Summary / Abstract

Title: Bullying among incarcerated young offenders: developing an interview schedule and some preliminaryresults

Synopsis: In the light of past research on bullying and victimization among school children (which is reviewed),questions to measure bullying and victimization among incarcerated young offenders are developed. On the basis of two pilotstudies, it is concluded that the anonymous, group-administered, self-completed questionnaire has problems, and that more completeand valid data can be obtained by asking questions about bullying in the context of an individual interview. The preliminaryresults are based on a small sample ( n =20) of incarcerated young male offenders in Ontario, Canada. They show thatmost residents (70%) were involved in bullying, several times a week or more often, either as bullies (45%) orvictims (25%). Larger-scale research on bullying among incarcerated young offenders is recommended, using individualinterviews, and key issues to be addressed are set out. bullying, residents, victims, young offenders, bullies, school, questionnaire, individual interviews, questions, victimization, incarcerated young offenders, Farrington, self, institutions, Connell, staff, valid data, self report questionnaire, preliminaryresults, researcher, self completed questionnaire, interview schedule, prevalence, Psychology, Adolescence, group setting, Ontario Canada, custodial facilities, aggression, investigating,

Related links for: Bullying among incarcerated young offenders: developing an interview schedule and some preliminaryresults

Additional keywords for: Bullying among incarcerated young offenders: developing an interview schedule and some preliminaryresults

journal adolescence 1996 19 75 93 bullying incarcerated young offenders developing interview schedule preliminary results anne connell david p farrington light past research bullying victimization school children reviewed questions measure bullying victimization incarcerated young offenders developed basis two pilot studies concluded anonymous group administered self completed questionnaire problems complete valid data obtained asking questions bullying context individual interview preliminary results based small sample n 20 incarcerated young male offenders ontario canada show residents 70 involved bullying times week bullies 45 victims 25 larger scale research bullying incarcerated young offenders recommended individual interviews key issues addressed 1996 association professionals services adolescents introduction bullying defined repeated oppression powerful person powerful farrington 1993 definition three key elements first physical verbal psychological attack threat intimidation intended cause fear harm distress victim second imbalance physical psychological power powerful person oppressing powerful people ganging victim third continuous series incidents people prolonged time period bullying subjective concept majority pioneering researchers school bullying quite concordant definitions basically lead olweus 1993 influential researcher bullying physical violence threatening teasing extortion stealing destruction possessions ridiculing name calling social exclusion bullying overlaps aggression identical types bullying involve aggression e g social exclusion types aggression involve bullying e g fights equally matched opponents assaults strangers studying bullying desirable define behaviour carefully specify effect victim investigate long continues people record number age sex characteristics bullies victims assaults necessarily involve bullying females specialize psychological indirect bullying e g name calling social exclusion males specialize physical direct bullying lagerspetz et al 1988 besag 1991 reprint requests correspondence addressed d p farrington cambridge university institute criminology 7 west road cambridge cb3 9dt u k 0140 1971 96 01007519 12 00 0 1996 association professionals services adolescents 76 connell d p farrington contentious definitional issue literature bullying counted victim provocative stephenson smith 1989 absence provocation key element definitions bullying practical problems deciding serious repeated distressing teasing defined bullying mooney et al 1991 contentious empirical issue literature concerns overlap bullies victims simultaneously sequentially possible people victimized early age e g first year secondary school bullies get older alternative view little overlap bullies victims essentially different types people substantial amount research investigating bullying schoolchildren bullying offender populations virtually ignored criminological psychological researchers recently surprising bullying incarcerated young offenders perceived serious problem implicated primary cause recent deaths institution marshall 1993 evidence research bullying schoolchildren indicates fairly strong relationship bullying delinquent violent behaviour farrington 1993 tattum lane 1989 major aim present paper devise test method measuring bullying young offender institutions reviewing adequacy presenting preliminary results