1. Running head: FEMALE BULLIES AND RISK FACTORS
Research Proposal: Risk Factors Associated with Female Bullies
Stephanie McShan, Ashlee Monk, Kimberly Raby, Pamela Simpson
University of Central Florida

2. Table of Contents
Introduction
Background………………………………………………………………………………..3
Problem…………………………….
Purpose…………………………….
Significance…………………………
Definitions
Research Question
Hypotheses
Literature Review
Methodology
Research Design
Sampling
Instrumentation
Procedure
Data Analysis
Threats and Controls
Limitations

3. Research Proposal: Risk Factors Associated with Female Bullies
Background
Girls are commonly overlooked when the subject of bullying is discussed.
In most discussions the general bias is that boys are more aggressive than girls. The
misconception is that boys tend to victimize and be victims more than girls. The
background of our research proposal is to determine the percentage of girls that have ever
played a role in bullying and to identify the risk factors of being or becoming a bully..
Relational Aggression is the more common term used to define bullying. It is
described as “behavior intended to harm someone by damaging or manipulating his or
her relationships with others”(Ophelia Project, www.opheliaproject.org ) . Examples of
relational aggression are teasing, harassing, internet bullying (cyber-bullying), starting or
spreading rumors, and fighting.
The goal of our research proposal is to determine what percentage of girls fall
victim to bullying as opposed to those that are the victimizer themselves. The focus of
our group was girls in of the elementary ages 7-12 within the Seminole County School
District. The research proposal goal is to determine how often girls in this age category
have fallen victims to bullying or have actually played the role of a bully themselves. As
well as to determine any risk factors that may place a child at risk for being or becoming
a bully.
The demographics that the research proposal has determined vital to find out this
information include, age, grade, race/ethnicity, SES level, GPA and/or FCAT score to
assess for academic achievement, family situation (single parent, both parents’,

4. grandparents, foster parents, guardians), number of siblings and birth order of child,
occupation of parents, and whether there is a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD.
In order to obtain the information needed in the research proposal, there will be
two instruments utilized. Those two instruments are a self-esteem questionnaire and a
parenting-style questionnaire. Each will give vital information as to how bullying can
become an intricate part of a young girls make up in relation to their self-esteem and
parenting styles of their parents.
Problem
As stated before the purpose for the research proposal is to determine the risk
factors associated with being or becoming a bully. The problem that may occur with this
research proposal is that their may not be ample participation on the part of parents
and/or students in order to have valid data results. If for example 25 of 100 parenting
style surveys are completed and return, this does not give a broad enough representation
to make a valid generalization.
Another problem that might occur with this research is that it may be biased to
sway more people to admit to bullying or vice versa. The questionnaires that are being
completed need to have questions that have a broad scope of questions that will allow for
and equal representation of both sides. Also so that it doesn’t represent that all parents
that believe in spanking or some type of punishment automatically makes their child a
bully or a target for a bully.
Overall when creating the research proposal, the problems that may provide a
distortion of the results are: to use an unbiased instrument that allows for an assorted

5. answer pool and make sure that the instrument used (i.e. survey) is completed and
returned so that there will be enough data to make a generalization about the results.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify the risk factors of bullying and to
understand the dynamics of bullying behavior among school-aged children in order for
communities to build safe and effective schools for our children. By studying these risk
factors, educators can more easily design programs that will enable all parties involved
(educators, parents, and students) to work together to ensure that schools are a safe place
for students.
Significance
There has been considerable interest in understanding divergent developmental
pathways leading to antisocial outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood, in both the
theoretical (e.g., Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989) and empirical
(e.g., Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Schaeffer, Petras, Ialongo, Poduska, & Kellam, 2003)
literatures. From this work, it is clear that a pattern of chronic aggressive behavior in
childhood is a significant risk factor for antisocial behavior in later life, at least for boys.
However, the empirical literature has focused primarily on the development of boys’
aggression and has given little attention to the role of early aggression and other
disruptive behaviors in the development of girls’ later antisocial behavior (Keenan &
Shaw, 1997; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).
A comprehensive theory of the development of antisocial behavior that is specific to girls
does not yet exist (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).
From the perspective of those who work with young children, however, this research

