Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting,
personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25 (3), 259-273.
Summary provided by Joan Neff
Pontzer’s study attempts to broaden our understanding of the causes of bullying behavior. Existing research indicates that bullying can be explained, at least partially, by poor parenting; i.e., parenting that is harsh, rejecting, neglectful, lacking in affection, or that fails to teach appropriate behavior. He points out, however, that very little research has focused on the relationship between parenting and being the victim of bullying. His current study examines the relationship between parenting styles and bullying among both perpetrators and victims.
The theoretical aspect of the study focuses on Reintegrative Shaming Theory, which starts with the assertion that when individuals realize they’ve done something wrong, they experience a sense of shame. However, not everyone responds to shame in the same way. Some of us attempt to correct our behavior (shame acknowledgment); some of us respond defensively and blame others (shame displacement); and some of us respond by blaming ourselves and dwelling on being rejected by others (shame internalization). Pontzer suggests that bullies tend to engage in shame displacement, while victims of bullies are more likely to internalize shame. He further suggests that the way parents discipline their children contributes how their children handle shame. Specifically, if parents explain to their children what they’ve done wrong, how they can correct it, and indicate that they are still loved in spite of what they did (reintegrative parenting), children are more likely to handle the shame appropriately and are less likely to become bullies. On the other hand, if parents engage in abusive, rejecting or hostile disciplinary practices (parental stigmatization), their children are more likely to engage in shame displacement, which contributes to bullying behavior.
Pontzer gave a sample of 527 university students a written questionnaire, which included items or measures pertaining to:
• Whether the students had engaged in bullying behavior and/or been a victim of bullying recently as well as in childhood
• How the students responded to shame (acknowledgement, displacement, internalization)
• The level of the students’ self-esteem and empathy towards others
• Whether the students had experienced reintegrative or stigmatizing parenting
Pontzer discovered that 26% of the male students and 14% of the female students had engaged in bullying at least 2 or 3 times a month in the past several months, and over half (55%) of the current bullies also admitted to being bullies as children. Twenty-four percent of the males and 23% of the females had been victimized by bullies in the past several months, and 56% of the current victims had also experienced bullying as children. Pontzer’s analysis revealed that being a current bully was significantly related to being a bully in childhood, as well as a number of other factors, including being more impulsive, engaging in shame displacement, being male, being younger, and being subjected to stigmatizing parenting. However, bullying also was associated with recalling one’s relationship with his/her parent(s) as being positive and warm. On the flip side, being a current victim of bullying was significantly related to internalizing shame, being subjected to stigmatizing parenting, being victimized by bullies as a child, being a bully as a child, being younger, and not engaging in shame displacement. Finally, Pontzer examined a small group of students who reported having recently been both a bully and a victim of bullying. The students in this bully/victim group were more likely to be younger, male, internalize shame, but also acknowledge it, empathize with others, be impulsive, have experienced stigmatizing parenting, and have been both victims and bullies as children.
As Pontzer points out in discussing his findings, probably the most significant one is that the past is the best predictor of the present. Fifty-seven percent of the current bullies had been bullies during childhood, and 74% of the current victims of bullying had been victims during childhood. The results also indicate that one’s method of handling shame does appear to be related to being a bully or a victim of bullying; i.e., bullies were more likely to displace shame while victims of bullying were more likely to internalize it. However, both bullies and victims indicated that their parents were more likely to engage in stigmatizing parenting when they were growing up, although bullies were more likely to recall warm, positive relationships with their parents.
Pontzer acknowledges this unexpected result and suggests that parents of bullies may be more likely to vacillate between being stigmatizing at some times and warm and affectionate at other times. While Pontzer indicates that more research needs to be done on this topic, his findings also underscore the need for a more comprehensive explanation of the relationship between offending and victimization in general.
Joan L. Neff, Ph.D., is Associate Provost and Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Richmond. Her teaching and research interests center on delinquent and criminal behavior, victimology, and justice system responses to both offending and victimization. She was instrumental in creating Virginia’s first training academy for entry-level victims services providers, and she continues to serve as an organizer, facilitator, and trainer for the academy.
Response by Jacob Flores
The study focused on the issues of bullying and the dynamics that parenting have upon the perpetrator, the victim and the bully/victim.
I found the study addressed issues that were already reinforced by practical awareness by anyone who has ever worked directly with youth and adult populations in various environments. I feel very strongly that the population of the study was very restrictive and was focused on a group of students and families that were “obviously” middle, upper middle to wealthy in their socio-economic status. This excluded many dynamics of other socio-economic populations where bullying (though still not acceptable and not strived for) is seen as a “necessity” just to survive the day. Ultimately if you do not stand up for yourself in an environment that experiences a scarcity of resources, opportunity, educational upward mobility you are doomed to living at the lower end of the pecking order. In these environments the parenting also sometimes had to address a more “strength based” attitude where it’s taught that YOU DON’T TAKE NO CRAP FROM NO ONE (excuse the colloquial expression) which might look a lot like PARENTAL STIGMATATION but actually is a reasonable perspective where resources and opportunities are scarce.
I feel that the study clarified the dynamic inherent in the violent world of bullying and how it does effect any and all environments but it did not address the youth and families that I am associated with. I feel very strongly that the people I work with will not be negotiated out of their condition by being provided new strategies and considerations when they live every day with unemployment, drug abuse, a culture of violence and the lack of strong and positive role modeling. That becomes a strong emphasis of my work in that I can provide that example while identifying and recruiting others from the community to see that there is a way out and therefore a reason to move “with considered and supported” steps away from the world that necessitates a defensive and reactive presence to ward of any and all intrusions of repressive behavior.
The findings of the study do reinforce the need to work diligently with the entire family system as the bully mentality is (in my opinion) the direct result of the indoctrination of a system that is steeped in isolation and prejudice (from outside and from within) and a culture of lost hope. Had this study been conducted with inner city populations or indigenous tribal communities, the findings would likely have been very different.
Jacob Flores has worked with over 75 native communities throughout the United States and Canada. His background is in education, mental/behavioral health, community mobilization, strategic planning, and provision of therapy in individual and group settings and holds a Masters degree in counseling psychology from Arizona State University. Mr. Flores has led numerous youth leadership trainings and technical assistance initiatives for the Office of Native American Programs.