bullying schoolchildren scope paper discuss thoroughly extensive literature bullying schoolchildren detailed reviews see besag 1989 farrington 1993 findings presented relevant bullying penal institutions measurement reliability validity different techniques measure bullying schoolchildren teacher ratings peer nominations individual interviews recently systematic observation popular method anonymous self report questionnaire completed group setting seeking information bullying victimization e g roland 1989 mellor 1990 olweus 1990 o moore hillery 1991 smith 1991 ziegler rosenstein manner 1991 popularity self report method partly attributable ease efficiency data collection partly belief bullying covert difficult measure direct observation third party reports questionnaires obtain information characteristics bullies victims typically ask prevalence frequency nature bullying bullying occurs response children teachers behaviour provide explicit definition bullying children clear understanding means questionnaires refer specific time periods response alternatives fairly specific allowing objective interpretation scoring olweus 1992a information reliability validity bullying measures ahmad 77 bullying young offenders smith 1990 argued self report questionnaire valid individual interviews teacher peer nominations reported percentage agreement questionnaires interviews 90 bullying 95 victimization scored dichotomously half admitted bullying questionnaire admitted interview 1 week 85 admitting victimization questionnaire admitted interview ahmad smith concluded anonymous questionnaire valid presumably yielded higher prevalence implicitly assumed denial main source invalidity present relevant comparison tables o moore hillery 1991 found teachers identified 24 self reported bullies like questionnaires interviews teacher peer nominations stephenson smith 1989 self report peer ratings perry et al 1988 olweus 1991 highly correlated extensive validity studies clearly needed prevalence frequency research indicates majority school children involved bullying behaviour bullies victims perry et al 1988 stephenson smith 1989 olweus 1991 ziegler rosenstein manner 1991 prevalence bully victim problems depends definition bullying time periods enquired half children report victimized half admit bullied children mellor 1990 1991 o moore hillery 1991 proportions course bullying restricted school term dublin 48 boys 38 girls said victimized term o moore hillery 1989 50 boys 48 girls toronto ziegler rosenstein manner 1991 children admitted bullying proportions substantial 47 boys 31 girls toronto bully victim problems prevalent classes schools children behavioural emotional learning difficulties e g o moore hillery 1989 stephenson smith 1989 ziegler rosenstein manner 1991 suggesting behaviour prevalent institutions young offenders far frequency bullying concerned questionnaires typically ask children report bullying occurred twice week bullying definition repeated behaviour arguable far aggression occurs twice termed bullying criterion bullying week prevalence victims decreases 10 prevalence bullies 5 farrington 1993 whitney smith 1993 correlates consequences bullies tend aggressive tough strong confident impulsive victims tend unpopular lonely rejected anxious depressed unwilling retaliate lacking selfesteem farrington 1993 olweus 1994 bullying causes immediate harm distress victims negative consequences mental health victims feel 78 connell d p farrington psychological physical distress pain difficult concentrate school work mellor 1991 afraid go school fear victimized reid 1989 addition olweus 1992b reported victims tended low self esteem high depression 7 10 years bullying negative consequences bully reinforced enjoyment status bully likely engage aggressive behaviour ultimately lead penal sanctions difficulties life work bullying stage developmental sequence ultimately leading criminal violence victimization stage developmental sequence ultimately leading anxiety depression bullying victimization causes symptoms clear research indicates continuity time bullying violent crime olweus 1991 reported children bullied school four times likely non bullies recidivist criminals farrington 1993 found bullying significantly related violent behaviour e g fighting convictions violence addition bullies significantly tended children bullies intergenerational continuity demonstrated victims farrington 1993 relationship bullying crime criminal violence types aggressive antisocial behaviour reasonable assume high proportion residents young offender institutions previously school bullies interesting investigate offenders previously bullies school victims institutions like offending bullying arises interactions potential offenders potential victims environments provide opportunities bullying likely detected offending occurs repeatedly people typically know environment bullies victims surveillance bullies try avoid seen school bullying potentially controllable offending community certainly easier implement evaluate bullying prevention programmes schools general crime prevention