1.
Introduction
The
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
estimated that approximately 246 million children and adolescents worldwide are
subjected to bullying in schools. These statistics indicate that bullying is
becoming a widespread occurrence in schools. In addition, research on bullying
in schools and its consequences posits that bullying has been an alarming issue
for more than 20 years. According to international studies, approximately
160,000 students drop out of school annually due to peer-on-peer bullying
(UNESCO, 2017).
Scholars
provide many definitions of bullying. The most recognized is one by Olweus
(1993), that is, “aggressive, intentional acts carried out by a group or an
individual repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend
him or herself” (p. 48). Peterson and Ray (2006a) defined it as “aggressive
behavior with the potential to cause physical or psychological harm to the
recipient” (p. 148). Alternatively, cyberbullying has emerged as a new form of
bullying due to developments in communication technology. Similar to
traditional bullying, cyberbullying involves the use of peer violence to harm
victims through text messages, social media, or other digital technologies
(Guilbault & MacFarlane, 2021).
The
parties to bullying are categorized as the victim (the one being bullied),
bully (the one bullying others), bully–victim (bullies who are also bullied),
and bystander (neither victim nor bully but present during bullying incidents;
Jumper, 2019). Bullying could lead to significant, long-lasting problems in the
lives of the bully and victim and usher in a generation that is unable to face
its problems. For example, bullies are at increased risk for various negative
outcomes, including, but not limited to, the development of violent and
dangerous behavior, academic failure, school dropout, alcohol or drug abuse,
abusive relationships, and anxiety or depressive problems (Jadambaa et al.,
2019). These outcomes also include the reduction of health-related quality of
life (HRQoL) through stress, anxiety, and depressive symptomatology
(González-Cabrera et al., 2019; Villora et al., 2020). Conversely, victims
frequently struggle with mental health issues (e.g., isolation and low
self-esteem), behavioral problems (e.g., irritability and hyperactivity), and
emotional issues (e.g., anxiety, sadness, and suicide ideation;
González-Cabrera et al., 2022). The negative effects of bullying are more
likely to occur for students, whether gifted or nongifted, who are disliked by
peers and have low peer status (Peairs et al., 2019; Guilbault &
MacFarlane, 2021). Understanding the effects of bullying on the academic
performance of students in fourth and eighth grades is one of the goals of the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. According to the
findings, a negative correlation exists between bullying incidents and the math
grades of students in the State of Kuwait.
Social,
physical, and psychological factors influence bullying. The victim may be
subject to name-calling, teasing, deliberate (intentional) exclusion from
others, physical assault, and threats. Furthermore, a power disparity exists
between bullies and victims, which indicates that self-protection against
bullies is difficult for victims (González-Cabrera et al., 2022). Nevertheless,
the incidence of bullying and victimization is likely to decrease with the
increase in age. Students exposed to bullying behavior in school range from 20%
to 80%, because bullying tends to peak in grade 6 and then decrease throughout
high school (Guilbault & MacFarlane, 2021).
1.1 Bullying and Gifted Students
Renzulli
(2002) uses a three-ring conception (i.e., above-average ability,
creativity, and task commitment) to define giftedness, which considers general
or specific forms of giftedness. According to this theory, one criterion cannot
explain giftedness; instead, it is “an interaction among three clusters of
traits-above average but not necessarily superior abilities, task commitment,
and creativity” (p. 72).
Gifted
students are less aggressive, less rejected, and better liked, and peers rate
them higher in sociability, leadership, and friendliness (Estell et al., 2009;
Peairs et al., 2019). Peers view giftedness as an advantage in elementary
school; however, as gifted students approach adolescence, bullying increases
(Lee et al., 2012; Peairs et al., 2019). Furthermore, research that evaluates
the views of gifted adolescents and others on their giftedness reveals that
participants perceived their giftedness as strongly positive in terms of
personal growth and academics. However, this view was strongly negative in
terms of social relationships with others (González-Cabrera et al., 2022).
Gifted students, like their nongifted peers, are more likely to engage in bullying
behavior when mingling with more aggressive and popular peers (Estell et al.,
2009; Peairs et al, 2019). According to Pelchar and Bain (2014), gifted
students experience greater internalizing and behavioral disorders when
bullied. Thus, bullying or cyberbullying can lead to melancholy, anger,
frustration, and isolation among gifted students (Connolly, 2018). Compared
with gifted students who were not bullied, students who were victims and
bully–victims exhibit lower HRQoL scores and higher levels of stress, anxiety,
and depression (González-Cabrera et al., 2022).
Adolescents designated as gifted had a more positive
self-perception of friendship achievements and proficiency in various social
domains compared with their nongifted peers (Cross, 2015). The sociability of
gifted students can be explored through an examination of their social circle.
This aspect provides valuable insights into various dimensions of their social
development and interactions. Their social network offers clues about their
social connectedness and integration within peer groups. Understanding these
dynamics can inform support strategies to nurture positive social connections
and address any challenges related to social interaction and integration.
Additionally, gifted students provide a good evaluation of their capacity to
begin, establish, and sustain relationships with other students. Aydın et
al. (2022) conducted a survey and obtained data from 156 students (gifted: 60,
nongifted: 96). The findings revealed that the gifted students perceived
themselves as socially better (higher levels of social self-perception)
compared with nongifted students. Besides sociability, gifted students’
feelings towards school can impact their vulnerability to bullying and their
ability to cope with such experiences. Their experiences with bullying and
their feelings towards school interact in a complicated way that can profoundly
affect their academic, social, and emotional well-being. For some gifted
students, negative feelings towards school, such as frustration, alienation, or
social isolation, may make them more susceptible to being targeted by bullies
(Cross, 2015).
