Tag Archives: intervention

Are preschoolers really capable of bullying?

We hear the words “bully” and “bullying” being used all the time. We have never known as much about the act of bullying as we do now (e.g. see here, here, and here). As teachers, parents, and caregivers, we are concerned that our children are being bullied or will become bullies and we’re even more conscious of these behaviours because we hear so much about the negative consequences resulting from bullying behaviour. This post draws on recent NZ research into parents’ and educators’ attitudes towards “bullying”-type behaviours in early childhood.

Defining bullying
Researchers understand bullying to be: “aggressive behaviour or intentional ‘harm doing,’ which is carried out repeatedly and over time in an interpersonal relationship characterised by an imbalance of power” (Olweus, 1993, p. 8-9). This definition means that each aggressive behaviour must meet three main criteria to be labelled bullying:
1. The behaviour must be carried out with the intention to cause harm. Accidental harm is not considered bullying.
2. The behaviour must be repetitive. A one-off aggressive act is not considered bullying
3. There must be some evidence of an imbalance of power. This could be an imbalance in age, physical size, relationship roles, popularity, ‘belonging’ (e.g. at school, in a friend group) etc. Behaviour that causes harm but occurs between equals is not considered bullying.

Recently, researchers have started to question whether pre-schoolers are capable of engaging in aggressive behaviours that met all three criteria. Is it appropriate to label such young children as bullies? During the early years, children are developing social skills and friendships. They are learning how to regulate their emotions and develop self-control, and it can take them a while to process others’ perspectives. While these skills and abilities are developing rapidly during early childhood, this is still an immature period in a young child’s development. This means it can be very difficult (and dangerous!) to label young children’s aggressive and bullying-like behaviours as intentional behaviour used to cause harm. These behaviours may in fact reflect poor self-regulation, reactivity, or experimenting with behaviours observed in their environment, rather than having the malicious intent required for being categorised as bullying.

A real challenge in understanding early childhood bullying relates to how we define bullying at such a young age. Bullying behaviour is subjective in nature and the definition and criteria used by researchers to define bullying may not be applied (or known) consistently by educators, parents, and caregivers. This is not a criticism of those educators, parents, or caregivers: Very rarely do we actually discuss the definition and criteria used to label aggressive behaviours as bullying.

What do parents and educators think about “bullying” among pre-schoolers?
In my most recent study, I was interested in speaking to early childhood educators and parents about whether they thought pre-schoolers were capable of bullying, and the types of behaviours that these educators and parents believed constituted bullying among this age group.

The majority of early childhood educators (76%) and parents/caregivers (72%) in this study believed that pre-schoolers were capable of bullying. However, these behaviours were referred to as “mostly unintentional bullying” [emphasis added] and comments were made that preschool-age children do not understand what they’re doing and the impact their behaviour may have on others. For instance, a parent stated: “I don’t think they intentionally bully others but act in a way that they think is ordinary” and an early childhood educator noted: “Yes [young children are capable of bullying] but I don’t believe they realise what they are doing. They know they are upsetting the child but don’t understand the impact this has on the other child.”

An interesting finding out of this study was that what early childhood educators and parents/caregivers classify as bullying behaviours changes at different ages of the child. Participants made comments such as “I don’t think they can bully in the same way as an older child does” and “Yes, young children can act as bullies but not comparable to the way a tween or teen or adult may bully.”

It seems that early childhood educators’ and parents’ expectations of pre-schooler’s aggressive behaviours differ from their expectations of older children. This may reflect the types of behaviours we label as bullying during the early years.

Common bullying behaviours reported by educators and parents
While we could create a long list of the different negative behaviours that pre-schoolers can use, the educators and parents who participated in this study indicated that physical forms of aggression (e.g. hitting, kicking, punching etc.) were the most common form of bullying they observe in pre-schoolers. This was followed by relational (e.g. social exclusion) and verbal (e.g. threats) forms of bullying. While it is difficult to determine whether young children do engage in more physical bullying compared to relational and verbal bullying (because no observation data has been collected on these behaviours), we do know that early childhood educators and parents still perceive physical aggression as being much more serious than relational aggression. These adults are also more likely to intervene immediately in cases of physical aggression, whereas adult intervention is more likely to be delayed or not occur at all after relationally aggressive behaviours are observed.

So, are pre-schoolers capable of “bullying”?
Although my research indicated that a majority of educators and parents believe that pre-schoolers are capable of bullying, many raised serious concerns about labelling such young children as ‘bullies’ because it was difficult to discriminate between typical social behavioural development and intentional aggressive behaviour. The inconsistent understanding of what constitutes bullying during early childhood is another reason that labelling can be dangerous.

So, what should we do when we feel like a child may be exhibiting ‘bullying’ behaviours? When I talk with educators, parents, and caregivers about young children’s aggressive behaviour, I always find myself emphasising the importance of understanding the ‘why’ of behaviour. By understanding the purpose of children’s behaviour, we are better able to understand:
– their intentions
– what they think they will achieve by using the aggressive (or prosocial) behaviour
– whether they believe the behaviour is un/acceptable and
– whether they think there may be consequences associated with the behaviour

Often, we rely on our own observations and knowledge of the child to make judgements about whether their behaviour was aggressive or whether they were bullying. However, this can be dangerous – applying the “bully” label to behaviour and young children incorrectly can lead to stigmatising effects, and there is a need to acknowledge that bullying is distinct from more typical aggression and rough and tumble play. Similarly, attempting to label a child or the behaviour is not likely to be helpful in facilitating healthy social development and relationships. Behaviour is meaningful – as adults involved in caring for and educating children, we must always stay curious in order to understand why children are behaving the way they are.

You can also read this blog here

Podcast – How to handle social exclusion

I have worked closely with Professor Jamie Ostrov over the years and recently he spoke to Jen Lumanlan from Your Parenting Mojo about some of the research he has conducted on social exclusion and relational aggression.

Listen to the Podcast here

He makes reference to one of my most recent publications on teacher and parent perceptions about young children’s aggression.

It’s a great listen and I hope you enjoy it.

Relational aggression: Why are young children so mean?

Original blog post published November 3, 2017 on NZARE

When we think about relational aggression, one thing that may come to mind is the ‘bitchy’ female behaviour commonly seen in middle childhood and adolescence and portrayed in movies such as Mean Girls. However, children as young as three have been reported gossiping, spreading rumours, and excluding or denying their peers from participating in play. More than 20 years ago, researchers labelled these behaviours as relational aggression and noted that they differ from typical forms of physical aggression commonly seen in young children in that these relational aggression behaviours focus on causing harm to social relationships.

When I first learned about these forms of relational aggression among very young children, I was an Early Intervention Teacher. I was horrified by my ignorance – how could I have not been aware of these behaviours occurring within the early childhood centres I worked in? When I started talking to other educators about these behaviours, most confessed that they see these behaviours “all the time” but said that it was “just a normal part of growing up that the children will grow out of.”

With a keen interest in social development and working with children who displayed behavioural concerns, I was horrified that despite early childhood educators being aware of these behaviours, very little intervention took place because it was viewed as typical behaviour, something that children will grow out of – a kind of developmental milestone that children experience. This left me with a very uneasy feeling. I knew that I couldn’t walk away and do nothing, now that I knew what I knew.

My hunch

Intent to cause harm is a central component of the definition of aggression. However, from everything I had learned in my Undergraduate psychology papers, I wasn’t convinced that such young children had the skills to be able to participate in relational forms of aggression with the intent to cause harm. I thought it likely that these children were just modelling others’ behaviours and weren’t deliberately using these sophisticated behaviours to achieve hierarchy and prominence in their social groups or to exclude their peers. After all, these children had only been in existence on this earth for a very short three years, and it seemed to me that it takes time and experience to learn how to skilfully manipulate social situations to get what you want and to develop a keen eye for other peers who can be easily persuaded or dominated or may be weaker than you.  I just didn’t believe all this could happen in the first 3 years of life.

In this blog post, I consider this key question from my doctoral research“Can young children (3-5 years old) engage in relational aggression with the intent to cause harm?” and share some of my findings. I aim to highlight the role of teachers and parents in inadvertently communicating to young children that relational aggression is more acceptable than physical aggression.

What I found

From children

I collected and analysed hours of video and audio recordings of young children engaging in social play in both unstructured and structured activities. This data clearly confirmed that children as young as three do indeed engage in both relational and physical forms of aggression.

I found that the choice of which type of aggression to use was often based on what the child wanted to achieve from the situation. For example, some children used relational aggression as a reaction to another behaviour – such as when another child was kicking blocks over and the aggressor said “I won’t be your friend if you keep doing that.” In most incidences of relational aggression though, the behaviour was premediated and proactive with the aim of gaining social dominance of the play situation or of an object. This differs to children who predominately used physical aggression, which is often reactive.

What was most interesting, though, was the conversations I had with children after I had observed them. This was an opportunity for children to watch the videos of themselves engaging in play and social encounters, while telling me why they were doing what they were doing. I was amazed by how aware these young children were about their behaviours. Most of the children were able to clearly articulate and describe why they were excluding another peer from play and what they expected the outcome to be. For example, one child (aged 4) wanted to play on a bike and continued to threaten the two other children by saying “If you don’t give me a turn I won’t be your friend.” The child continued to repeat this phase in an aggressive tone for almost three minutes. When we watched the video of this incident, I asked the child: “Is it okay to say ‘I won’t be your friend’ to other children?” The child responded, “No … [but] I don’t care, I wanted to have a turn and I didn’t want to wait my turn.” Once the child got a turn on the bike, positive emotions of laughter and satisfaction were displayed as the goal had been achieved.

These conversations were a unique opportunity to see situations through the eyes of a young child who had directly engaged and participated in the aggressive behaviour. It was clear that by giving young children an opportunity to justify their negative behaviours and aggressive actions, we as adults (and researchers) can better understand why some children choose to use aggression to achieve social goals whereas others choose more prosocial behaviours. So can young children engage in relational aggression with the intent to cause harm? Indeed they do, and they often do it in such sophisticated ways that, when standing on the periphery of their social worlds, educators and parents don’t recognise it. One we engage in conversation with children, we can better understand their intentions.

From educators and parents/caregivers

My discussions with educators and parents/caregivers highlighted a number of concerning factors that may have contributed to the reasons why relational aggression goes unchecked. In particular, I found that:

  • Teachers and parents viewed relational aggression as less serious than physical aggression. For example, a teacher defined aggression as being “pushed or shoved, like a physical type of behaviour … It actually needs to be more than just saying ‘I don’t want to be your friend’ and that sort of thing. It needs to be more than that.”
  • Teachers and parents were more likely to do nothing about relational aggression, yet they responded immediately to physical aggression. For example, a parent stated that when responding to a child pushing another child, “I would tell the child that it is bad behaviour and I’d put them at the end of the line so they feel how it is to be at the end of the line and learn patience.” However, in response to relational aggression, a parent said to the child, ‘It is sad to be left out’ and went on to find them an activity that everyone could play together.
  • Teachers and parents were more likely to feel empathy for children who had been victims of physical aggression compared to relational aggression. For example, a teacher commented: “I mean, these words are bad, but they happen with kids all the time … You can actually see the physical stuff and it hurts them.”

These findings about teachers’ and parents’ views weren’t surprising, because they were consistent with previous research, but they were incredibly disappointing because they contradicted best practice recommendations to intervene and respond to all forms of aggression. Clearly these perceptions reflected a systematic denial that all forms of aggression are serious and require intervention.

Without intervention, we inadvertently communicate to young children that the behaviour is acceptable. The consistency in both teachers’ and parents’ perceptions and practices in regard to child aggression suggested a much broader societal standard – one which I became even more concerned about. This is an aspect I am investigating further in a subsequent study exploring New Zealand educators’ and parents’/caregivers’ perceptions of relational and physical aggression (in particular, identifying why they differentiate between these two forms of aggression).

So what does this research mean?

The take-home message from my doctoral research is to not underestimate the socially damaging behaviours that young children use to achieve goals. Aggression isn’t something that children will “just grow out of”. As adults, we need to recognise that all types of aggression can be harmful and we need to communicate to young children that all types of aggression are unacceptable. In order to do that, our responses to these behaviours need to be consistent. Young children are sensitive to our responses, so if you intervene and communicate that their behaviour is harmful to others, there is a high chance that child will stop engaging in that behaviour. This really puts the onus back on educators and parents/caregivers to be consistent in responding to young children’s harmful behaviours – both physical and relational.

My current research project is allowing educators and parents/caregivers to have a voice about the types of resources and supports they would like to help them facilitate healthy social relationships in their young children. If you’d like to share your perceptions and make a difference to the social development of young children, parents can participate here and teachers here.