Attitudes, stereotypes, etc

Cognitive dissonance

An unpleasant feeling of psychological tension that comes when we perceive that our attitudes are inconsistent with our behaviour (when our thoughts and actions don’t coincide).

Avoidance

A method to reduce cognitive dissonance by avoiding information, situations, or behaviours that increase cognitive dissonance. This prevents behavioural change by limiting new experiences and information, and reinforces the individuals existing beliefs. Can be:

• Selective exposure - avoiding information that contradicts our existing beliefs (e.g. a vaper avoiding reading articles about the health risks of vaping),

• Social - avoiding people who challenge our beliefs (e.g. a vaper might avoid discussing vaping with their doctor),

• Behavioural - avoid behaviours that conflict with one’s beliefs (e.g. a vaper might avoid participation in a learning activity in health class aimed at understanding the harms of vaping).

Rationalisation

A method of reducing cognitive dissonance that allows individuals to continue their behaviours without changing their beliefs as it creates plausible explanations/justifications. Can be:

• Excuses and justifications - used where reasons why dissonant behaviour is acceptable are sought or created (e.g. a vaper might justify vaping by saying it reduces their stress and increases their wellbeing),

• Minimisation - where the significance of a conflicting cognition is downplayed/trivialised (e.g. a vaper might believe vaping occasionally is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things),

• Comparative - where an individual compares a dissonant behaviour with someone else’s more significant behaviour to lessen the impact of the conflict (e.g. a vaper might rationalise their vaping by saying they vape less than the eshays in Year 10).

Reduction

A method to reduce dissonance by actively changing the individual’s behaviour, beliefs, or adding new cognitions. Leads to actual changes that promote cognitive consonance. Can be:

• Changing behaviour - changing our actions to make them align with our beliefs (e.g. a vaper quits vaping to align their behaviour with the knowledge they have about vaping, that it is harmful to their health),

• Changing cognitions - to modify our beliefs to match behaviours (e.g. a vaper convinces themselves that vaping is not as harmful as the health experts report it is/ might downplay the health risks of vaping by believing they are exaggerated by the media),

• Adding cognitions - to introduce new thoughts that reduce the dissonance (e.g. a vaper believes that as they go to the gym, they are overall a healthy person).

Attribution theory

The theory that individuals attribute causes of behaviour and events in an attempt to make sense of them. It is used to explain the successes and failures of the self and others. There are two types:

• Dispositional (internal)

• Situational (external)

Dispositional attributions

Assign the cause of behaviour to the internal characteristics of the individual (e.g. personality traits, mood, motives, attitudes, abilities, effort, or a particular cognitive state).

Situational attributions

Assign the cause of behaviour to external factors outside the individual’s control (e.g. environmental conditions, social influences, or other external pressures).

Fundamental attribution error

The tendency to overemphasise dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors when explaining the behaviour of others (e.g. they are late because they are lazy and disorganised, rather than because the traffic was busy).

Factors of attribution theory

Helps people decide whether to make a dispositional or situational attribution. The three factors are:

• Consensus - do other people behave similarly in this same situation?

  • high consensus suggests a situational attribution

  • Low consensus suggests a dispositional attribution

• Distinctiveness - is the person’s behaviour unique in this situation compared to other situations?

  • high distinctiveness suggests a situational attribution

  • Low distinctiveness suggests a dispositional attribution

• Consistency - does the person usually behave in this way?

  • low consistency may suggest a situational attribution

  • high consistency suggests a dispositional attribution

Self-serving bias

The tendency for individuals to attribute their personal successes to internal factors, like intelligence or effort while attributing personal failures to external factors, such as unfair conditions (e.g. a student may believe they got a high score on the psychology assessment because they studied hard but failed their math test because the teacher didn’t teach them the material in the test).

Group-serving bias

The tendency for a group to attribute their personal successes to internal factors, like intelligence or effort while attributing personal failures to external factors, such as unfair conditions (e.g. the group attributes its success to internal factors, and failures to external factors).

Social identity theory

A framework for understanding how individuals perceive and define themselves and others within social groups. The theory influences the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour we have towards members of our own group (the in-group) as well as members of other groups (out-groups).

