Socio-ecological factors of campus bullying in middle schools student in Nantong
10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2020.02.024
- VernacularTitle:南通市中学生校园欺凌现况及社会生态学影响分析
- Author:
SUN Feng , QIANG Xia
1
Author Information
1. College of Physical Health and Science, Nantong University, Nantong(226019), Jiangsu Province, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Torture;
Behavior;
Ecology;
Mental health;
Students
- From:
Chinese Journal of School Health
2020;41(2):250-253
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore school bullying in middle school and the associated socio-ecological factors.
Methods:Totally 1 169 middle school students were selected from urban areas of Nantong and were selected to complete the Campus Bullying Questionnaire and a self-designed questionnaire.
Results:The bullying scores of junior school students were higher than senior school students( t=3.61, 2.53, P <0.05). The bullying scores of ordinary middle school students were higher than the key middle school students( t=12.52, 8.34, P <0.01). The bullying scores of students with poor peer relationship were higher than the students with good peer relationship( F=8.98, 25.89, P <0.01). The bullying scores of students with poor school discipline were higher than the students with good school discipline （F=8.50, 10.00, P <0.01). Students from schools with poor school bullying prevention and control policies reported higher rates of campus bullying than students from schools with general and perfect school policies( F= 8.30 , 2.67, P <0.05). The bullying scores of intervention type and neglect type students were higher than the negotiation type students( F=3.66, P <0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that high school section, key middle school, good peer relationship, deliberative education mode, good school style and discipline, and improvement of campus bullying prevention and control policies were the protective factors that affect middle school students’ Campus bullying( OR=1.68-4.28, P <0.05), gender and only child were risk factors for chool bullying( OR=1.54, 1.68, P <0.05). Structural equation model analysis showed that the path of campus bullying was centered on individual factors, through interaction with interpersonal, organizational and policy factors.
Conclusion:Campus bullying prevention and intervention should be considered from individual, interpersonal, organizational and policy levels of students, through the collaborative efforts of school, family and society.
