Features Of Interpersonal Relationships Between Teenagers Inclined To Victim Behavior

Abstract

The paper investigates issues of teenagers’ victim behavior and provides results of empirical study of interpersonal relationships in teenagers inclined to victim behavior. 77 teenagers participated in the study; 40 of them displayed victim behavior. Obtained results testify that teenagers with an internal locus of control build up interpersonal relationships positively, feel confident, do not display aggression, keep their actions and words under control but do not always demonstrate openness and sincerity to partners in all fields of activity. The person exposed to negative experience of communication faces the need to be very cautious in dealing with people. Victim teenagers with an external level of subjective control show inability to cope with themselves in situations of interaction; negative attitude to the partner testifies to the complexity of establishment of harmonious relationships with friends, tendency to draw unjustified negative conclusions about others. Understanding and consideration of these features allows determining the strategy of support to prevent risks of behavior violation.

Keywords: Interpersonal communicationvictim behavioradolescencelevel of subjective control

Introduction

An important factor that significantly impacts teenager’s development is their desire to communicate and interact with peers; its highest point is at the period between 14-16 years. Expanding the circle of their communication, teenagers receive necessary knowledge about life that due to different reasons cannot be given by adults. Teenagers can perform different social roles when they communicate with people important for them in adolescent environment. At the same time, norms and rules adopted in the circle of peers become psychologically more important for a teenager than those available for adults (Emelyanov, 2008). The meaning of personal contacts and interests develops in interpersonal relations. In the course of communicating with peers, teenagers assert themselves acquiring subjective life experience, and in case of adverse conditions it can lead to various forms of troubled behavior, including victim behavior (Bochkaryova, 1972). Adolescence is the very period when a teenager has to withdraw from custody. Significant relationships with people of the opposite gender and status in the peer group are crucial. This is the period when adolescents may find themselves in dangerous situations that lead to the formation of victimization. Many researchers attribute this troubled behavior to the following negative factors that disrupt the process of socialization: dissatisfaction with social needs and availability of such personality traits that impact the choice of social means and ways to meet needs (Boivin, Petitclerc, Feng, & Barker, 2010). They include low self-esteem, the level of subjective control, lack of support from the community, significant anxiety and frustration (Dolgovykh, 2009). Adolescence is the factor that increases the degree of victim vulnerability though the type of victim behavior is largely determined by individual psychological factors (risk-taking, anxiety, unstable self-esteem, radicalism and suspicion), psychophysiological peculiarities (gender differentiation) and individual experience (parents’ aggressive behavior) (Matusevich, & Kubyshko, 2014). Focus on personal factors leading to the emergence of victimization will help to understand what preventive measures should be developed to define behavior strategies that will serve as resources in peers’ interpersonal relationships.

Problem Statement

Adolescence is a critical period of development for personal identity and autonomy formation; increasingly teenagers rely more on peers to assess their behavior and social competence than on their parents. The success with which adolescents can orient in their peers’ environment, ability to form and maintain positive partner and romantic relationships, depend on the level of subjective control of emotional well-being (Pellegrini, & Long, 2003). Adolescence is the phase of development when a teenager is most vulnerable from the point of view of others’ opinions and inclined to use inefficient strategies to get peer’ social approval and compete for the attention of potential romantic partners. (Griese, Buhs, & Lester, 2016).

Ways of teenagers’ victimization are closely related to changes in the social context and interpersonal relationships development. Issues of victim behavior were considered at preschool age (Boivin et al., 2010), though most studies show that propensity to victim behavior manifests itself in adolescence (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000). The research conducted by Boivin et al. (2010) is devoted to the study of influences between variants of teenagers’ victimization and social emotional difficulties (aggression, emotional vulnerability). Haltigan and Vaillancourt (2014) used the modelling method to propose four trajectories of teenagers’ victimization; they reflected the relationship between behavioral disorders frequency and the degree of personality victimization.

