Deterring Teen Bullying

AuthorSameer Hinduja,Justin W. Patchin
Date01 April 2018
Published date01 April 2018
DOI10.1177/1541204016681057
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Deterring Teen Bullying:
Assessing the Impact of
Perceived Punishment From
Police, Schools, and Parents
Justin W. Patchin
1
and Sameer Hinduja
2
Abstract
While decades of criminological research have returned mixed results when it comes to deterrence
theory, deterrence-informed policies continue to proliferate unabated. Specific to bullying among ado-
lescents, many U.S. states have recently passed new laws – or updated old ones – increasing potential
punishment for youthwho abuse others. Police are becoming involvedin bullying incidents more than
ever before, andschools across the country are implementing new policies and procedures as a result
of statewidemandates to crack down on the problem. Parents,too, are being pressured to respondto
bullying or risk being prosecuted themselves. To assess whether youth are actually being deterred
by these methods and messages, data were collected from approximately 1,000 students from two
middle schools on their perceptions of punishment from various sources, as well astheir bullying and
cyberbullyingparticipation.Results suggestthat students are deterredmore by the threat of punishment
from their parents andthe school, and least deterred by the threat of punishment from the police.
Keywords
deterrence theory, bullying, cyberbullying, school safety, school violence
With adolescent bullying a prominent issue both nationally and internationally, many public stake-
holders and well-meaningadults have clamored for increased formalprohibitions and penalties as the
best response to reduce peer harassment among teens (Furniss, 2000; Thurau & Wald, 2009). The
pressure to pursuethese provisions seems to come from the ideathat the threat of harsher penalties will
deter kidsfrom being cruel toward others. But will they?Deterrence theory has remained a very popular
paradigmwithin the criminal justice systemfor decades and as such serves as the basis for manypolicies
(e.g., mandatory sentences and ‘‘three strikes’’ laws; Paternoster, 1987, 2010). The basic premise is
simple: Humans are rational beings who weigh the costs and benefits of any behavior and will ulti-
mately act in a way that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain (Cornish & Clarke, 2014). Rational
people refrain from deviancewhen the potential costs (perceived or actual) are sufficientlyhigh.
1
University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, USA
2
Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Justin W. Patchin, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54702, USA.
Email: patchinj@uwec.edu
Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice
2018, Vol. 16(2) 190-207
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204016681057
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
It can be argued, however, that the threat of formal sanction—for example, via potential punish-
ment by the police—is simply not the most productive method of addressing bullying. While law
enforcement should be involved in bullying incidents that involve behaviors whichconstitute a crime
(e.g., physicalassault), it may be more prudentto prioritize informalmethods of social control to shape
and direct adolescentbehavior. When it comes to a youthful population, this primarilyinvolves efforts
by schools and families. Indeed, it appears reasonable to conclude that the influence of the latter is
much more potent in shaping and guiding the behavioral choices of youth than the former when
considering peer harassment (see e.g., Apel, Pogarsky, & Bates, 2009; Sampson & Laub, 1993).
Despite significant scholarly interest in bullying (especially in the last decade), relatively few
studies have sought to apply criminological theory to explain why youth engage in bullying beha-
viors. Among those that have, Patchin and Hinduja (2011) found that students who participated in
bullying and cyberbullying reported higher levels of strain and anger, consistent with Agnew’s
(1992) general strain theory. Hay, Meldrum, and Mann (2010) examined strain as well and illumi-
nated the importance of its effect on both external acts (e.g., delinquency) but also internalized forms
of deviance (e.g., self-harm and suicidal ideation). Moon, Hwang, and McCluskey (2011) also tested
general strain theory, along with the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) and
differential association theory (Sutherland, 1947) but found little support for each among a sample of
Korean middle school students. Finally, Navarro and Jasinski (2012) sought to measure the applic-
ability of routine activities theory on cyberbullying and found that the suitability and availability of
targets were most strongly correlated to victimization. In the current study, we further contribute to
theoretical explorations related to bullying by testing whether the tenets of deterrence theory are
related to middle schoolers’ self-reported online and school-based bullying behaviors.
In the current article, we examine the influence of the police, the school, and the parents on
deterring bullying behaviors that occur at school and online. We begin by summarizing the state of
research on adolescent experiences with bullying. Next, we discuss deterrence theory and its early
emphasis on formal social control institutions. We then expand on this literature by examining the
ways informal social control institutions like the school and family can deter unwanted teen beha-
viors. It is hypothesized that informal institutions, particularly parents within the family, will prove
to be a stronger deterrent to teen bullying behaviors than the threat of punishment by the police.
Finally, we offer implications that stem from the findings, with particular emphasis on future efforts
to combat all forms of adolescent bullying.
Adolescent Bullying and Cyberbullying
Bullying has remained ensconced as one of the foremost social problems of our time, and conse-
quently a mainstay priority area for parents, educators, politicians, and others concerned with the
well-being of youth. While it has been conceptualized and operationalized differently across various
academic inquiries, certain consistent themes do emerge when considering commonly-accepted
elements of the phenomenon (Patchin & Hinduja, 2016). First, bullying is intentional rather than
accidental. Second, articulable harm (physical, emotional, or relational) has to occur—and it is
generally the target’s viewpoint that is most important in this determination. Third, one instance
of hurtful behavior does not generally constitute bullying, and so it must occur (or be threatened to
occur) on a repetitive basis. Fourth, inherent in any conception of bullying is the demonstration (or
interpretation) of power by the aggressor over the target (Olweus, 1978, 1993).
Online forms of bullying have attracted and received the lion’s share of attention and scrutiny (by
the media, politicians, and researchers) in recent years, perhaps due to certain high-profile cases
specifically involving youth and young adults (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Cyberbullying—as it has
been termed—has been conceptually defined as ‘‘willful and repeated harm inflicted through com-
puters, cell phones, and other electronic devices’’ (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015, p. 11). This definition
Patchin and Hinduja 191

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT