Zorbalığa Dair Bilişsel Yargıların, Tepkisel ve Amaca Yönelik Saldırganlığın Aile İçi Şiddet Olgusu Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, cinsiyet, aile içi şiddete tanık olma, şiddete maruz kalma, maruz kalınan ve tanık olunan şiddet türü açısından zorbalığa dair bilişsel yargıların farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığının belirlenmesi; zorbalığa dair bilişlerin tepkisel ve amaçlı saldırganlıkla ilişkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma, İstanbul ilinde öğrenim gören 11-15 yaş grubu öğrencilerin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak Zorbalığa Dair Bilişler Ölçeği; Tepkisel ve Amaçlı Saldırganlık Ölçeği ve Kişisel Bilgi Formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, değişkenler arasındaki ilişkileri incelemek için pearson korelasyon analizi; yordama durumunun incelenmesinde lineer regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Fark testlerine yönelik analizlerde ise ilişkisiz grup t testi, Kruskal Wallis ve Mann Witney U testleri uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu %50.7’si (152) kadın, %49.3’ü (148) erkek olmak üzere 300 kişiden oluşmaktadır. Grubun yaş ortalaması 12.49 olup, çalışma grubundaki en büyük katılımcının 15 en küçük katılımcının ise 11 yaşında olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışma grubunun %30’u (90) şiddete maruz kaldığını, %62.7’si (188) şiddete maruz kalmadığını belirtmiştir. Analizlerde, zorbalığa dair bilişsel yargıların, tepkisel ve amaca yönelik saldırganlık sonucunun tahmin edilmesinde anlamlı seviyede (b = -.34, t(298) = 6.30, p < .001) etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Zorbalığa dair bilişlerin aynı zamanda önemli oranda tepkisel ve amaca yönelik saldırganlık testinin sonuçlarının varyansını (R² = .12, F(1, 793) = 39.58, p < .001) açıkladığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda aile içi şiddete tanık olma ve maruz kalmanın zorbalığa dair bilişlerde farklılık yaratmış olduğu ve zorbalık davranışını göstermede ve normalleştirmede istatisksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Buna karşılık, şiddetin türünün ve şiddetin kim tarafından uygulandığının zorbalığa dair bilişlerde istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı etkiye sahip olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Elde edilen bilgiler ışığında aile içi şiddetin neden olduğu zorbalıkla ilgili bilişsel yargılamalardaki bu değişikliğin, kişi zorbalık davranışları göstermese bile zorbalık döngüsünün sürekliliğini destekleyen tutumlara yol açtığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• zorbalık,bilişsel yargılar,tepkisel saldırganlık,amaca yönelik saldırganlık,aile içi şiddet

Investigation of Cognitive Judgments about Bullying, Reactive and Goal-Directed Aggression in terms of Domestic Violence

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine whether cognitive judgments about bullying differ in terms of gender, witnessing domestic violence, exposure to violence, and the type of violence experienced and witnessed, and to investigate the relationship between bullying and reactive and goal-directed aggression. This study was conducted with the participation of 11-15-year-old students in Istanbul. As a data collection tool, Cognition Questionnaire about Bullying, Reactive and Goal-directed Aggression Scale and Personal Information Form were used. Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the relationships between variables; linear regression analysis was used to investigate the predictive status. In the analysis for difference tests, unrelated group t test, Kruskal Wallis and Mann Witney U tests were applied. The study group consisted of 300 people, 50.7% (152) of which are women and 49.3% (148) of which are men. The mean age of the group was 12.49 and the oldest participant in the study group was 15 years old and the youngest participant was 11 years old. 30% (90) of the study group stated that they were exposed to violence and 62.7% (188) stated that they were not exposed to violence. Analysis showed that cognitions related bullying was effective in predicting the result of reactive and proactive aggression (b = -.34, t(298) = 6.30, p < .001). It was concluded that the cognitions related bullying also explains the variance (R 2 = .12, F(1, 793) = 39.58, p < .001) of the results of the significant reactive and proactive aggression test. As a result of this study, it was found that witnessing and being exposed to domestic violence made a difference in cognitions about bullying and had a statistically significant effect on showing and normalizing bullying behavior. On the other hand, it was concluded that the type of violence and by whom the violence is applied does not have a statistically significant effect on bullying cognitions. In the light of the information obtained, it was concluded that this change in cognitive judgments related to bullying caused by domestic violence leads to attitudes that support the continuity of the bullying cycle even if the person does not show bullying behaviors.

