Critical Review 1

Running head: Critical Review

A critical Review of Observing Bullying at School:

The Mental Health Implication of Witness Status

Salomon Green

Liberty University
 Critical Review 2

Running head: Critical Review

Abstract

Bullying in schools has become a great concern for local city, state, and national

government. The problem with bullying in schools is not only a United States problem

but a global problem. Bullying in schools has increased world wide despite governments

efforst for diminish the problem. Bullying is known to have a negative impact in the

victims mental health. This paper will review an article published by the American

Psychological Association (APA). In the article published by the American Psychologist,

Ian Rivers, Natalie Noret, Paul Poteat, and Nigel Ashurst discuss the “effects that

bullying has on students who witness it” Rivers I, Poteat P, Noret N.,& Ashurst N.,

(2009). In their research they will attempt to prove wether or not bullying has a negative

impact on witnesses.

Keywords: bullying, witness, psychological effects

 Critical Review 3

Running head: Critical Review

A Critical Review of Observing Bullying at School: The Mental Health Implications of

Witness Status

The article is of informative nature, it addresses a problem that is known to most

individuals attending a school, and individuals who have attended school, or have

someone attending a school. The article is well organized and it clearly states the

problem, the hypothesis, the mode of testing they implicated on their research and their

findings. The authors of the article do not define some terms, which gives an impression

that they asume the subject is of common knowledge. Clearly bullying is a problem

which constitutes some commonly known negative afflictions to its victims. There is

however one area of bullying in schools, which has drawn little attention, and that is the

issue of “bystanders or witnesses of bullying” (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst 2009).

In their explanation of the issue of witnesses of bullying, the authors have

provided some strong evidence of negative effect based on previous research. For

example the authors provide the reader interesting facts which reveal the the different

roles surrounding bullying in schools. (Rivers et al., 2009). Some of the “secondary

roles” described by the authors are: (“bystanders, assistants, reinforcers outsiders and

defenders”) Rivers et al., (2009). As stated before, little research has been conducted

about the effect of the witenesses of bullying which is why the authors of the article felt

the need to conduct their research.

The hypothesis of the article was clearly identifiable as follows: “perpetration of

bullying and victimization would be significantly associated with multiple indicators iof

mental health risk and substance use” (Rivers et al., 2009).

 Critical Review 4

Running head: Critical Review

In addition to the primary hypothesis there was evidence of a secondary hypothesis which

was stated that “witnessing peer victimization would be signicicantly associated with

higher reported levels of mental health risk and substance use” (Rivers et al., 2009). The

team of researchers conducted a correlational study of 2,002 students from 14 different

schools from north of England and rural London areas. They selected their samples

classifications based on the “2001 United Kingdom Census” (Rivers et al., 2009). They

proceded to select the samples from schools which did not have an anti bullyism system

in place. This particular area of the study yields to some biasis because of the omission of

the schools which have an anti bullyism system in place. Perhaps good knowledge would

have been to include the success rates of the schools with systems in place. In my opinion

this is a weak area of sample methodology in part because the authors focused primarily

on the schools which do not have a system in place. As stated before it would have been

good knowledge to include consise findings and results of current systems in place.

Ethical ground was respectively approached, since prior to the study proper

concents were obtained from parents or guardians. In addition student participants were

given the option to opt out in case students felt like their privacy was being invaded

Rivers et al., (2009). There is no mention of subjects dropping out of the survey, there is

no mention if 2002 was the original number of subjects. Initially one of the measuring

devices used during the procedure is known as “The Social Inclusion Project by the Local

Education Authority (LEA)” Rivers et al., (2009). Subjects objective measures were

“Perpetrators, Victim, and Witness Status. Rivers et al., (2009).

 Critical Review 5

Running head: Critical Review

The team also employed “The 15-item antibullying inventory that was adapted from the

English version of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnarire” (Rivers et al., 2009).

This implicates the use of questionnaires and surveyes for data collection. This method

yields for some biases on the participants because they may not disclose in all honesty the

experienced facts. In this area the authors do not indicate how they assured accuracy and

how they ensured honesty of the sampled population. As one sample response to bullying

policy indicates some times “victims of bullying some times do not speak up” Qegs and

Blackburns (2009).

Upon culmination of their study the authors found that for subjects who had

witnessed “the victimization of other peers may be negatively impacted on multiple

indicators of mental health” Rivers et al., (2009). Their study also yielded results in the

area of substance use. The results indicate that “bullying and witnessing the victimization

of other peers each predicted higher levels of substance use” Rivers et al., (2009).

Overal the research was well conducted, the authors proved their two hypotheses.

The material in the article was well presented and well organized. The provide their own

critique by providing their study’s weakness and strength. Their reported weakness and

strengths are congruent with my critique findings. The authors of the article do offer

some “Future Direction for Research” Rivers et al., (2009). Further research is needed in

many capacities and based on suggestions, one particular area that perhaps is being

overlooked is bullying by teachers and sports coaches. Finally the authors provide a

solution for the problem and that is implementing anti bullyins campaingns in all schools.
 Critical Review 6

Running head: Critical Review

References

Rivers, I., Poteat, P.V., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing Bullying at School:

The Mental Health Implication of Witness Status.

American Psychologist 24(4), 211-223. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/spq-24-4-211.pdf

Qegs & Blackburn, (2009) Antiharrassment policy Retrieved May 4, 2010, from

http://www.qegs.blackburn.sch.uk/files/Anti-bullying_Policy_2009[1].pdf