Social identity theory components

1. Social categorisation

2. Social identification

3. Social comparison

Social categorisation

The process of classifying the self and others into groups based on shared characteristics.

• People are often grouped based on visible differences such as nationality, gender, age-group, ethnicity, profession, or other social attributes.

• It simplifies the social world by organising people into categories and allows individuals to make sense of the social environment, grouping people into in-groups and out-groups.

• This can lead to stereotypes and prejudice.

Social identification

The process through which individuals adopt the identity of the group they have categorised themselves as belonging to.

• It involves individuals aligning their attitudes and internalising the values, norms and characteristic behaviours of the in-group.

• It enhances self-esteem and provides a sense of belonging and identity.

Social comparison

The process of comparing our in-group out-groups to maintain or achieve a positive social identity.

• This comparison often leads to in-group favouritism and out-group prejudice.

• It helps maintain the sense of self-esteem of the group and its members.

• It emphasises the positive aspects of the in-group, and devalues the out-group (reinforcing our social identity).

• Can lead to inter-group conflict.

Stereotypes

A set of cognitive generalisations (beliefs and expectations) about members of a group. They are often:

• Oversimplified

• Negative (but can be positive)

• Resistant to change (even when we encounter individuals with qualities that are counter to the stereotype)

They are part of the cognitive schemata that help us to make up large sums of information quickly, and they help us to avoid danger, asses social situations, perform mental tasks, etc.

Stereotypes as a form of social categorisation

To socially categorise, we classify others into groups based on visible shared characteristics.

Stereotypes, as in the case with schemas, help us simplify and make sense of the social world, allowing us to make quick judgments and decisions.

Stereotype formation

• To lower cognitive load, the brain simplifies the complex social world, categorising people into groups and associating specific traits with these groups.

• They are often learned and reinforced through socialisation form family members, peers, and the media.

• Can also be formed from personal experiences with individuals from certain groups, leading to a generalisation of the entire group.

Stereotype functions

• Help us make quick judgements, particularly in situations requiring rapid decision,

• Offer us a way to predict the behaviour of others based on group membership, which can be useful in unfamiliar social interactions,

• Negative stereotypes about other groups can enhance self-esteem and contribute to a positive social identity,

• Can justify social inequalities and discrimination which maintain existing social power dynamics,

• Can reduce anxiety by providing a framework for understanding and anticipating social interactions in uncertain social situations.

Stereotype consequences

• Can lead to prejudiced attitudes and discrimination - affects access to resources, opportunities, and fair treatment,

• Stereotyped individuals might conform to the expectations of those stereotypes - this leads to the stereotype being strengthened,

• Overlooks individual differences - individuality and personal uniqueness is ignored,

• Increase tensions between groups - this leads to misunderstanding, mistrust, and hostility.

Prejudice

An unjustifiable, negative attitude toward another person or group formed in advance of any experience with that person or group (e.g. racism, sexism, and ageism).

Prejudice components

• Affective: nervousness, anger, dislike, contempt, pity, hatred, fear, hostility.

• Cognitive: assumptions and beliefs about groups, including stereotypes, categorisation of an individual (having oversimplified, generalised beliefs categorises and overlooks important key characteristics of that person).

• Behavioural: discriminatory behaviour.

Discrimination

The unjust and differential treatment of members of an outgroup.

• At a personal level, it is the behavioural manifestation of prejudice involving exclusion, harassment, denial of opportunities, violence, and mistreatment that is negative, hostile, injurious, unfair, and unequal.

• (Any form of this is unlawful under federal laws if the discrimination is based on protected characteristics such as a person’s race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities, breastfeeding, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status).

Link between stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination

• Cognitive: Stereotyping,

• Affective: Prejudice and in-group favouritism,

• Behavioural: Discrimination.

Direct discrimination

A form of discrimination that is intentional, explicit, and overt.

• It involves conscious, deliberate actions,

• Mistreatment is clearly based on a characteristic of an outgroup membership,

• It is visible.

(e.g. An older applicant is not considered for a job because it is assumed they are not familiar with new technology, or, a customer is denied entry to a restaurant because they require more assistance than what management can provide).