programmes community bullying victimization incarcerated young offenders clear discussion bullying schools extensive problem profound immediate long term consequences bullies victims little known bullying penal institutions expect practical experience literature related areas serious problem impressionistic statements young offenders confirm kennedy 1995 england home office prison service 1993 thought necessary publish information leaflet bullying prison followed 1994 video topic prepared delwyn tattum leading researcher bullying schools e g tattum 1993 important increase understanding knowledge bullying behaviour incarcerated young offenders order protect victims security control reasons assist classification offenders need risk assessment unfortunately limited amount research conducted bullying institutions provides little basic data prevalence frequency nature addition 79 bullying young offenders little information concerning methods measure bullying institutions valid reliable major problem definitions bullying essentially describe aggression violence general number studies investigating victimization violence adult offenders prison e g cohen et al 1976 bowker 1980 mccorkle 1992 cooley 1993 young offenders custody bartollas et al 1976a b feld 1977 mutchnick fawcett 1987 shields simourd 1991 exception beck 1994 explicitly concerned bullying national inmate surveys provide information prevalence assault 1991 english survey based personal interviews 4000 prisoners found 15 prisoners age 21 assaulted prisoner previous 6 months walmsley et al 1992 scottish surveys based selfcompleted questionnaires found 13 1990 91 8 1993 94 prisoners assaulted prisoner sentence prison wozniak mcallister 1992 wozniak et al 1994 inmate victims aggressors found differ significantly number variables aggressors tend extensive criminal institutional histories substance abuse educational employment family peer psychological problems shields simourd 1991 addition literature school bullying aggressors tend project image strength toughness victims victims tend better adjusted lives outside aggressors poorly adjusted inside bartollas et al 1976a b interestingly found aggressors victims differentiated variables age bartollas et al 1976a b mutchnick fawcett 1987 weight height iq bartollas et al 1976a b beck 1994 carried largest study bullying british young offender institutions defined bullying deliberately hurting threatening frightening order take things fun definition mention repeated intimidation people know 300 prisoners completed anonymous self report questionnaire 22 said victimized current institution 9 said bullied half bullies 10 25 victims offenders little prison experience likely victimized 35 first time prisoners victimized compared 14 experienced prisoners half 48 victims prison 6 weeks 84 bullies prison 6 weeks beck results suggest young offenders begin institutional careers victims develop bullies experienced inmates friends gang mcgurk mcdougall 1991 investigated nature extent bullying young offenders british institution high proportion dormitory accommodation evaluated success efforts made home office prison department reduce problem found despite fact 14 23 interviewed inmates said personally witnessed bullying previous week bullying rarely detected punished surprisingly bullying likely occur surveillance low probability detection mcgurk mcdougall 1991 devised number environmental strategies reduce bullying adopted prison governor strategies aimed increase 80 connell d p farrington staff surveillance risk apprehended punishment received detected bullies reassessments bullying two points time 7 month period prevention measures implemented indicated programme successful reducing bullying proportion inmates reported witnessed bullying previous week declined 61 programme 13 number interviewed remained small study valuable shows bullying reduced custodial institutions two small surveys institution 1990s reported 59 46 inmates witnessed bullying previous week marshall 1993 shields simourd 1991 investigated predatory relationships youths incarcerated canadian secure custody young offender unit study specifically concerned bullying relevant predatory behaviour aspect bullying defined predatory relationship characterized violence threats violence predatory inmates chronically sought exploitative relationships incarcerated peers subjects n 251 young offender level service inventory yo lsi standardized structured interview measuring offenders background present situation behaviour subsequently monitored independently unit treatment team 10 residents identified staff predators based definition results indicated yo lsi able distinguish offenders classified predators nonpredators showed satisfactory inter observer reliability internal consistency vast majority 26 predators 88 200 non predators 82 correctly identified study provides information validity reliability yolsi know little accuracy staff reports measuring bullying mentioned previously research bullying schools indicates teacher ratings tend underestimate prevalence bullying institutional bullying intentionally hidden staff possible unit treatment team identify bullies aware severe cases addition results study tell little numbers victims frequency victimization nature circumstances bullying existing literature provides little information bullying behaviour incarcerated youths little knowledge reliable valid methods collecting basic data bullying victimization present research first purpose present research fill gap literature developing self report questionnaire collect basic data prevalence frequency nature circumstances bullying behaviour incarcerated young offenders assessing value differences institutional environment population incarcerated school setting unclear useful school based self report questionnaires investigating bullying youths custody two pilot studies conducted summer 1992 summer 1993 open custody facility young offenders ontario canada studies complete population 81 bullying young offenders facility time n 10 acted subjects total sample n 20 residents white male young offenders ranging age 16 18 years residents incarcerated facility 1 month average length stay facility 3 months researcher c time staff member facility researcher knew residents assured questionnaire completely anonymous names appear assured results obtained questionnaire said researcher confidential research purposes made clear staff members access questionnaires researcher discuss results staff pilot study i residents n 10 group setting revised extended self report questionnaire based study bullying schoolchildren e g greenbaum et al 1989 tattum herbert 1990 smith 1991 questionnaire modified ways replacing references teacher staff children residents references school locations replaced equivalent custodial facility locations addition definition bullying reworded terms examples relevant incarcerated youths specific behaviours operational definition bullying threatened pressured intimidated made things sexual acts doing residents chores holding contraband beaten hit pushed kicked restrained verbal abuse noone talking resident emphasis repeated bullying involving people victimization weaker stronger residents self report questionnaire three residents said bullied facility admitted victimized group completion questionnaire residents asked provide feedback individual interviews questionnaire responses inmate feedback individual interviews three issues concerning questionnaire raised residents problem reporting victims due fears residents see responses group setting able elaborate questions residents difficulty answering simply choosing response alternatives questionnaire fact residents fully understand questions poor readers ask questions front residents known institutionalized young offenders low levels literacy make difficult complete self report questionnaires unaided mcgurk et al 1978 surveyed english male detention centre inmates aged 14 20 six receptions reading age 10 functionally illiterate unable complete tests remainder average reading age 13 2 nfer test 13 6 schonell test compared average chronological age 17 7 82 connell d p farrington average arithmetic age 10 0 west farrington 1973 found convicted juvenile delinquents significantly poor reading comprehension vocabulary tests two thirds juvenile recidivists lowest category school attainment interestingly response rate scottish prison surveys increased 65 1990 91 prisoners helped 81 1993 94 prisoners poor literacy helped complete self report questionnaires major problem institutionalized young offenders difficulties reading comprehension disproportionally bullies farrington 1993 showed poor reading low school attainment low verbal non verbal intelligence significantly related bullying self completion questionnaires measure bullying institutions underestimate true prevalence bullying tendency bullies non respondents individual interview three residents informed researcher victims bullying admitted questionnaire indicated reason concerned residents see responses communal areas facilities typically small difficult seat residents far apart secrecy responses ensured three residents reported bullying interview admitted questionnaire present research victims bullies reported completing questionnaire group setting possibly victim stigmatizing bully children school concerns children seeing responses problematic youths custody result unwritten rule institutions informing inmates subculture ensures victims inform ostracized persecuted making situation worse marshall 1993 fact residents indicated reasons residents bullied first place believed informants advantage cited self report questionnaires individual interviews respondents likely willing admit vocally face face situation farrington 1973 found bullying ahmad smith 1990 interesting institutional setting victims likely admit individual interview group administered self report questionnaire problem associated self completion questionnaire group setting residents treat task seriously joked residents contrast discussed quite seriously researcher individual interviews possible explanation subjects made nervous sensitive threatening topic questionnaire