Leontiev (1999) singles out the violation of the meaning of human life regulation as the main psychological cause of victim behavior. A person with a developed meaningful regulation is able to handle their actions and subject them to stable non-situational factors. A powerful resource of formed meaningful regulation is a developed level of subjective control, a high level of personal tolerance, constructive and reasonable methods to manage stress and conflicts. A high level of personal anxiety in adolescents which can cause severe neuroticism and become a pretext for victimization testifies to inconsistency or violations in the sphere of personality’s meaningful regulation (Labunskaya, 1999). Adolescents with successful social adaptation are less prone to stress and conflicts in interpersonal relationships, therefore, it is less likely that they will be chosen as victims by their peers (Coleman, & Byrd, 2003). On the other hand, adolescents unsuccessful in social adaptation are at risk to become a victim. A high level of victimization, in turn, indicates ineffective strategies in resolving conflicts between peers (Kochenderfer-Ladd, & Skinner, 2002). For example, Rosen et al. (2009) found that children exhibiting inattentive and hyperactive behavior are more likely to be harassed by their peers, perhaps because their impulsive behavior irritates aggressors, making them easy targets. Leonova (2017) ascertains that teenagers’ self-confidence can be regarded as a resource to form their independent and truly subjective position in life. A low level of self-confidence in teenagers increases the probability of becoming a victim in different social situations that provoke or facilitate criminal behavior towards them.

Family factors, including parental warmth and parental hostility, strategies of family upbringing (especially that of a father) are also significant factors that manifest inclination for victimization in adolescence. A number of studies have shown that trustful relationships in the family positively impact children’s and teenagers’ prosocial behavior (Deater-Deckard, Dunn, O'Connor, Davies, & Golding, 2001; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). On the other hand, directive style and inconsistency in upbringing conducted by father aggravated by his constant supervision, lack of the sense of social support and inclusion in society, negative social and psychological climate in the family, pressure of some of its members influence the formation of child’s personality, self-esteem and perception of oneself as a victim. Victimization thus formed is manifested in victimogenic behavior (Arakelyan, & Shaboltas, 2015)

Disharmonious relationships with teachers, failure to master educational programs, teenager’s social status and interpersonal relationships with peers in class can determine victim behavior (Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000). Studies testify that teenagers with high rates of victim behavior are socially isolated, excluded from group interactions. However, such rejection is based primarily on the feeling of hostility on the part of peers; it can arise due to a variety of reasons different from behavior focused on exclusion (Lopez, & DuBois, 2005). Apart from influencing social and psychological adaptation, it was found that victimization adversely affects academic achievements (Erath, Flanagan, & Bierman, 2008). This statement is confirmed by research data in case when victimization is associated with high absenteeism (Nishina, & Juvonen, 2005) and decrease in academic achievements (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Tobin, 2005). External characteristics, including facial attractiveness can become one of the factors that are associated with victimization and open reluctance of peers to interact. Rosen, Underwood & Beron (2011) conducted the study which revealed that less attractive teenagers became victims of their peers more often. It is assumed that high social competency can help protect less attractive children from experiencing victimization, while a low social competency can serve as a risk factor for victimization even for the most attractive child. Prosocial behavior significantly reduces the link between peer victimization and loneliness by controlling levels of received peer support (Griese, & Buhs, 2014).

Friends, especially those who will help to protect from peer aggression, reduce chances of victimization and decreases negative consequences of victimization (Erath et al., 2008; Schmidt, & Bagwell, 2007). Thus, peer support acts as an important indicator that mitigates the risk of children’s victimization. Junger-Tas, van Kesteren & Krens (1999) found out that only 11% of children who have five or more friends become victims at school, but 51% of children, victims of peer aggression, say they do not have friends. The necessity to protect from peer victimization is less significant in the group of girls. (D'Esposito, Blake, & Riccio, 2011).