Indirect discrimination

An unintentional and seemingly neutral standard, rule, policy, practice, or criterion that disproportionately disadvantages certain groups.

• It inadvertently disadvantages certain groups,

• It is subtly embedded in polices/practices,

• It affects specific groups negatively.

(e.g. a company policy requiring all employees to work late shifts impacts employees with childcare responsibilities (often women), or, a landlord requiring tenants to have a full-time job excludes individuals with disabilities who may not be able to work full-time).

Causes of prejudice

• Social influence (movies, social media, parents, peers. Observing prejudice/discrimination too often leads to normalization of the behaviour. One assumes that it is ‘socially acceptable’ behaviour).

• Intergroup competition/conflict (ingroup vs outgroup or US vs THEM mentality).

• Social categorisation/stereotypes (lead to implicit biases that unconsciously influence our decisions).

• Just world phenomenon (tendency to assume that people get what they deserve).

Social influence

Where prejudice is caused and shaped by the attitudes of others, where prejudice is adopted by individuals and perpetuated in society.

• We often adopt prejudiced attitudes to fit-in with a group (conformity).

• We often learn prejudiced attitudes from family, friends, and the media (socialisation).

• We often assume prejudiced attitudes are considered ‘normal’ by society (normative influence).

Intergroup competition

Where prejudice, tension, and conflict can occur when groups compete for limited resources.

• Groups compete for scarce, valuable resources such as jobs, housing or social status; creating hostility between groups (Realistic Conflict Theory).

• Frustration caused by competition leads to individuals and groups blaming outgroups for their problems (scapegoating).

• US vs THEM mentality.

Social categorisation

Where prejudice is caused by classifying people into groups based on shared characteristics, making it easier to apply blanket judgements.

Prejudice can lead to:

• The preferential treatment/favouring of ingroup members (ingroup bias)

• Viewing members of an outgroup as ‘similar to each other’ (out-group homogeneity) without considering individual differences or beneficial characteristics,

• Creating generalised beliefs about a group (stereotyping),

• De-individuation - adopting group norms (even though they are wrong) and denying individual values.

Just world phenomenon

The belief that the world is fair and people get what they deserve. Supports existing social hierarchies and reduces empathy for disadvantages groups.

• Individuals justify their prejudice by believing that those who are suffering/disadvantaged must have done something to deserve their situation - victim blaming (e.g. poor people deserve to be poor).

• Individuals justify their prejudice by believing people in unfavourable circumstances are inherently unworthy or incapable, and the success of others is due to talent/hard work (rationalising inequalities).

Methods of reducing prejudice

• Contact hypothesis

  • Intergroup contact

  • Superordinate goals

  • Mutual interdependence

  • Equal-status contact

• Cognitive interventions

Contact hypothesis

Direct contact between members of different groups - reduces prejudice as stereotypes and negative attitudes are challenged and changed.

Intergroup contact

Involves creating situations where individuals from different groups can interact. In order to be effective in reducing prejudice it should include:

• Superordinate goals

• Mutual interdependence

• Equal-status contact.

Superordinate goals

Necessary for intergroup contact to work. Goals that are highly valued and require the cooperative effort of individuals from different groups to achieve.

When groups work together towards a common objective, it can reduce tensions and promote a sense of unity.

Mutual interdependence

Necessary for intergroup contact to work. Creating situations where groups must depend on each other to achieve important outcomes.

Individuals from different groups see each other as partners rather than adversaries. It highlights shared goals and the need for cooperation which reduces negative stereotypes and builds positive relationships.

Equal-status contact

Necessary for intergroup contact to work. Interactions between groups should occur in situations where all parties have equal status.

Power imbalances that contribute to prejudicial attitudes are reduced.

Social influence theory

The theory that individuals change their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours in response to the presence of others.

This attitude/behaviour change is conformity/obedience.

Kelman suggested that people change their attitude and beliefs, leading change in behaviour because of social influence.

Social influence

The process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviour are modified by the presence or action of others (a group).

Group

Two or more humans who interact with one another, accept expectations and obligations as members of the group and share a common identity (classes, peers, sports, etc).

We can feel pressure to change our behaviour in order to fit in with social/group norms. Social norms lead to perceived informal rules that define acceptable and appropriate actions within a given group or community.

