Critical Review and Analysis of an Article - Essay Example

Traditional and Nontraditional Bullying Among Youth: A Test of General Strain Theory by Patchin and Hinduja (2010)

In their study, the authors employ the general strain theory by Agnew (1992) as a framework for exploring the likelihood that adolescents and youths will participate in cyberbullying and the traditional forms of bullying. The study by Patchin and Hinduja (2010) follows a growing list of analyses that continue to enhance the body of knowledge about adolescent bullying victimization in schools and other interaction habitats. In this present piece, the author intends to critically review the study by Patchin and Hinduja (2010). In this critical review, the analyst plans to explore the methodological, instrumental, and thematic approaches to the paper. In such critical analysis, this current review intends to briefly interrogate the various sections of the original study and determine the authors´ approach to their research.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Furthermore, the present review aims to uncover the objectives of the original study and themes forwarded throughout the study. A critical review analyses a scholarly piece in terms of both the thematic direction and the study design employed by the original author. We postulate that the study by Patchin and Hinduja (2010) furthers the discussion around both traditional and nontraditional adolescent bullying.

Research Problem/Goals

The researchers in this study recognized the intricate connection of bullying to various causative factors and consequences that may also be attributed to other deviant releases by youths and adolescents. These analysts chiefly acknowledge the lack of scholarly clarity in the links between bullying among adolescents and the concept of strain, as described by Agnew (2000). Authors Patchin and Hinduja (2010) thereby set out to investigate the relationship between strain and the factors that initiate bullying among the youths who ultimately become bullies. As such, the study aims to examine the various factors that may instigate bullying behaviors and other deviant traits among adolescents. This analysis sets out to explore whether and how adolescents who become bullies do so to minimize the guilt, depression, frustration, and anxiety created by different circumstances and lived experiences. The authors thereby bring the definition of strain by Agnew (2000) as experience(s) that “make(s) us feel bad; that is, it makes us feel angry, frustrated, depressed, anxious, and the like. These bad feelings create pressure for corrective action; we want to do something so that we will not feel so bad” (p. 109). As such, the goals for the study entail an exploration of the effects of the stressful life of adolescents on the probable onset of bullying behaviors. The main problem presented by this study is, thereby, the inclination of adolescents to succumb to the pressure for corrective action for stressful live experiences and the accompanying negative emotions. Such a study linking bullying to strain is continually presenting interesting prospects towards explaining the cause of such behavior by the bullies and effecting corrective measures before the situation proceeds to deliquesce. The chief focus of attention in this study is the criminological presentation and interpretation of bullying through the General Strain Theory (GST).

Literature Review

The literature review of this study investigates the literature on both bullying and the general theory of strain by Agnew (2000). Patchin and Hinduja (2010) analyze the abundant research on traditional bullying and the somewhat new area of nontraditional bullying behaviors like cyberbullying. This analysis begins with a background study of the two types of bullying and their prevalence in schools and among children and adolescents. Statistics of such prevalence are uncovered in this section, and the two categories of bullying are contrasted. The traditional and nontraditional bullying categories are analyzed with a focus on their consequences and effectiveness in mentally affecting the victims of deviant behavior. From the analysis of the differences, the literature review reveals the expansive reach of cyberbullying and its impact on large groups of potential victims. As opposed to the traditional bullying that impacted victims within a geographical and spatial restriction, this nontraditional bullying is posited to be more uninhibited and targets a broader population. Patchin and Hinduja (2010) observed that “technology has allowed would-be bullies to distance themselves from their target and disseminate cruel content to wider audiences than ever before” (p. 730).

After they unveil the literature backing on the prevalence of and the difference between the two categories of bullying, the authors then outline some studies that explored probable reasons for the adolescents´ engagement in such aggressive acts. Various factors are later described in the research for the development of bullying behavior in adolescents. Such factors include low self-esteem and emotional instability, little family cohesion, low empathy, depression, anger, and low parental monitoring. This study by Patchin and Hinduja (2010) thereby notes that all these factors have been researched as probable causes for traditional bullying among the youths. No conceptual framework has, however, been developed to explain and interrogate the growing trend in cyberbullying.