coped joking residents indicated found difficult concentrate group conditions complete inventory carefully three 10 respondents skipped questions pages known offenders tend restless lacking concentration e g farrington et al 1990 residents indicated questions difficult answer selecting response alternatives answers questions required explanation commented specific places times relevant bullying place staff present addition areas heavily supervised depended staff working 83 bullying young offenders residents indicated staff ignored bullying cases area supervised irrelevant questions providing response alternatives regarding times locations bullying occurred replaced open ended questions responses written residents offered rich descriptions nature bullying individual interviews detailed explanations bullying place kind detailed precise information necessary understanding nature bullying lost completed questionnaires open ended question addition asking frequency specific types bullying behaviour added allow residents elaborate nature bullying experiences residents indicated bullying place initiation process new residents bullied longest seniority response victimization influenced bullying continued offenders consider bullying rite passage subjects indicated residents bullies victims previous custodial facilities played determining bullied new facilities reputation bully victim carried new facilities order address issues questions added inquiring residents bullies victims school previous custodial facilities long residents custody facility study bullied first arrived initiation process question added asking residents felt bullying inevitable life custody individual interviews residents frequently reminded definition bullying purposes study uncertain specific behaviours constituted bullying explained clearly questionnaire researcher violence general institutions schools difficult offenders make distinction bullying types aggressive antisocial behaviour residents perceive kinds behaviour operational definition bullying victimization quite severe inmates consider bullying youths custody consider bullying schoolchildren definitions fact different people different settings varying perceptions meant bullying stresses need researchers make operational definition bullying clear subjects presence researcher individual interview useful answer questions clarify definitions inmates unsure number questions individual interview nature bullying fact residents hesitant ask questions researcher group setting likely inmates group setting interpret questions intended asking questions subjects individually maintaining confidentiality anonymity sense names written questionnaires effective method measuring bullying population individual administration minimizes residents concerns seeing responses allows concentrate task hand allows researcher clarify explain uncertainties helps residents difficulty reading writing allows inmates elaborate responses provide richer data 84 connell d p farrington course individual interviews efficient data collection require person hours obtain data self completion group setting trade obtaining valid data large sample obtaining valid data small sample data bullying peers identified three residents victims three residents admit bullied self report questionnaire admit interview researcher peer nominations identified victims accurately selfreport questionnaire three residents identified peers bullies three admitted self report questionnaire interview interesting residents willing inform fellow inmates long confidentiality responses ensured anonymity maintained systematic data collected staff questionnaires interviews researcher staff member facility time study aware staff opinions bullies victims staff correctly identified residents bullies victims aware frequency seriousness bullying victims approached staff observed bullies picking victims verbally witness actual threats physical violence pilot study ii questions revised light feedback provided residents presented appendix approximately 1 year revised questions subjects n 10 facility individual interviews population facility completely changed time two residents admitted victimized six said bullied facility inmate feedback asking questions residents individually elaborations response questions provided useful information concerning nature bullying penal institutions residents indicated prevalence frequency bullying custody varied greatly institution different types facilities institutions time bullying varied characteristics residents bullying problem facility change dramatically admission discharge resident group dynamics characteristics individual offenders said crucial importance explaining prevalence bullying institutions bullying varied security level philosophy facility staff attitudes explanations bullying strongly related inmate subculture common reasons bullying fellow resident informant mouthy considered provocative acted tough 85 bullying young offenders status deserved opinion residents punk know handle custody meaning familiar informal rules immature bullies high