Students with disabilities experience a much higher risk of victim behavior than schoolchildren without disabilities. Students with disabilities identify themselves as victims and not as violators more often (Rose et al., 2011; Swearer, Wang, Maag, Siebecker, & Frerichs, 2012). Friendship and inclusion in a broad social context of peer interaction as well as peer social support hinder victimization (Demaray, & Malecki, 2003). Nevertheless, schoolchildren with disabilities have fewer friendships than peers without restrictions; they contract increased victimization due to peer rejection, low status and prestige. This does not concern all students with disabilities, but more often those with physical disorders or disorders of autistic spectrum (Lindsay, & McPherson, 2012). They are limited in contacts with classmates after classes and are not integrated into peer activities in class (Farmer, Wike, Alexander, Rodkin, & Mehtaji, 2015).

The majority of analyzed researches study consequences of victimization in teenagers; some researches examine factors of victimization in adolescents including teenagers with disabilities; other researches reveal personal characteristics of teenagers with victim behavior and specify significant difficulties in interpersonal communication construction; but there is insufficient information about the nature of interpersonal relationships among teenagers prone to victim behavior.

Research Questions

The main issue covered in this study is the evaluation of interpersonal relations of teenagers inclined to victim behavior with different levels of subjective control to expand our understanding of age-specific characteristics manifested in victim personality, mechanisms and strategies for resolving conflict situations in the reference group. Obtained empirical data will further be used to elaborate programs aimed to prevent victimization in teenagers prone to various types of victim behavior in conditions that promote personality potential development.

Purpose of the Study

The aim of this paper is to propose a psychological analysis of victim phenomenon in teenagers’ personality and to study features of teenagers’ interpersonal communication inclined to victim behavior with different levels of subjective control.

Research Methods

Methods of theoretical analysis were applied in the work. Testing was conducted according to the following psycho-diagnostic methods:

test-questionnaire ‘Methodology for diagnosing propensity to victimized behavior’ by Andronnikova (2005) as a standardized questionnaire to assess teenagers’ propensity to manifest forms of victim behavior; it comprises a set of specialized psycho-diagnostic scales;

methodology for diagnosing the level of subjective control by Rotter (adapted by Bazhina, Golynkina, & Etkind, 1984) assesses the vector of subjective control over various circumstances, establishes the level of personality responsibility for actions and life – external (external locus) and internal (inner locus);

methodology for diagnosing self-monitoring assessment in communication by Snyder (1974) reveals the level of control while communicating with other people as one of the main components of communicative skills associated with the student’s personality socialization;

methodology ‘Assessment of destructive settings in interpersonal relations’ by Boyko (1996) divulges open and hidden cruelty to surrounding people, tendency to groundless generalization of negative facts, as well as reasoned negativity in interpersonal interaction.

School students aged between 14-15 years of the Republic of Tatarstan (Russia) were recruited for the research. 77 respondents made up the general sample. Introductory talk preceded the research; participants got acquainted with research objectives, techniques and procedures of their performance; besides they were informed about the importance of the research and issues considered in it. Quantitative and qualitative mathematical analyses of obtained data were done using SPSS v.17.

Findings

Conclusion

The following conclusions have been drawn on the basis of obtained research results of interpersonal relationships in teenagers inclined to victim behavior. In the general sample of respondents, according to the scale of realized victimhood, 53% (40 school students) of teenagers displayed results higher than a norm. They often get in unpleasant and dangerous situations, tend to deliberately create conflict situations and violate established rules, norms and values. They provoke situations of victimization with their peers. The majority of teenagers (87.5%) have an external level of subjective control, which is consistent with the results of a number of studies. Among teenagers with victimized behavior, the externals usually prevail over the internals, and their share is more than 80%. On the contrary, in other samples among young people with prosocial orientation showing a high level of social maturity for their age, the absolute majority belongs to the internals (Rivman, 1975)