In the next section of the literature analysis, the authors then focus their attention on the General Strain Theory (GST) in criminology that may be essential in explaining both the traditional and the nontraditional bullying categories. In analyzing GST through this systematic literature analysis, the authors begin by understanding the origins of the concept of strain. Patchin and Hinduja (2010) use previous studies to uncover the imbalance in the American society´s wealth distribution and the impacts of such inequality on the individuals that appeared to be locked out of the formal wealth generation systems. A study by Merton (1938) (cited in Patchin and Hinduja (2010)) for instance, understood the duality between expectations and aspirations and narrowed the view of success in America to wealth creation. The individual that was pushed out of the formal systems of wealth creation was thereby strained and forced into illegal means of acquiring wealth. Agnew (1992) later revised the strain theory to incorporate factors beyond wealth maximization. In his much broader conceptualization of strain, Agnew (1990) postulated that negative or unwanted outcomes for an individual might lead them to develop negative emotions that may then lead to negative actions.

After a description of GST, the authors of this study sufficiently connect it to the concept of bullying in the final section of the literature review. While guiding the reader towards the purpose of the study, the authors discuss the relationship between GST and bullying. The layering of the literature review, thereby sufficiently addresses the crucial requirements for the present study. The literature review culminates in a review of the linkage/relationship between strain and bullying behavior, which then form the two research questions that shall be stated and briefly described below.

Hypothesis and research question

The hypothesis of this study posits that bullying behavior comes as a reaction to stress and negative emotions among youths due to various adverse events. Authors here thereby associate the consequences of strain to the onset of responses like deviance and bullying behavior. The two key research questions used by the authors are, “Why would the youth engage in such (bullying) behaviors?” (p. 730) and “Are youth who experience strain more likely to engage in bullying?” (p. 728). The wording of the research hypothesis automatically implied that the study methodology must be predominantly quantitative. The theory postulated that “some” students engaged in bullying for particular reasons. This postulation thereby suggested that student engagement in such activities due to strain factors was quantified. Quantification of the problem and research hypothesis thus indicated that the research methodology required would be quantitative in nature.

Data and Variables

The dependent variable for this study was bullying. This variable was analyzed through dual categorization. Through a variety of questionnaire items that illustrated some form of bullying, the authors examined the dependent variable in terms of traditional and nontraditional categories of bullying. Such dependent variables were analyzed through survey items adopted from the scales by Kaufman et al. (2000) (cited in Patchin and Hinduja (2010)) with evidence of usage in similar studies from the past. The duration of coverage for the items was then clearly delineated by the analysts (within the past 30 days) to avoid the definitional ambiguity of the scales and sub-scales. A dichotomization was thereby conducted on the bullying behaviors while recognizing that bullying represents a pattern of behaviors. The contrasting behavior was represented in codes “0” to represent no involvement in the given item for bullying and “1” to represent involvement in the item of bullying. As such, we may conclude that the dependent variable was sufficiently presented alongside its items and the dichotomous relationship.

For the independent variable, the authors used Agnew’s (2006) (cited in Patchin and Hinduja (2010)) suggestions for the kinds of strain. Students were asked to represent their experience of strain on a 0-9 scale representing their level of strain. Higher values in this scale represented an increased strain. The items inquiring about the level of strain were used with the general factors for strain. Furthermore, the investigation inquired about the most critical consequences of strain on the independent variable scale. Such consequences as anger and frustration were investigated among the respondents on a 10-item scale. The scale for the consequences of strain would be essential in linking bullying to strain. As such, the authors covered the entire essence of the study, as represented in the questions and the purpose of the research.

Sampling plan

Final data collection was done on a sample population of 1,963 students drawn randomly across the grades six to eight in one stream each in thirty schools through the district. Informed consent preceded the data collection through a passive consent strategy. The selected students were part of an ongoing class concerned with the teaching of problem-solving and conflict resolution among the youths. This selected number of participants is deemed to be useful for a quantitative generalizable approach. For quantitative studies, the more significant numbers are often recommended for the sample. The study thereby targeted 2000 students who were drawn entirely randomly from the various classes across different schools in the school district. The randomized selection criteria allowed the students to possess an equal chance for selection into the final sample. This complete randomness of the sampling technique thereby reduced the selection bias that often rocks such studies. However, the students surveyed in the study were selected from a specific class. The class already dealt with conflict resolution among teens and adolescents.