status staff residents common opinion bully gave jail respect majority residents felt bullying normal life custody helped establish maintain hierarchy importance institutional subculture explaining prison violence established subculture influenced identities roles values inmates prior incarceration formal organization institution feld 1977 penal institutions encourage social system based survival fittest domination weakness paramount gaining acceptance satisfaction status inmates constantly manipulating manoeuvring power institutions provide perfect setting bullying occur inmate behaviour penal institution extension offenders previously held values motivations poole regoli 1983 view holds youths enter custodial facilities fairly developed attitudes values consistent aggressive exploitative nature institutional life referred criminal subculture irwin cressey 1970 literature bullying schoolchildren suggests incarcerated youths previously school bullies institutional subculture resulting characteristics incarcerated population features institution likely play important role explanation bullying incarcerated youth data bullying peers identified three residents victims two admitted interview peers identified six residents bullies six admitted interview peer nominations accurate research function small size facility housing 10 residents staff facility knew bullying taking place aware major bullying incidents occurred frequently knew victims appreciate seriously victimized addition resident responsible bullying facility managed hide staff completely knowledge extent involvement bullying behaviour preliminary results acknowledging based small numbers useful summarize amalgamated results n 20 studies data pilot study i derived self completed questionnaire interview combined data pilot study ii derived individual interview discussed previously prevalence frequency bullying depends definition argued aggression occurs twice defined bullying residents present study classified bullies victims involved behaviour week 86 connell d p farrington table 1 prevalence bullying victimization question number residents week twice week times week day bully 8 3 0 4 5 45 victim 13 2 0 1 4 25 threatened 13 2 0 1 4 25 punched 15 2 0 3 0 15 robbed 16 2 2 0 0 10 beaten 20 0 0 0 0 0 victim previous custody 10 2 1 2 20 victim school 14 2 2 2 20 bully previous custody 4 3 0 8 53 bully school 10 5 0 5 25 based n 20 questions previous custody subjects previous custodial experience n 5 excluded category distinguished times week questions definition majority residents 70 involved bullying 45 nine bullies 25 five victims contrast results obtained school children residents admitted bullying victimization overlap bullies victims victims four five said victimized day see table 1 similarly majority bullies five nine bullied day victims suffered verbal bullying threats three five punched hit two robbed week victims beaten bullied sexual majority residents custody eight 15 bullies previous incarceration minority previously incarcerated residents 20 victimized previously majority current bullies six nine bullies previous custodial facilities bullies previously custody victims fact five victims subjects serving first custodial sentences agreement beck 1994 findings offenders little prison experience likely victimized lack experience custody contributory factor victimization five residents three bullies said bullies school four victims victimized school average age victims 17 5 years slightly greater bullies 16 8 years bullies victims differ height 179 cm 174 cm respectively differ average time spent facility bullies 3 0 months victims 2 5 months residents indicated bullying occurred depended staff working frequently mentioned locations basement facility back patio house residents went smoke unsupervised staff smoked table 2 shows residents responded general questions bullying majority 70 thought 87 bullying young offenders table 2 responses general questions bullying question number residents victims deserve bullied 14 2 2 2 20 bullying things work places like 1 2 0 17 85 staff know bullying 7 0 5 5 56 staff try put stop bullying 0 2 5 11 89 residents try put stop bullying 13 4 0 0 0 based n 20 excluding don t know victims deserved bullied 85 bullying life custodial facilities majority 56 thought staff knew bullying 89 said staff tried put stop bullying 26 said residents tried put stop bullying conclusions research developing questionnaire measure bullying victimization incarcerated young offenders suggests anonymous group administered selfcompleted questionnaire research bullying schools best method collecting data bullying young offender institutions complete valid data obtained asking questions guarantees anonymity confidentiality context individual interview preliminary results 20 subjects suggest bullying incarcerated young offenders serious problem majority residents 70 involved bullying bullies 45 victims 25 times week victims suffered physical violence residents 85 thought bullying inevitable life custodial facility prevalence bullying victimization institutions times untypically