Influence of groups on behaviour

The presence of others can encourage people to behave in the same manner and show similar interests and beliefs - conformity.

Humans are high social beings, and we like to feel a sense of belonging and share personal experiences with friends and family. Even the presence of only one or two people can significantly influence a person’s behaviour (Milgram expected this because of earlier research by Ash in 1951).

Social influence processes

Kelman proposed three of these, which can be viewed as different levels:

• Compliance

• Identification

• Internalisation

Compliance

Submission to the demands, wishes, or suggestions of others.

When an individual allows themself to be influences in order to achieve a favourable reaction from another person or group (e.g. wearing our school uniform to avoid detention/email home, even though you might personally dislike it).

• Motivation - the individual conforms to gain rewards or to avoid punishment.

• Change is superficial - although the individual changes their behaviour to align with the influencing group or person, they do not necessarily change their beliefs.

• Depth of change - changes to behaviours are temporary, lasting only as long as the external pressure or the anticipated reward/punishment is present.

Identification

The process of associating the self closely with other individuals and their views.

When an individual adopts behaviours or attitudes in order to establish or maintain a close connection with another person or group (e.g. a teacher might adopt the dress and behaviour of a respected deputy because they aspire to be like them).

The influence is accepted because it is related to a desired identity or role.

• Motivation - the individual admires the other person/group and wants to be like them.

• Depth of change - the change is deeper than compliance but still temporary, lasting only as long as the influencing relationship is important.

Internalisation

The nonconscious mental process by which the attitudes of other individuals or groups are assimilated into the self and adopted as one’s own.

When an individual accepts influence because the behaviour or belief is aligned with their value system (e.g. a person who becomes a vegetarian after learning about animal rights and genuinely believing in the cause, even when not pressured by others).

Change is internal and consistent with the person’s own values and beliefs.

• The individual genuinely adopts the new behaviour or belief as their own.

• Depth of change - the change is typically permanent because it is integrated into the individual’s value system.

• Motivation - the primary motivation is the intrinsic satisfaction gained from the belief or behaviour aligning with the individuals own values.

Social norms

Perceived informal rules that define acceptable and appropriate actions within a given group or community.

Obedience

Behaviour in compliance with a direct command, often one issued by a person in a position of authority.

It involves power or status, where the individual who is obeying perceived the authority figure as having the right to direct behaviour.

Obedience vs compliance and conformity

Obedience is a form of social influence that involves performing action under the orders of an authority figure.

• It differs from conformity, which is changing your behaviour to go along with the group (no authority figure and no direct request).

• It differs from compliance, which involves changing your behaviour at the request of another person who is not authority (direct request, no authority).

Factors affecting obedience

• Victim remoteness

• Proximity and legitimacy of authority

• Diffusion of responsibility

• Personal characteristics

Legitimacy of the authority figure

People are more likely to obey someone they see as having genuine authority or expertise (e.g. in Milgram’s study, participants obeyed more when instructions came from a researcher in a lab coat at Yale University).

Victim remoteness

Obedience increases when the victim is physically or emotionally distant from the person carrying out the orders (e.g. in Milgram’s study, obedience was highest when participants couldn’t see or hear the learner being shocked).

Proximity to the authority figure

As seen in one of Milgram’s variations, how close the subject was to the authority figure affected their obedience. If the authority figure was close, the subject was more likely to obey the demands.

Diffusion of responsibility

Feeling less personally accountable when responsibility is shared or shifted to someone else, for example and authority figure (e.g. in Milgram’s study, participants obeyed more when told the experimenter was responsible for any harm).

Personal characteristics

Individual traits such as authoritarian personality, empathy, self-confidence, moral beliefs, and locus of control affects obedience (e.g. people with strong moral convictions may refuse unethical orders, as seen in some Milgram participants who stopped early.

Conformity

A type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a group.

• The change is in response to a real (physical presence of others) or implied (involving the pressure of social norms/expectations) group pressure.

• It can be simply defines as “yielding to group pressures” (Crutchfield, 1955). Group pressures may take on different forms, for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism, etc.

• Also known as majority influence (group pressure).