Keywords

• cognitive judgements,reactive aggression,proactive aggression,domestic violence,bullying,bullying

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy, E., Çetin, G., İnanıcı, M. A., Polat, O., Sözen, M.Ş. ve Yavuz, F. (2004). Aile içi şiddet. Erişim Adresi: https://www.ttb.org.tr/eweb/adli/6.html Erişim tarihi, 11.02.2019.
2. Alkhalayleh, H. and Newlyn, D. (2015). Domestic violence and school bullying: an examination of the inextricable link between the two and the use of restorative justice to break the cycle. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 8(4), 147-154.
3. Almeida, A., Correia, I. and Marinho, S. (2009). Moral disengagement, normative beliefs of peer group, and attitudes regarding roles in bullying. Journal of School Violence, 9(1), 23-36.
4. Ayran, G. (2013). Ergenlerdeki Akran Zorbalığı ile Ebeveynlerin Çocuk Yetiştirme Tutumu Arasındaki İlişkinin Belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
5. Baldry, A.C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(7), 713-732.
6. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,193-209.
7. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-119.
8. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V. and Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 364.

9. Bauer, N. S., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lozano, P., Rivara, F. P., Hill, K. G. and Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118(2), e235-e242.
10. Bayraktar, F., Kındap, Y., Kumru, A. ve Sayıl, M. (2010). Olumlu Sosyal ve Saldırgan Davranışlar Ölçeği'nin ergen örnekleminde psikometrik açıdan incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 13 (26), 1-13.
11. Boxer, P., Tisak, M. S. and Goldstein, S. E. (2004). Is it bad to be good? An exploration of aggressive and prosocial behavior subtypes in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(2), 91-100.
12. Burton, K.A., Florell, D. and Gore, J.S. (2013). Differences in proactive and reactive aggression in traditional bullies and cyberbullies. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(3), 316-328.
13. Camodeca, M. and Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognition, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (2), 186-197.
14. Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Terwogt, M. M. and Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11 (3), 332-345.
15. Dadouch, N. (2017). Your Child is Watching You: Explaining the Association between Witnessing Domestic Violence and Direct Aggression and Indirect Aggression in Youth by Moral Disengagement. (Master Thesis). Clinical Forensic Psychology. Tilburg University.
16. Deptula, D.P. and Cohen, R. (2004). Aggressive, rejected, and delinquent children and adolescents: A comparison of their friendships. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(1), 75-104.
17. Dodge, K.A. and Coie, J.D. (1987). Social ınformation processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 1146-1158.
18. Dunlap, L.L. (2004). What all children need: theory and application. (Second Edition). Maryland: University Press of America.
19. Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: what’s wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 528–539.
20. Gökkaya, F., ve Sütcü, S. T. (2015). Çocuklar için Zorbalıkla İlgili Bilişler Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry/Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 16(Ek sayı.1):54-63).
21. Hoetger, L.A., Hazen, K.P. and Brank, E.M. (2015). All in the family: A retrospective study comparing sibling bullying and peer bullying. Journal of Family Violence, 30 (1), 103-111.
22. Houndoumadi, A. ve Pateraki, L. (2001). Bullying and bullies in Greek elementary schools: Pupils' attitudes and teachers'/parents' awareness. Educational Review, 53(1), 19-26.
23. Hymel, S., Henderson, R. and Bonanno, N.R. (2005): Moral Disengagement: A Framework for Understanding Bullying among-Adolescents. Peer Victimization in Schools: An International Perspective, Special Issue of the Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 1-11.
24. Kenney, K.L. (2012). Domestic violence, Minnesota: Abdo Publishing.
25. Lepistö, S., Luukkaala, T. and Paavilainen, E. (2011). Witnessing and experiencing domestic violence: a descriptive study of adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(1), 70-80.
26. Lucas, S., Jembro, C., Tindberg, Y. and Janson, S. (2015). Bully, bullied and abused. Associations between violence at home and bullying in childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44 (1), 27-35.
27. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2018). Milli Eğitim İstatşistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2017-2018. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
28. Murphy, A.G. (2009). Character education: dealing with bullying. New York: Chelsea House Publisher.
29. Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495-510.
30. Önder, F.C. ve Yurtal, F. (2008). Zorba, kurban ve olumlu özellikler taşıyan ergenlerin aile özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 8(3), 805-832.
31. Padgett, S. and Notar, C. E. (2013). Bystanders are the key to stopping bullying. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 33-41.
32. Perren, S. and Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 195-209.
33. Pişkin, M. (2002). Okul zorbalığı: Tanımı, türleri, ilişkili olduğu faktörler ve alınabilecek önlemler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 2 (2), 531-562.
34. Price, J. M. and Dodge, K. A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17(4), 455-471.
35. Salmivalli, C. and Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30-44.
36. Tarçarıl Erol, B. (2015). Investigating Early Maladaptive Schemas Among Secondary School Children in Regard to Peer Bullying and Victimization. Master Thesis. Bahcesehir University Clinical Psychology.
37. Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S. and McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2), 157-176.
38. Williamson, R.E., Reed, D.E., Wickham, R.E. and Field, N.P. (2018). The mediational role of posttraumatic stress in the relationship between domestic violence exposure and peer victimisation: A Cambodian sample. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 23 (1):28-38.
39. Yadava, A. Sharma, N.R. and Sharma, S. (2008). Understanding bullying: A moral disengagement framework. Counselling: Theory, Research and Practice, 147-160.