This week we focused on bullying; specifically, cyber bullying. It is sad how much society has misperceived bullying and has brushed it off as if it does not exist, or even that it is okay. Agaston, Kowalski and Limber (2007) found, as a result of their studies, that more girls recognized cyber bullying compared to boys and they felt that schools were not very helpful in dealing with cyber bullying. Also from our readings, I was shocked that some parents felt it was natural to be picked on and that it builds character. We must all stand up for ourselves but it is not okay for an individual to continuously pick on, bully or threaten someone.
What is really sad is that at one point if you were being bullied at school you could at least leave the drama there and be “safe” within your home. Unfortunately, with social media and cell phones in this day and age, this bullying can be never ending. Bullying can follow people where ever they go because of the cyber age.
Reading the article about John Halligan and his son was very sad. He felt that he should have known and done more to assist when his son Ryan confided in him (Frontline, 2007). The kids picking on him didn’t not realize how much they were hurting someone and just thought it was a joke. Unfortunately, that “joke” did not end well.
Limber, describes The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program main goals as first; to reduce bullying problems at all school ages, not just within the school but also outside of school; second, the next is to prevent bulling issues; lastly, to improve relations between students in school (2004, p. 353). I enjoyed this intervention because it really focused on getting everyone involved to stop bullying and making people aware that it exists. Having parents, teachers and student all involved with the prevention and reduction of bullying is very important, I believe, in making a difference. I have seen people being picked on in school and teachers seem afraid to get involved.
I hope that more people become aware of this issue so that feelings are not hurt and lives are not lost.
References:
Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. Student’s Perspectives on Cyber Bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health. 41(6, Supplement 1). Dec. 2007. Pp. S59-S60
Frontline: Interview (2007, October 19) Growing Up Online. Retrieved from URL. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/interviews/halligan.html
Limber, Susan P. Implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in American schools: lessons learned from the field. Bullying in American schools: a social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Espelage, Dorothy L. and Susan M. Swearer, eds. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2004. 0805845593. Ch. 17. pp. 351-363
Interesting topic!
Interestingly perception of attractiveness varies from person to person. I’m sure across many cultures there are a few characteristics that many would agree make a person attractive however, ratings of attractiveness vary based on many factors. These factors can include ethnic orientation, personal prejudices and past experiences.
Perceptions of attractiveness can also be influenced by the ethnic majority of the geographical area. One study (Coetzee, Greeff, Stephen, Perrett, 2014) found that there was a preference for Scottish faces when a group of white Scottish participants and black South African participants. This means that the black South American participants found white Scottish faces to be more attractive than their own ethnic group. Researcher hypothesized that this effect happens because both groups are familiar with white European facial features (TV, Magazines etc.). Within both groups women were perceived to be more attractive than men.
Perception of attractiveness may also be tied to sexual orientation. Another study (Lick, Johnson, 2014) Found that lesbian women with a feminine appearance were rated as more attractive than those who did not fit gender norms in regards to appearance. Women who appeared to be lesbian were categorized as gender-atypical which was associated with lower attractiveness ratings. This effect was not found for gay men. This led the researchers to hypothesize that these perceptions of attractiveness for lesbian women have a foundation in general prejudice against women.
Simply being female was also found to be a factor in attractiveness ratings among children ages three to eleven. Preference for female targets was found to transcend preference for the child’s own race or gender. The older children however did have a stronger bias towards their own race and gender although female preference still dominated (Rennels, Langlois, 2014).
As you mentioned, physical attractiveness stereotype, the “halo effect” is a type of conformation bias where highly desirable traits (intelligence, good worker etc) are attributed to attractive people. Women are often perceived as more attractive than men. Women who have facial features that are closer to perceived gender norms are more likely to be perceived as attractive. I do agree that there does seem to be a persistent cultural attitude that those who are highly attractive are not intelligent. For example the “dumb blonde” or “dumb model” stereotype. However, from reading the above studies, especially the one referring to antigay prejudice, it seems that this effect may have more to do with the fact that there is often negative bias towards women in general. i.e. Women are perceived as more attractive and more attractive people are perceived to have more desirable traits but discrimination against women sometimes negates those perceptions.
Coetzee, V., Greeff, J. M., Stephen, I. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Cross-Cultural Agreement in Facial Attractiveness Preferences: The Role of Ethnicity and Gender. PLoS ONE, 9(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099629
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2014). Perceptual Underpinnings of Antigay Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9), 1178-1192. doi:10.1177/0146167214538288
Rennels, J. L., & Langlois, J. H. (2014). Children’s Attractiveness, Gender, and Race Biases: A Comparison of Their Strength and Generality. Child Development, 85(4), 1401-1418. doi:10.1111/cdev.12226