The results of our study specify that teenagers prone to victim behavior with a high (internal) level of subjective control (12.5%) are characterized by a desire to take responsibility in everything. In interpersonal communication, teenagers tend to form their own circle of communication and choose their own communication partners. However, the availability of peculiarities in their behaviors indicates that interpersonal relationships among these teenagers are more complex. Teenagers prone to victimized behavior with a low (external) level of subjective control (87.5%) often escape responsibility. They do not show initiative in communication and are not motivated to form a circle of their communication; they are passive in choosing partners of communication and tend to shift responsibility for their behavior and actions to those around them. Due to their straightforwardness and aggressiveness, they lose sympathy and attractiveness. Partners in communication disengage from them; the circle of communication is getting narrower. This state of the locus of subjective control has a negative connotation since attention fixed on failures raises the level of personal anxiety and, therefore, impedes adequate comprehension of oneself and one’s own actions and effective interpersonal relationships with peers.

The results of the study conducted by Espelage et al. (2002) showed a high level of connection between externality and bullying in relation to victim children. Teenagers prone to victim behavior, with an internal control locus, often reflect on unsuccessful interaction with peers and blame themselves for the incident; they feel worse than teenagers with an external control locus who seek social support after the event or think about how they could avoid such a situation in future. Analyses of such behavior can help to orient toward needs of those teenagers who consider themselves to be frequent targets of peer persecution (Nishina, & Juvonen, 2005)

Internality in interpersonal communication may be an appropriate strategy for victimized teenagers. In addition, if a child somehow provokes his/her own persecution, self-reflection can help determine behavior that hooligans consider either annoying or helpful. On the other hand, there is a risk that at high rates of the internal locus of control victimized teenagers can become lonely and anxious and may display weakness and vulnerability disapproved by the social group (Kochenderfer-Ladd, & Skinner, 2002). Nevertheless, a high level of subjective control in interpersonal contacts of victimized teenagers makes it possible to control the situation of interaction. They face fewer social problems than teenagers with an external level of subjective control who do not try to change their situation.

Thus, in order to help children avoid social victimization or cope with the experience of ineffective communication with peers, programs for prevention of victimization in teenagers prone to various types of victim behavior in conditions that promote the development of personal potential and ‘adapted’ to teenagers’ individual characteristics should be elaborated.

Acknowledgments

The work is performed according to the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