high victims sex offender victim friend roommate obvious limits concluded research researcher staff member facility knew residents fact sample size small put researcher unique position able obtain information staff peers concerning bullies victims maintain anonymity confidentiality residents responses difficult obtain kind information large sample subjects knowing identities addition possible residents willing admit bullies victims interviews assumed researcher staff member aware information 88 connell d p farrington clearly larger scale research bullying incarcerated young offenders needed individual interviews hope interview schedule first step developing understanding bullying young offenders custody establish nature extent bullying carefully defined distinguished types aggressive behaviour different types bullying measured e g physical violence threatening teasing extortion ridiculing social exclusion seriousness frequency duration individuals onset duration termination bullying victimization careers inmates studied inmate surveys essential measure long inmate institution risk bullying victimization basic data collected large samples young offenders prevalence frequency circumstances bullying correlates bullying characteristics bullies victims effects bullying victims measured important investigate far bullying victimization institutions linked types offences committed inmates entering institution longitudinal studies needed track inmates reception discharge established far begin victims develop bullies happen future research bullying incarcerated young offenders concerned validity reliability different methods measuring bullying aim validate self report data concurrently predictively peer nominations institutional records staff reports future research investigate bullying happens different institutions vary prevalence bullying case extent variations reflect characteristics youths entering facilities opposed features institutions important determine relative importance interaction individual peer institutional factors bullying hopefully advancement knowledge bullying institutions lead development systematic evaluation methods preventing reducing bullying targeted features bullies victims institutions acknowledgements grateful ontario ministry correctional services allowing research carried views expressed paper authors necessarily reflect official position policies ministry references ahmad y smith p k 1990 behavioural measures review 1 bullying schools newsletter association child psychology psychiatry 12 26 27 bartollas c miller dinitz 1976a juvenile victimization institutional paradox new york wiley bartollas c miller dinitz 1976b exploitation matrix juvenile institution international journal criminology penology 4 257 270 beck g 1994 self reported bullying imprisoned young offenders inside psychology 2 16 21 besag v 1989 bullies victims schools milton keynes open university press 89 bullying young offenders bowker l h 1990 prison victimization new york elsevier north holland cohen k cole g p bailey r g eds 1976 prison violence london d c heath cooley d 1993 criminal victimization male federal prisons canadian journal criminology 4 479 495 farrington d p 1973 self reports deviant behaviour predictive stable journal criminal law criminology 64 99 110 farrington d p 1993 understanding preventing bullying crime justice vol 17 tonry m ed chicago university chicago press pp 381 458 farrington d p loeber r van kammen w b 1990 long term criminal outcomes hyperactivity impulsivity attention deficit conduct problems children straight devious pathways childhood adulthood robins l n rutter m eds cambridge cambridge university press pp 62 81 feld b c 1977 neutralizing inmate violence cambridge ma ballinger greenbaum turner b stephens r d 1989 straight bullies malibu ca national school safety centre home office prison service 1993 bullying prison strategy beat london home office irwin j cressey d r 1970 thieves convicts inmate culture sociology subcultures arnold d o ed berkeley ca glendessary kennedy h 1995 banged beaten cutting report howard league commission enquiry violence penal institutions teenagers 18 london howard league penal reform lagerspetz k m j bjorkqvist k peltonen t 1988 indirect aggression typical females gender differences aggressiveness 11 12 year old children aggressive behaviour 14 403 414 marshall r e 1993 application psychological principles problem bullying young offenders multi disciplinary approach inside psychology 1 8 15 mccorkle r c 1992 personal precautions violence prison criminal justice behaviour 2 160 173 mcgurk b j bolton n smith m 1978 psychological educational criminological variables related recidivism delinquent boys british journal social clinical psychology 17 251 254 mcgurk b j mcdougall c 1991 prevention bullying incarcerated delinquents practical approaches bullying smith p k thompson d eds london david fulton pp 130 139 mellor 1990 bullying scottish secondary schools edinburgh scottish council research education mellor 1991 helping victims bullying practical guide coping schools elliott