![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Lack of definitional consensus remains an important unresolved issue within bullying research. This study examined the ability of definitional variables to predict overall level of victimisation (distress, power inequity, and provocation as predictors) and bullying (intention to harm, power inequity, and provocation as predictors) in 246 Australian university students. All variables were measured using the Victimisation and Bullying Inventory (VBI), with behaviour assessed separately for tertiary institution, workplace and home contexts. Regression analysis revealed that, as expected, higher levels of distress predicted higher levels of victimisation (in all contexts) and higher levels of intention to harm predicted higher levels of engagement in bullying (in work and home contexts). Challenging definitional theory, bullying was reported as most commonly occurring between two equals, from both the victim and bully perspective, and individuals who bullied others blamed the victim for provoking the behaviour twice as often as victims felt that they had provoked it.
Notes
1. For the purpose of all scores calculated, an item was considered to be endorsed if it was rated as having occurred at or above a frequency of ‘almost never’ (1). This level was chosen as the intention was to examine definitional relationships across the continuum of victimisation and bullying (i.e. from infrequent to frequent behaviour), not only at high frequency levels.