Los principios didácticos en la multimedia Historia de Villa Clara

Socioeconomic status is a broad construct which loosely relates to a family’s income, parental education and occupational status. It has been linked with a range of

outcomes throughout childhood and adolescence (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Low socioeconomic status is predictive of poor health (Aber et al., 1997; Chen, Matthews, & Boyce, 2002; Condliffe & Link, 2008; Goodman, 1999; Hanson & Chen, 2007),

low cognitive ability and academic achievement (Caro, McDonald, & Willms, 2009; Duncan, Brooks‐Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Hackman & Farah, 2009; Kishiyama et al., 2009; Sackett et al., 2009; Sirin, 2005), greater socio-emotional problems, including mental health disorders (Miech et al., 1999; Wight, Botticello, & Aneshensel, 2006), and maladaptive social functioning (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Korenman, Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995; McLeod & Shanahan, 1993; Mistry et al., 2008; Schneiders et al., 2003). In particular, there are strong links with aggressive behaviour, including externalising behaviours (Amone-P’Olak et al., 2009; Dodge et al., 1994; Duncan et al., 1994; Scaramella et al., 2008) and conduct disorder (Lahey et al., 1995; Loeber et al., 2000; McLoyd, 1998; Murray & Farrington, 2010),

suggesting that associations may also be found with involvement in school bullying. In practice, socioeconomic status is an aggregate concept, comprising both resource- based (i.e. material and social resources) and prestige-based (i.e. individual’s rank or status) indicators of socioeconomic position, which can be measured across societal levels (individual, household and neighbourhood), and at different periods in time (Krieger, Williams, & Moss, 1997). It can be assessed through individual measures, such as education, income, occupation, or deprivation, but also through composite measures, which combine or assign a weighting to different socioeconomic aspects to provide an overall index of socioeconomic level (Galobardes, Shaw, Lawlor, & Lynch, 2006; Galobardes, Shaw, Lawlor, Lynch, et al., 2006). There is no standard measure of socioeconomic status, rather indicators are used to measure specific aspects of socioeconomic stratification (Galobardes, Shaw, Lawlor, Lynch, et al., 2006). Accordingly, different measures of socioeconomic status may show varying effects, which can result from differing causal pathways, or through interactions with other social characteristics, such as sex or race (Braveman et al., 2005).

The relationship between socioeconomic status and roles in school bullying has been explored to some extent; however, the multi-faceted nature of socioeconomic status has meant that few studies use comparable measures of socioeconomic status,

leading to conflicting or inconsistent findings. Currently, the literature suggests there is a link with peer victimisation, whereby children from low socioeconomic

backgrounds are more likely to be a victim or bully-victim at school (Alikasifoglu et al., 2007; Due, Damsgaard, et al., 2009; Jansen et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2009). According to the type of measure used, being a victim has been associated with poor parental education (Jansen et al., 2012; Lemstra et al., 2012; Nordhagen et al., 2005), low-level parental occupation (Lemstra et al., 2012), economic disadvantage (Bowes et al., 2009; Glew et al., 2005; Lumeng et al., 2010), low affluence (Alikasifoglu et al., 2007; Analitis et al., 2009; Due, Damsgaard, et al., 2009), and low overall socioeconomic status (using composite measures) (Due, Damsgaard, et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2009; Pereira et al., 2004). Similarly, the likelihood of being a bully- victim at school is associated with low overall socioeconomic status (Jansen et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2009), as well as greater disadvantage (Bowes et al., 2009), poor maternal education (Alikasifoglu et al., 2007), and maternal unemployment

(Magklara et al., 2012). Although the majority of studies confirm these associations, others have found little or no relationship between socioeconomic status and either victim or bully-victim roles (Garner & Hinton, 2010; Ma, 2001; Veenstra et al., 2005). The type of bullying considered may matter, as victims of physical and relational bullying have been found more likely to come from families of low

affluence, while victims of cyberbullying did not (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Fewer studies have explored the link between socioeconomic status and bullying others (as bully only), however, a similar pattern of findings have emerged. Some

have found that bullying perpetration is linked with low overall socioeconomic status (Jansen et al., 2011; Pereira et al., 2004; Wolke et al., 2001), and more specifically, greater economic disadvantage and poverty (Bowes et al., 2009; Glew et al., 2005) and poor parental education (Jansen et al., 2012); however, others have found no association between bullying others and measures of socioeconomic status (Ma, 2001; Shetgiri et al., 2012; Veenstra et al., 2005).

There are several reasons for the lack of consistent findings. Firstly, studies differ in their approach to measuring socioeconomic status; some use composite measures, combining multiple indicators such as parental education, wealth and occupation, while others concentrate on a single socioeconomic indicator, most often parental education, occupation or affluence. How bullying relates to socioeconomic status may differ according to which indicator is used, therefore it is important to consider the way in which socioeconomic status was measured, and how this may have influenced the result. Furthermore, while the majority of research indicates an association between bullying roles and low SES, the reported effect sizes vary greatly across studies, with some reporting a weak relationship (e.g. Alikasifoglu et al., 2007; Jansen et al., 2012) while others suggest moderate to strong associations (e.g. Bowes et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2009). These measurement issues prevent a definitive conclusion being drawn from current findings, therefore as yet, it is unclear whether roles in bullying are associated with individual socioeconomic measures, or indeed socioeconomic status more generally. Overall, the evidence tends to suggest that low socioeconomic status slightly increases the risk of involvement in school bullying and perhaps more so for victims or bully/victims.