m ed harlow longman pp 90 102 mooney creeser r blatchford p 1991 children views teasing fighting junior schools educational research 33 103 112 mutchnick r j fawcett r 1987 violence juvenile corrections correlates victimization group homes international journal offender therapy comparative criminology 34 43 57 olweus d 1990 bullying schoolchildren health hazards adolescence hurrelman k losel f eds berlin de gruyter pp 259 297 olweus d 1991 bully victim problems school children basic facts effects school based intervention programme development treatment childhood aggression pepler d j rubin k h eds hillsdale nj erlbaum pp 411 448 olweus d 1992a bullying schoolchildren intervention prevention aggression violence life span peters r d mcmahon r j quinsey v l eds newbury park ca sage pp 100 125 olweus d 1992b victimization peers antecedents long term outcomes social withdrawal inhibition shyness childhood rubin k h asendorf j b eds hillsdale nj erlbaum pp 315 341 olweus d 1993 bullying school know oxford blackwell olweus d 1994 bullying school basic facts effects school based intervention programme journal child psychology psychiatry 35 1171 1190 90 connell d p farrington o moore m hillery b 1989 bullying dublin schools irish journal psychology 10 426 441 o moore m hillery b 1991 teachers need know bullying practical guide coping schools elliott m ed harlow longman pp 56 69 perry d g kusel j perry l c 1988 victims peer aggression developmental psychology 24 807 814 poole e d regoli r m 1983 violence juvenile institutions comparative study criminology 21 213 232 reid k 1989 bullying persistent school absenteeism bullying schools tattum d p lane d eds stoke trent trentham pp 89 94 roland e 1989 bullying scandinavian research tradition bullying schools tattum d p lane d eds stoke trent trentham pp 21 32 shields i w simourd d j 1991 predicting predatory behaviour population incarcerated young offenders criminal justice behaviour 18 180 194 smith p k 1991 silent nightmare bullying victimization school peer groups psychologist 4 243 248 stephenson p smith d 1989 bullying junior school bullying schools tattum d p lane d eds stoke trent trentham pp 45 57 tattum d ed 1993 understanding managing bullying oxford heinemann tattum d herbert g 1990 bullying positive response cardiff south glamorgan institute higher education tattum d p lane d eds 1989 bullying schools stoke trent trentham walmsley r howard l white 1992 national prison survey 1991 main findings london majesty stationery office west d j farrington d p 1973 delinquent london heinemann whitney i smith p k 1993 survey nature extent bullying junior middle secondary schools educational research 35 3 25 wozniak e gemmell m machin d 1994 second prison survey edinburgh scottish prison service central research unit wozniak e mcallister d 1992 prison survey edinburgh scottish prison service central research unit ziegler rosenstein manner m 1991 bullying school toronto international context toronto board education appendix interview schedule bullying 1 old 2 tall 3 weigh 4 male female male b female 5 language feel comfortable english b french c native language write d write 91 bullying young offenders 6 cultural groups belong white b native aboriginal c black d east asian e south asian f write 7 native aboriginal first nation belong 8 long custody 9 happened residents don t hang end i don t know b c d e bullied questions bullying resident bullied pressured threatened intimidated money food cigarettes made things sexual acts bullying resident beaten hit pushed kicked restrained talks resident tries bother saying mean unpleasant things things happen resident people groups people hard resident bullied defend bullying two residents strength fight 10 bullied b happened twice c week d times week e day 11 people tried harass saying mean unpleasant things 12 punched hit pushed 13 beaten 14 bullied sexual 15 things taken threat force 16 threatened pressured intimidated 17 bullied ways please list 92 connell d p farrington 18 bullied people i haven t bullied b mainly person c people 19 bullied happen 20 bullied happen 21 times bullied last week times b c twice d 3 4 times e 5 times 22 staff talked bullied i haven t bullied b haven t talked c talked 23 bullied first came 24 bullied school came 25 bullied custody bullying people 26 bullied people 27 bullied people 28 times taken bullying people last week 29 staff talked bullying people 30 bully first came 31 bully school came 32 bully custody 33 think people bullied deserve i don t know b c d e 34 join bullying didn t like b 93 bullying young offenders c i don t know d i don t think e 35 think bullying things work places like 36 think staff know bullied 37 think staff try put stop bullied 38 told staff bullied 39 people think bullied past month 40 residents try put stop see bullied 41 see bullied business b i don t i think i c i try help d depends situation 42 people think bullies general comments note interests minimizing space response alternatives shown questions full schedule available authors, com_apnet_jado_jado_1996_0007, KnowledgeStor, Knowledge-Stor,