Factors affecting conformity

• Normative influence

• Informational influence

• Culture

• Group size

• Unanimity

• Deindividuation

• Social loafing

Normative influence

When individuals conform to be liked or accepted by the group - it is socially rewarding or avoids punishment - they may publicly conform while privately disagreeing — it is driven by the desire to fit in and avoid rejection.

Normally associated with compliance and identification - any change in behaviour is usually temporary.

Informational influence

When individuals conform because they believe the group has more accurate information - individuals seek knowledge held by those in the group when deciding how best to behave.

Collectivist cultures

Cultures that emphasis group harmony and interdependence exhibit higher levels of conformity as individuals in these cultures prioritise group goals over individual desires (e.g. China, India, Japan).

Individualist cultures

Cultures that value independence and self-reliance show lower levels of conformity as people in these cultures are more likely to prioritise personal goals and stand out as individuals (e.g. Australia, UK, USA, New Zealand).

Group size

Conformity increases with this, but only up to a point.

Groups of 4-5 people are effective in exerting influencing, but additional members have little extra effect.

Unanimity

When the group in unanimous, the pressure to conform is significant.

The presence of just one ally can significantly reduce conformity - if it is broken, even by a single person, the individual feels more confident in expressing their own opinions and not conforming.

Deindividuation

people may conform to group norms more readily because they feel less accountable for their actions.

When individuals lose their sense of self-awareness and personal responsibility in group settings, this occurs, leading to increased conformity and sometimes deviant behaviour (e.g. the Coldplay incident).

Social loafing

When individuals feel their individual contributions are not identifiable in a group setting, they may conform to the group’s lower level of effort.

Social loafing can create a group norm of reduced effort, which others may conform to, perpetuating the behaviour.

Antisocial behaviour

Behaviour that harms society and its members by intentionally violating the rights of others (e.g. ALF footballers using homophobic slurs, misogynistic comments, name calling, bullying, harassment, neighbours having a loud party after 11pm on a Friday night, vandalism at the train station, vaping indoors, throwing rubbish on the ground, etc).

Antisocial behaviour characteristics

• Voluntary - a person chooses to engage in antisocial behaviour.

• Intentional - people who engage in antisocial behaviour have the goal of injuring, in some way, someone else.

• Harmful - the other person is harmed, either physically or psychologically.

Social influence and antisocial behaviour

Most anti-social behaviour can be seen as the result of learning, in the the following ways:

• Direct reinforcement

  • When anti-social acts are rewarded or reinforced

  • When pro-social acts are punished.

• Observational learning - observe aggression in significant others (parents, peers, role models) and the vicarious consequences of aggressive behaviour.

• Direct instruction - being taught aggression directly by people we value, such as our parents, teachers, peers, and through social norms practiced in the community or society.

Factors that influence antisocial behaviour

• Diffusion of responsibility

• Audience inhibition

• Social influence

• Groupthink

Diffusion of responsibility influence on antisocial behaviour

The assumed reduction in personal responsibility a person feels when they are in the presence of others who could also be responsible for taking action.

• The effect of group membership can have more dramatic consequences.

• The presence of others make each person feel less responsible for the action they are about to take.

• If a person is alone, they will accept responsibility, but if several people are present, each assumes that others will do something, and then not take responsibility.

(e.g. if there is are crash and there are 20 people standing around and nobody in the group responds to the emergency, then each member has experienced diffusion of responsibility).

Audience inhibition influence on antisocial behaviour

Where the presence of others can make a potential helper feel self-conscious and thus inhibit helping behaviour.

• Bystanders may avoid helping due to fear of judgement or social embarrassment,

• It is strong when the situation is ambiguous or when others appear unconcerned.

This is also known as ‘fear of social blunders’ - where people are afraid that others will judge them by their actions of they make an incorrect move.

Social influence influence on antisocial behaviour

Social influence happens when we change behaviour in response to other people.

The influence tends to be stronger if we identify with that group - this is because peers are important to us and can greatly influence us. Research studies show the influence of the peer group starts to increase around middle childhood until middle adolescence. Social influence from peers is often given the negative label of peer pressure.

Cost-benefit analysis influence on social behaviour

Suggests that bystanders weigh up the pros and cons of helping before deciding whether to provide help in emergency situations.

Includes both cognitive and physiological processes.

Suggests that when bystanders are confronted with emergencies, they weigh up the cost and benefits of providing help compared to those for not helping. There are three steps:

1. Physiological arousal - greater arousal, more likely to help,

2. Labelling the arousal with specific emotion,

3. Evaluating the consequences of helping - do the costs outweigh the benefits? Costs involve time/effort. The greater the costs, the less likely it is that a bystander will help.

Groupthink influence on antisocial behaviour

Individuals in a group tend to be influenced by the actions, thoughts and behaviours of others around them. Refers to the tendency of group members to make decisions based on maintaining group harmony and cohesion rather than critically analysing and realistically appraising the situation.

Individuals tend to put aside their personal beliefs and adopt the beliefs of the group. This leads to poor moral decisions, failure to report unethical behaviour or participation in group bullying.

Causes of groupthink

• Lack of diversity in groups - groups that have members who are very similar to one another can be a cause of groupthink. With a lack of diverse perspectives, the group fails to consider outside perspectives. Furthermore, these group members may engage in more negative attitudes towards outgroup members, which can exacerbate groupthink.

• Lack of impartial leadership - groups with particularly powerful leaders who fail to seriously consider perspectives other than their own are prone to groupthink as well. These leaders can overpower group members’ opinions that oppose their own ideas.

• Stress - placing a decision-making group under stress in scenarios such as one where there are moral dilemmas can increase the chances of groupthink occurring. These groups may try to reach a consensus irrationally.

• Time constraints - related to stress, placing time constraints on a decision being made can increase the amount of anxiety, also leading to groupthink.

• Highly cohesive groups - groups that are particularly close-knit typically display more groupthink symptoms than groups that are not.

• Lack of outside perspectives - only considering the perspectives of in-group members can lead to groupthink as well.

• Motivation to maintain group members’ self-esteem - if group members are motivated to maintain each other’s self-esteem, they may not raise their voices against the group consensus.

Consequences of groupthink

• Poor decisions - potentially, the largest overall impact groupthink can have on decision-making groups is that they are more prone to making poor decisions. The effects of groupthink can be especially harmful in the military, medical, and political courses of action.

• Self-censorship - individuals within the group affected by groupthink may not be as effective as possible when helping make decisions because they may hold back their potentially helpful opinions if they run contrary to the group’s popular opinion.

• Inefficient problem solving - because groups who experience the effects of groupthink fail to consider alternative perspectives, they can sometimes fail to consider ways to solve problems that deviate from their original plan of action. This can lead to inefficiencies in the group’s problem-solving capabilities.

• Harmful stereotypes can develop - groups may begin to believe that their group is inherently morally right. They, therefore, consider themselves the “in-group” and label others as outsiders or the “out-group,” which can become harmful to those on the outside as irrational thoughts about them begin to develop.

• Lack of creativity - because members of these groups may self-censor themselves or have pressure put on them by the group to conform, a lack of creativity may result due to the group not encouraging different ideas than the norm.

• Blindness to negative outcomes - since groups affected by groupthink can sometimes believe they are inherently correct, they may be unable to see the potentially negative outcomes of their decisions. They, therefore, will not be able to plan accordingly if a negative outcome occurs.

• Lack of preparation to manage negative outcomes - because these groups can be overconfident in their decisions, they are more likely to be ill-prepared if their plan does not succeed.

• Inability to see other solutions - groupthink can lead to the group failing to consider other opinions or ideas. This leads to the group viewing only the group consensus as the correct solution.

• Obedience to authority without question - members of the group are more likely to follow their leaders blindly, never raising their opinion against whether the actions the group agrees on are moral or the correct course of action.

The bystander effect

A theory that states an individual’s likelihood of helping decreases when passive bystanders are present in an emergency situation.

Bystander - person present at an event but not taking part.

It is suggested that whether or not you intervene might depend on the number of witnesses present.

Bystander effect causes

• Diffusion of responsibility – each person assumes someone else will act

• Ignorance – people interpret others’ inaction as evidence that no help is needed.

• Audience inhibition – fear of negative evaluation by others if one acts inappropriately.