6. reflects an incomplete view of the understanding of both genders as they relate to
bullying and aggressive behavior.
The inference drawn from the research is that boys, in particular engage in bullying and
aggressive behavior, which leads to antisocial behavior later on in life, but that the
development of girls’ aggression has not been a primary focus. Recent research findings
suggest that early aggressive– disruptive behavior is a significant problem for some girls
and is a worthy target for early identification and intervention efforts. “Because of its
deleterious effects on children's development, childhood aggression has been one of the
most widely studied adjustment problems in the past several decades. Past work on
aggression has been limited in two important ways: (a) aggressive boys have received
most of the research attention, whereas aggressive girls have often been excluded from
relevant studies, and (b) forms of aggression that are salient to boys have been
emphasized, whereas forms that are salient to girls have largely been ignored (Bjorkqvist
& Niemela, 1992; Cowan & Underwood, in press; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Robins,
1986).
Research suggests that bullying is correlated with student absenteeism, poor academic
achievement, social isolation, and internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety, and
poor self-esteem. “The harmful effects of bullying have been documented and include
feelings of loneliness, school maladjustment, drops in grades, chronic illness, and, in the
extreme, suicide (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Olweus, 1993; Ross, 1996;
Turkel & Eth, 1990). Researchers also feel that children can be harmed by occasional
incidents of bullying (Stephenson & Smith, 1989; Tattum, 1989). Another factor involves
a physical or psychological imbalance of power” (Ross, 1996). Additionally, at least one

7. study shows that, for both boys and girls, early and significant aggressive behavior puts
children at a higher risk for antisocial outcomes later in life.
“Over the past decade, growing interest in girls' aggression has generated much research
activity (Pepler, Madsen, Webster, & Levine, 2005; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004),
including a proliferation of studies on relational aggression and its victims. But the topic
is still in its infancy and many questions remain”.
Definitions
For the purposes of this study, bullying is defined as cruel or aggressive behavior
that occurs over time to a weaker individual, and may include relational aggression,
which Olweus (1997) describes ad a more covert and manipulative form of bullying,
which may include spreading rumors, telling lies about another person, socially excluding
an individual, or manipulating friendships. Bullies are those that perpetrate these acts of
cruelty or aggression.
For definitions of different parenting styles, we will be adopting definitions from
Baumrind (1966). Permissive parents are characterized as being non-controlling, nonresponsive to their children, and making few, if any, demands from their children.
Authoritarian parents are characterized as being less warm in their interactions with their
children and more controlling of their children. Authoritative parents are characterized as
controlling but also warm and receptive to their children.
Other terms that need to be defined include self-esteem, which is defined as a
confidence and satisfaction in oneself. An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a plan
for accommodations in the school system for children with disabilities.
Research Question

8. Hypotheses
There is no significant difference in the distribution of age between girls who are
identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
There is no significant difference in the distribution of grade levels between girls
who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
There is no significant difference in the ethnicities of girls who are identified as
bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
There is no significant difference in the socioeconomic status of girls who are
identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
Girls who are identified as bullies are less likely than girls who are not identified
as bullies to be living in a household with both biological parents.
There is no significant difference in the number of siblings in the households of
girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified
as bullies to be a middle child.
There is no significant difference in the occupations of parents of girls who are
identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified
as bullies to be on an Individualized Education Plan.
Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified
as bullies to have parents who are considered authoritarian or permissive.
Girls who are identified as bullies are less likely than girls who are not identified
as bullies to have parents who are considered authoritative.

9. Girls who are identified as bullies have significantly lower self-esteem than girls
who are not identified as bullies.
There is no significant difference in the FCAT scores of girls who are identified
as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies.
Literature Review
Methodology
Research Design
For the purpose of this proposal, the design of this of this study would qualify as
correlational. The study will determine the correlation between the qualities of a
bully versus the parenting styles used on the bullies. It will also determine if the
SES, educational abilities also factor into who becomes a bully. The research
proposal also has a partial survey study designed into it as well. There are surveys
that will be completed by girls within the study and their parents. These surveys will
gather information to further give details about SES, education ability, parenting
styles and other vital information to determine if there is a direct correlation between
these line items and the characteristics of a bully.
Sampling
For this study, the target population includes all girls in grades 4-6 who engage in
bullying. The accessible population, however, includes all girls in grades 4-6 in the
Seminole County school district who engage in bullying. The target sample is 100
randomly selected girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school district who engage
in bullying and a control group of 100 girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school

10. district who have not been identified as bullies. The final sample will consist of the
number of the target sample who successfully complete the study.
In order to obtain the sample, the researchers intend to perform a two stage
random sampling of elementary schools in Seminole county, Florida. Seminole county
was chosen due to the demographic similarities to the overall population in the United
States (see Appendix A). Each elementary school in the district will be ordered
alphabetically and numbered sequentially starting at 1. Fifteen numbers from a table of
random numbers will then be selected and the corresponding schools will be selected to
participate in the study. The second part of this sampling method involves random
sampling of girls within these schools. From those schools, girls in grades 4-6 who have
been identified as engaging in bullying will be organized into an alphabetical list and
numbered sequentially starting at 1. One hundred numbers from a table of random
numbers will then be selected and the corresponding girls will be selected to participate
in the study. The same method will be used to randomly select 100 girls in grades 4-6
who have not been identified as engaging in bullying to serve as the control.
Instrumentation
Demographics questionnaire
This is a questionnaire about demographics that parents would complete,
including: age, grade, race/ethnicity, SES level, GPA and/or FCAT score to assess for
academic achievement, family situation (single parent, both parents’, grandparents, foster
parents, guardians), number of siblings and birth order of child, occupation of parents,
and whether there is a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD.

11. Self-Esteem
We will use the Culture Free Self Esteem Inventory, Third Edition (CFSEI-3), a
set of norm-referenced assessment inventories that measure self-reported self-esteem in
children and adolescents ages 6 years and 0 months to 18 years and 11 months. We will
use the Intermediate Form for children ages 9-12, a 67-item scale that focuses on:
Academic Self-Esteem, General Self-Esteem, Parent/Home Self-Esteem, and Social SelfEsteem. Adequate assessments of both, reliability and validity are reported in the manual.
Two kinds of reliability measures were developed, that of internal consistency,
suggesting that the instrument is consistent across categories and test-retest reliability,
which suggests that there were average correlations between test scores across all age
groups and all categories. Content items and subscales used in the CFSEI-3 were
developed through literature reviews, reviews of related tools, and factor analytic
methods; therefore, it demonstrates adequate assessments of both construct and
concurrent validity. This inventory also demonstrates that it is culturally appropriate.
Parenting Styles
We will use the Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire, a 32-item scale
that measures parenting style by determining parent reactions to child behavior. The
purpose of this measurement is to measure parenting styles along the continuum of
Baumrind’s (1989) typologies of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. This
questionnaire can be completed by both mothers and fathers of school-age children. Each
parent rates themselves and the parenting style of their spouse, if applicable. The scoring
key of the PSDQ will be used to classify parents into one of three parenting styles. The
scoring key will yield an overall mean score in each category of parenting style, and

12. based on this score will determine the parents’ particular style. For the authoritarian
parenting style there are fifteen items that yield a mean of seventy-five. The authoritative
style includes twelve items with means ranging from twelve to sixty. The permissive
style includes five items with a range of means of five to twenty-five. The parenting style
with the highest mean determines a particular parents’ style (Robinson et al., 1995).
Procedure
Data Analysis
Before data analysis begins, the data will be thoroughly processed. The code sheet
(see attached appendix, still incomplete until range of scores for all instruments obtained)
will be used to guide data entry, which will be manually input into NotePad. The data
will then be cleaned by a manual data entry check.
The data obtained is separated into categorical and quantitative data. The
variables treated as categorical include age, grade, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family
situation, number of siblings, birth order, parents occupation, and presence of diagnosis
for which an IEP is developed. For each of these variables, frequency of each value will
be determined for both the group of identified bullies and the control group. The
frequency of these values in each group will then be compared and displayed via a bar
graph. Discriminant Analysis will be used to determine which attributes are more likely
to be attributed to a bully.
The quantitative variables include scores on the aggressiveness scale of the
CBCL, scores on the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive scales of the parenting
inventory, scores on the culture-free self esteem inventory, and scores on the FCAT.
Scores from each of the groups will be displayed and compared via frequency polygons.

13. For each of the quantitative variables, SEM will be calculated for each group, and then
used to determine the Confidence Interval (CI). Additionally, the t-test for means will be
used to determine levels of statistical significance (.05), which will be used to support
hypotheses. Levels below statistical significance will be used to support null hypotheses.
The scores from the aggressiveness scale of the CBCL from both groups will then
be combined to determine a correlation exists to each of the other quantitative variables.
Regression Analysis will be employed using the Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient
and results will be displayed via scatterplots.
Threats and Controls
Potential Threats to our Research:
1. Mortation threat – if we send surveys home, we will not receive them all back
a. Possible control – large target population
b. Have questionnaires and surveys done in the classroom or school setting
2. Gathering adult information from students, such as income and parenting styles
a. Possible control – Getting involved directly with parents, ie through
conferences or telephone calls
3. Lack of privacy affecting children filling out self-esteem assessments
a. Possible control – Children filling it out one at a time alone
4. Parents being untruthful on assessments
a. Possible CBCL could help with this in that parents are not asked directly
about their parenting, only child’s behavi
5. Defining students who are “bullies”
a. Possible control – assess students for bullying behaviors
b. Use assessments and surveys such as CBCL
6. Data collector bias
a. Possible control – standardize procedures
7. Location threat a possibility
Additonal general control for threats – keep procedures standardized and consistent

14. Limitations

15. Appendix A
People QuickFacts
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2006
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006
Female persons, percent, 2006
White persons, percent, 2006 (a)
Black persons, percent, 2006 (a)
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a)
Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a)
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b)
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000
Seminole County
USA
6.00%
6.8%
23.4%
24.6%
11.0%
12.4%
50.7%
50.7%
83.4%
80.1%
11.2%
12.8%
0.4%
1.0%
3.5%
4.4%
0.1%
0.2%
1.5%
1.6%
14.5%
14.8%
70.1%
66.4%
46.9%
54.1%
9.1%
11.1%
15.6%
17.9%
88.7%
80.4%
31.0%
24.4%
27
Homeownership rate, 2000
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000
69.5%
25.5%
$119,900
Persons per household, 2000
Median household income, 2004
Per capita money income, 1999
Persons below poverty, percent, 2004
$50,842
$24,591
8.5%
66.2%
26.4%
$119,600
2.59
2.59
$44,334
$21,587
12.7%
Business QuickFacts
Black-owned firms, percent, 2002
American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent,
2002
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002
Women-owned firms, percent, 2002
Seminole County
3.7%
5.2%
S
0.9%
4.1%
4.8%
F
7.9%
24.1%
0.1%
6.8%
28.2%
Retail sales per capita, 2002
$13,339
$10,615
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable
race categories.
NA: Not available
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
X: Not applicable
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown
25.5
USA

16. F: Fewer than 100 firms

17. References
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.