References

1. Andronnikova, O. O. (2005). Psychological factors of victim behavior emergence in teenagers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01003253088
2. Arakelyan, K. N., & Shaboltas, A. V. (2015). Interfamily factors of personal victimization. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Psychology, 8(1), 50-55.
3. Bazhina, E. F., Golynkina, E. A., & Etkind, A. M. (1984). Metod issledovaniya urovnya subjektivnogo kontrolya [Methods of analyzing levels of subjective control]. Psikhologichesky zhurnal, 5(3), 152-162.
4. Bochkaryova, G. G. (1972). Psychological characteristic of the motivational sphere in teenagers-offenders. In L. I. Bozhovic, L. V. Blagonadezhina (Eds.), Studying of motivation in children and teenagers (pp. 259-350). Moscow: Prosvescheniye.
5. Boivin, M., Petitclerc, A., Feng, B., & Barker, E. D. (2010). The Developmental Trajectories of Peer Victimization in Middle to Late Childhood and the Changing Nature of Their Behavioral Correlates. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 56(3), 231-260.
6. Boyko, V. V. (1996). Energuiya emotsiy v obschenii: vzglyad na sebya i na drugikh [Energy of emotions in communication: self-reflection and view on others]. Moscow: Filin.
7. Coleman, P. K., & Byrd, C. (2003). Interpersonal correlates of peer victimization in young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 301-314.
8. D'Esposito, S., Blake, J., & Riccio, C. (2011). Adolescents’ vulnerability to peer victimization: Interpersonal and intrapersonal predictors. Professional School Counseling, 14(5), 299-309.
9. Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., Davies, L., & Golding, J. (2001). Using the stepfamily genetic design to examine gene–environment processes in child and family functioning. Marriage and Family Review, 33, 131-156.
10. Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471-489.
11. Dolgovykh M. P. (2009). Psychological determination of victim behavior manifestation in the adolescent's personality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dspace.bsu.edu.ru/bitstream/123456789/7538/1/Lokteva_Kliniko-psikhologicheskie.pdf
12. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social emotional, and personality development (6th ed.) (pp. 646-718).
13. Emelyanov, I. L. (2008). Victimhood and victimization: concept, types, problems of prevention. Philosophy, sociology, culturology, 5, 3-14.
14. Erath, S. A., Flanagan, K. S. and Bierman, K. L. (2008). Early Adolescent School Adjustment: Associations with Friendship and Peer Victimization. Social Development, 17, 853-870.
15. Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the Social Context of Bullying Behaviors in Early Adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326-333.
16. Farmer,T., Wike,T. L., Alexander, Q. R., Rodkin, P. C. & Mehtaji, M. (2015). Students With Disabilities and Involvement in Peer Victimization: Theory, Research, and Considerations for the Future. Remedial and Special Education, 36(5), 263-274.
17. Griese, E. R., & Buhs, E. S. (2014). Prosocial Behavior as a Protective Factor for Children’s Peer Victimization. Youth Adolescence, 43(7), 1052-1065.
18. Griese, E. R., Buhs, E. S., & Lester, H. F. (2016). Peer victimization and prosocial behavior trajectories: Exploring sources of resilience for victims. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 1-11.
19. Haltigan, J. D., & Vaillancourt, T. (2014). Joint trajectories of bullying and peer victimization across elementary and middle school and associations with symptoms of psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2426-2436.
20. Junger-Tas, J., van Kesteren, J., & Krens, A. M. (1999). Bullying and delinquency in a Dutch school population. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler.
21. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children’s coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 267-278.
22. Labunskaya, V. A. (1999). Human expression: communication and interpersonal cognition. Rostov-on-Don: Feniks.
23. Leontiev, D. A. (1999). Psychology of meaning. Moscow: Smysl.
24. Leonova, I. Y. (2017). The influence of belief in yourself on inclination to victim behavior. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 27(3), 322-328.
25. Lindsay S. & McPherson A. C. (2012). Experiences of social exclusion and bullying at school among children and youth with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(2), 101-109.
26. Lopez, C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Peer Victimization and Rejection: Investigation of an Integrative Model of Effects on Emotional, Behavioral, and Academic Adjustment in Early Adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 25-36.
27. Matusevich, A. M, & Kubyshko, L. V. (2014) Psychological aspects of victimization. Young Scientist, 8, 924-927.
28. Nishina, А., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76(2), 435-450.
29. Pellegrini, A. D, & Long, J. D (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 257-278.
30. Rivman, D. V. (1975). Victimological factors and crime prevention. Moscow: Prosvescheniye.
31. Rose, C. A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 114-130.
32. Rosen, L. H., Underwood, M. K., & Beron, K. J. (2011). Peer Victimization as a Mediator of the Relation between Facial Attractiveness and Internalizing Problems. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (Wayne State University. Press), 57(3), 319-347.
33. Rosen, L. H., Underwood, M. K., Beron, K. J., Gentsch, J. K., Wharton, M. E., & Rahdar, A. (2009). Persistent versus Periodic Experiences of Social Victimization: Predictors of Adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 693-704.
34. Schmidt, M. E., & Bagwell, C. L. (2007) The Protective Role of Friendships in Overtly and Relationally Victimized Boys and Girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(3), 439-460.
35. Schwartz, D., Gorman, A., Nakamoto, J., & Tobin, R. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and children's academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425-435.
36. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(4), 526.
37. Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child development project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3-51.
38. Swearer S. M., Wang C. J., Maag W. A., Siebecker B. L., & Frerichs J. (2012). Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 503-520.