• Social influence - people feel the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When others fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed.

Bullying

When people repeatedly and intentionally use words or actions against someone or a group of people to cause distress and risk to their safety and wellbeing. These actions are usually done by people who have more influence or power over someone else, or who want to make someone else feel less powerful or helpless.

A type of anti-social behaviour. It is the purposeful use of a difference in power to repeatedly cause physical, psychological, or social harm.

Involves an imbalance of power.

Forms include:

• Physical

• Verbal

• Relational/social

• Cyber

Harassment vs bullying

Harassment is like bullying as it involves behaviour that intimidates, offends, or humiliates a person.

The main difference between bullying and harassment is that incidents of unreasonable behaviour must be repeated to be classified as bullying, whilst harassment can be inferred from a single incident.

Hence, some incidents of bullying can be considered harassment, and when harassment is repeated, this can be considered bullying.

Types of bullying behaviours

• Face-to-face bullying (sometimes referred to as direct bullying) - involves physical and verbal aggression (e.g. punching or kicking, name-calling and insulting))

• Covert bullying (sometimes referred to as indirect bullying) - is less direct, but just as painful and sometimes even more so because the harm is psychological. It means bullying isn’t easily seen by others and is conducted out of sight (e.g. excluding people from groups, spreading lies or rumours, playing practical jokes that can cause shame or distress, giving unreasonable expectations). Because Covert Bullying is less obvious, it is often unacknowledged by adults.

Cyberbullying

Occurs using communication technologies and social media such as text messages, email and social networking sites or forums.

It has many similarities with offline bullying as it involves direct bullying such as verbal aggression (insulting, name-calling) and indirect bullying tactics (spreading rumours, lies and exclusion).  Most people who cyberbully also bully offline.

Difference with conventional (offline) bullying:

• It can be anonymous

• It can reach a wide audience,

• Sent or uploaded material can be difficult to remove.

Factors that turn children into bullies

• Power - teens who want to be in control or have power are prone to bulling because their own life is out of control.

• Popularity - kids who are popular often make fun of kids who are less popular by perpetuating relational aggression. Need for popularity can lead kids to spread rumours and gossip, engage in slut-shaming, and ostracize others. Bullying can also be from kids trying to climb the social ladder, who may resort to bullying to get attention, or to diminish the social status of another person.

• Problems at home - teens who come from abusive homes are more likely to bully because aggression and violence are modelled for them. Kids with permissive or absent parents also may resort to bullying. It gives them a sense of power and control, which is lacking in their own life. Sibling bullying also can lead to bullying at school. When an older brother or sister taunts and torments a younger sibling, this creates a sense of powerlessness.

• Escape from boredom/lack of purpose - kids who are bored and looking for entertainment will sometimes resort to bullying to add some excitement and drama to their lives. They also might choose to bully because they lack attention and supervision from their parents. As a result, bullying becomes an outlet for getting attention.

• Lack of empathy - kids who lack empathy often enjoy hurting other people's feelings. Not only do they appreciate the sense of power they get from bullying others, but they may find hurtful "jokes" funny.

• Prejudices - teens bully peers who are different in some way. For instance, kids may be targeted because they have special needs or food allergies. Other times, kids are singled out for their race, religion, gender identity, disability and sexual orientation. Some sort of prejudice is often at the root of bullying.

• Peer pressure - some kids bully others to fit in with a clique, even if it means going against their better judgment. Often, these kids are more concerned with fitting in and being accepted than they are worried about the consequences of bullying. So, they go along with the group to be accepted.  They are afraid that if they are not being accepted by the group, they become the next target.

Victim blaming

• They deserve it

• They should change

• They caused it

• They should have known better

• They didn’t fight back

• They are too sensitive

Social influence factors in bullying

• Bystanders may fail to intervene due to diffusion of responsibility and audience inhibition.

• Social learning theory - individuals may initiate antisocial behaviours if they are rewarded or go unpunished.

• Bullying may be sustained through groupthink, where bystanders conform to peer pressure and avoid challenging dominant group behaviour.

Strategies to reduce bullying

• Teach assertiveness and empathy,

• Promote inclusive group norms,

• Empower students with active bystander training - understanding they can make a difference.