class. In the study, it was found that 24.2% of the students were subjected to peer bullying, 11.1% engaged in peer bullying and 7.0% were bullies/victims. In the study, no difference was found between grade levels for peer bullying roles (p>0.05). In the study, it was found that the risk of being peer bullied was approximately 4 times higher (4.2 (95% CI 1.6-11.0) in Model 1 and 3.8 (95% CI 1.4-10.3) in Model 2) for inclusive students compared to other students. Peer bullying was found to be 1.8 times higher in inclusive classrooms compared to other classrooms (1.8 (95% CI 1.1-3.0) in Model 3 and Model 4). While gender was not found to be a risk factor for being bullied (p>0.05), bully (2.1 (95% CI 1.3-3.6) in Model 3 and 2.2 (95% CI 1.3-3.7) in Model 4) and bully/victim (2.2 (95% CI 1.1-4.0) in Model 5 and 2.3 (95% CI 1.2-4.3) in Model 6) roles were assumed by boys twice more than girls. In the study, it was found that the risk of being peer bullied was approximately 4 times higher for inclusive students compared to other students (4.2 (95% CI 1.6-11.0) in Model 1 and 3.8 (95% CI 1.4-10.3) in Model 2). Peer bullying was found to be 1.8 times higher in inclusive classrooms compared to other classrooms (1.8 (95% CI 1.1-3.0) in Model 3 and Model 4). According to the findings of the study, as the clinical risk predicted by the GGA increases in the dimensions of emotional problems, behavioral problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity, peer problems and total difficulty score, the frequency of peer bullying increases (p<0.001, p=0.011). According to the findings of the study, the frequency of bullying increased as the clinical risk predicted by GGA increased in the dimensions of conduct problems, peer problems, prosocial behaviors and total difficulty score (p<0.001, p=0.003). As the clinical risk predicted by GGA increased in behavioral problems and total difficulty dimensions, the frequency of being a bully/victim increased (p<0.001). Students who were found to be at high risk in emotional problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity dimensions assumed the role of bully/victim more frequently than students with average values (p<0.001, p=0.001). In the study, it was found that being able to share problems with the mother and being able to talk easily reduced the occurrence of all peer bullying roles in univariate analyses (p<0.001, p=0.001, p=0.008). This remained significant in the first logistic regression models established separately for victim, bully and bully/victim roles (Models 1, 3 and 5), but lost significance in the logistic regression models (Models 2, 4 and 6) in which the risk assessment of the GGA total difficulty score was added to the first logistic regression model. In the study, students who did not have a good friend were found to have a higher risk of being bullied (6.6 (95% CI 2.2-20.6) in Model 1 and 4.6 (95% CI 1.4-14.9) in Model 2) and bullying (4.2 (95% CI 1.5-11.9) in Model 3 and 3.7 (95% CI 1.3-10.8) in Model 4). This variable, which was significant in the first logistic regression model for bully/victim, lost its significance in the second model (3.9 (95% CI 1.2-12.8) in Model 5 and 3.3 (95% CI 1.0-11.2) in Model 6). School achievement, which was questioned according to self and teacher, was significant for all peer bullying roles in univariate analyses (there is generally a negative relationship between school achievement and peer bullying roles) (p<0.05). In the logistic regression models for being bullied (Models 1 and 2), school achievement lost its statistical significance (p>0.005). School achievement maintained its significance in all logistic regression models for bully (Models 3 and 4) and bully/victim (Models 5 and 6) (p<0.05). Students with very poor/bad school achievement according to themselves bullied 4 times more (4.0 (95% CI 1.9-8.6) in Model 3 and 3.7 (95% CI 1.7-8.1) in Model 4) than students with very good/good school achievement according to themselves. Students with very bad/poor school achievement according to themselves are 4 to 5 times more likely to be bullies/victims (4.9 (95% CI 2.1-11.5) in Model 5 and 4.2 (95% CI 1.7-10.4) in Model 6) than very good/good students. In the study, the four places where peer bullying occurred most frequently were the garden/sports field 64.4%, the classroom 56.3% (when the teacher was not in the classroom), the corridor/stairs 45.4% and the school road 37.9%. In the study, it was found that 40.8% of the students who were bullied did not tell anyone about it. Of the students who told someone about being bullied, 66.0% told their parents, 32.0% told their class teacher and 16.5% told another adult at school. Only 27.6% of the parents of the bullied students contacted the school to stop the peer bullying. Conclusion and Suggestions: In the study, it was found that one out of every four students was subjected to peer bullying. There was no difference between urban and semi-urban schools in terms of peer bullying. This shows that peer bullying is a widespread problem that needs to be addressed in the whole district. In the study, it was found that especially mainstreaming students were intensely exposed to peer bullying. Teachers and parents should be especially careful for these students in terms of the signs of peer bullying. Keywords: peer bullying, bully, victim, bully/victim, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire