Flujo en desarrollo de un fluido no newtoniano de ecuación constitutiva no

In this section, the follower and defender variables will be discussed. The first section will focus on the variables that predict follower behaviour and the second section will focus on the variables that predict defender behaviour. These sections address hypothesis 3 (follower behaviour will be positively predicted by SEND and negatively predicted by attitudes towards SEND) and hypothesis 4 (defender behaviour will be

positively predicted by reciprocal friendships and attitudes towards SEND). For follower behaviours, the variables that will be discussed are the diagnosis of SEND and attitudes towards SEND.

Very little research has been conducted to investigate the roles that children with SEND take within the bullying process, beyond being a bully or a victim. Kaukiainen et al. (2002) found that 67.9% of their learning disabled sample were nominated as ‘non-

involved’, meaning that they were neither a victim nor a bully. However, this does not mean that these children were completely uninvolved, as they may have taken on the follower or defender roles. To the researcher’s knowledge, no research has investigated these additional roles on an SEND sample and so the findings in this thesis add to the existing literature on bullying roles for non-SEND samples. Due to the weak reliability of the assistant role, this role was combined with the reinforcer role to create the ‘follower’ role. This will be explored further in the evaluation section of this chapter, but this weak reliability may reflect a lack of distinction between the two follower roles, as well as the lead bully role. Previous studies that have used this measure have often grouped the reinforcer and assistant into the ‘follower’ role for conceptual reasons (for example, see Camodeca & Goossens, 2005). It is important to note that in the original development of the PRS, there was no exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis carried out to confirm the items measured the distinct roles appropriately (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Thus, it could be argued that there is a lack of empirical support for these categories as distinct.

5.5.1. Diagnosis of SEND and follower behaviours. In support of hypothesis 3,

this research found that children with SEND carried out more follower behaviours than children without SEND. The reason behind why children with SEND appear to fall into this role may be due to characteristics that often accompany a diagnosis of SEND. Salmivalli et al. (1999) found that children who were assistants and reinforcers typically had defensive self-esteem; that is, the children had high defensive egotism (defensive to criticism about themselves). Children with SEND typically have low self-esteem (Miyahara & Piek, 2006) which may lead to them falling into this role, as they need the acceptance of the lead bully to feel like they belong. Additionally, these children may be aware of their differences and so want to be seen to support the lead bully in order to minimise the risk of being victimised themselves. As stated at the start of this section, very little attention has been given to the follower role, and so future research could be carried out to investigate why children with SEND carry out these behaviours; is it due to low self- esteem (particularly around a fear of being criticised) or wanting to avoid being targeted?

5.5.2. Attitudes towards SEND and follower behaviour. In support of hypothesis

3, this research found a negative association between attitudes towards SEND and follower behaviour. This indicates that as attitudes towards SEND improve, follower behaviour decreases. As stated above, very little research has been conducted on the follower roles. Generally, children who are followers (reinforcers and/or assistants) appear to have similar characteristics to bullies, with Salmivalli et al. (1999) finding that bullies and followers were both identified by high defensive egotism. Therefore, due to these similarities it is likely that there would be a similar relationship between attitudes towards SEND and follower behaviours as there is between attitudes and bullying behaviours. Research outlined above indicated that negative attitudes towards an out-group were associated with bullying intentions (Nesdale et al., 2008; Nipedal et al., 2010). This could also relate to children who are followers, as they also contribute towards bullying, therefore providing support for the finding in this research that negative attitudes are associated with high levels of follower behaviours. However, children who carry out follower behaviours do not initiate the bullying, indicating that perhaps they do not always act on the bullying

intentions that often accompany negative attitudes. Instead, they wait for the lead bully to initiate that bullying and then join in. Future research could investigate this relationship in more depth, looking into why children who carry out follower behaviours appear to still have negative attitudes towards SEND, but do not necessarily initiate the bullying

themselves. There may be a moderating factor, such as low self-esteem, that prevents them from taking the lead. This highlights the importance of investigating this role in further research; it may be that follower behaviour is easier to change, which implies the roles are not fixed or even mutually exclusive. This will be explored in section 5.9.

5.5.3. Reciprocal friendships and defender behaviour. This research found that

there was no association between reciprocal friendships and defender behaviour, thus, the findings did not support hypothesis 4. Previous research suggests that defenders have a greater peer/friendship network than non-defenders, however, this was not supported by the findings in this thesis. While much previous research has been carried out into friendships of bullies and victims, not much investigation has been devoted to the friendship experiences of children who carry out defender behaviours. Tani et al. (2003) found that defenders scored the highest on the Friendliness section of the Big Five,

however, this does not necessarily translate in a greater number of reciprocal friendships – it may just be that these children are generally friendly and supportive but do not

necessarily form more intimate friendships with their peers than others. Similarly, Wachs (2012) concluded that children who feel popular are more likely to carry out defender behaviours, potentially feeling safe from retribution. This may also indicate that these children are popular and have a good social network, but do not necessarily form a greater number of close, reciprocal friendships compared to others. Future research could

investigate why children who carry out defender behaviours are more popular and well- liked, but do not necessarily have more reciprocal friendships compared to children who do not carry out defender behaviour. A greater understanding of the characteristics of

defenders could help to inform efforts to encourage more children to act as defenders.

5.5.4. Attitudes towards SEND and defender behaviour. In line with hypothesis

4, this research found a positive association between attitudes to SEND and defender behaviour. While this research measured attitudes towards SEND, previous research has shown that positive attitudes in other areas are associated with defender behaviour.

Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) found that anti-bullying attitudes were positively associated with defender behaviours. While they measured a different type of attitudes (towards bullying), it may be that a measure of ‘attitudes towards SEND’ reflects empathy and kindness in individuals and so positive attitudes in relation to SEND may indicate they have positive attitudes in other similar areas, such as anti-bullying and inclusion and issues of social justice. Nickerson, Mele and Princiotta (2008) found that children with high empathy were most likely to intervene in bullying situations and defend children from being victimised. This lends support to the suggestion that children who carry out defender behaviours have high levels of empathy, which is reflected by positive attitudes towards SEND. It could be that a more important third variable is driving these relationships, such as a greater sense of social justice and moral engagement.

5.5.5. Emotional symptoms and defender behaviour. Unexpectedly, there was a

positive association between emotional symptoms and defender behaviour. Emotional symptoms indicate internalising problems, such as being shy, help-seeking, sadness, or withdrawn behaviours (Smith, 2014). Very little research has investigated internalising behaviours and defending behaviour. Pozzoli and Gini (2010) investigated internalising as a coping strategy in defenders and found a positive association. They suggested that it may be that the internalising behaviours of defenders potentially represent compassion for the

victim’s distress, which motivates them to intervene (Pozzoli & Gini, 2010). This supports the findings from this research that defenders present more internalising behaviours. This underlines the finding that some children with internalising behaviours are not necessarily at a greater risk of being victimised; the correlations are always moderate in size, which suggests individual differences. Further research could be carried out to investigate other variables that explain why some children with internalising behaviours become victims while others become defenders. For example, if a child had high internalising behaviours, along with low self-esteem or low self-efficacy for assertion (Gini, Albiero, Benelli & Altoe, 2008), these children may be at risk of becoming victims, however, if they had high self-esteem or high levels of self-efficacy, they may become defenders instead. There is a need to investigate the interactions between the various individual factors that appear to influence whether a child becomes a victim or a defender. This could then lead to

interventions in order to protect victimised children and encourage more children to act as defenders.

5.6. School level factors that predict peer victimisation, bullying behaviour, follower