Based
on the common characteristics of gifted students, such as perfectionism, a
strong sense of justice, heightened sensibilities, and openness to experience
(MacFarlane & Mina, 2018; Ogurlu & Sarıçam, 2018; Peterson &
Ray, 2006b), they may experience bullying differently. However, several
quantitative studies found no significant differences in the amount or type of
bullying reported by gifted students (Chen et al., 2015; Ryoo, 2017). Although
the study did not elaborate on how the gifted students were bullied differently
in terms of the amount or type of bullying, a possibility exists that their
unique characteristics influence their disclosure of information about bullying
(Jumper, 2019). A few studies suggested that gifted students may believe they
need to independently address bullying instead of reporting it or seeking help
(e.g., Connolly, 2018; Peterson & Ray, 2006b). Specifically, Connolly
(2018) examined bullying among the gifted youth in an Irish Talent Search
program. Adolescents who experienced cyberbullying disclosed it to peers or
siblings but not parents or adults. Various reasons underlie this choice,
including the beliefs that adults would worsen the situation and that they
should address the situation by themselves, the desire to exert control over
the issue within their terms, or the lack of confidence that adults will
seriously consider the issue based on past experiences. Connolly discovered
gender and age differences. For example, younger students felt more comfortable
confiding in teachers. Male and female students reported cyberbullying to elder
siblings and classmates, respectively. In addition, gifted female adolescents
experienced a greater effect and more social ostracism, which negatively
influences their grades and class participation. Using the Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire, Jumper (2019) analyzed data from 343 students across five middle
schools and found that gifted students were more likely to confide in their
peers than in teachers or parents. However, nongifted students confide in their
teachers or parents if they are being bullied every week.
Nevertheless, a dearth of research exists on the
perpetration of bullying by gifted students. Scholars demonstrate that gifted
students display lower rates of behavioral issues and bullying than nongifted
students. Erwin (2015) concluded that gifted students were much less likely to
be victimized than their nongifted classmates in all forms of victimization,
except for physical abuse; the study found no differences (González-Cabrera et
al., 2022). In contrast, according to seminal research by Peterson and Ray
(2006a, 2006b), gifted students exhibit a higher prevalence of victimization
than do nongifted students. Thus, a possibility exists that certain gifted
students may become bully–victims and engage in the perpetration of bullying as
a result of having been bullied in the past. However, this aspect lacks a
thorough investigation (Ryoo, 2017). According to Peterson and Ray (2006a), who
conducted a study on 432 gifted students in eighth grade from 11 states, 67%
encountered certain forms of bullying throughout their school career. The level
of victimization reached the highest point in the sixth grade, and being
bullied was associated with negative emotional effects. Additionally, the
authors mentioned that the gifted students, compared with nongifted peers,
stated that they believe that discrepancies in their abilities may contribute
to susceptibility to bullying. Alternatively, other researchers posit that the
strong cognitive ability of gifted students helps them to cope better with
social and emotional issues. In turn, this notion contributes to decreased
engagement in bullying and victimization among them. Francis et al. (2016)
concluded that gifted students are more likely than nongifted peers to exhibit
superior social–emotional skills and fewer behavioral problems.
González-Cabrera
et al. (2019) concluded that 50.9% of the 285 gifted students they examined
were involved in types of bullying (victims: 39.6%, bullies: 1.1%,
bully–victims: 10.2%). This result aligned with a study in Brazil by Dalosto
and Alencar (2013), who surveyed 118 students who participated in a federal
program for gifted students. The findings indicated that gifted students
experienced numerous instances of school bullying in various forms, the most
common of which were verbal (32.1%), physical (21.2%), and social (exclusion
from peer groups; 33.9%) violence. In contrast to the abovementioned studies,
others, especially Ryoo et al. (2017), found no difference in victimization
between gifted and nongifted students. However, group disparities were noted in
prevalence rates as well as changes in the transition patterns of perpetration.
In this regard, Garcia et al. (2020) concluded that no significant differences
in cyberbullying exist between gifted and nongifted students.
Currently,
research on bullying and giftedness is scarce, which is in contrast with many
studies conducted on nongifted students. In their evaluation, Espelage and King
(2018) identified slightly more than 20 studies that examined the rates of
victimization and perpetration among gifted students. However, these authors
noted that in addition to being scant, the scientific literature on abuse among
gifted students is extremely diverse due to a few factors. For instance, not
all studies explained how gifted students were identified or recruited for the
sample; a few studies used qualitative methods, and others employed
quantitative methods. In addition, many did not specify the cut-off points of
the questionnaires used to consider a student as a victim, and the age range of
the analyzed samples covers very different developmental stages. Thus,
investigations that compared gifted and nongifted students provide conflicting
findings due to this variability (González-Cabrera et al., 2022).
Thus,
the current study aims to shed light on the forms of school bullying among
eighth and ninth-grade gifted and nongifted students in the State of Kuwait, to
examine the interaction between the giftedness and levels of bullying and
victimization among students, and to identify bullying behavior among students.
It also intends to determine whether or not demographic variables, such as type
of education and peer status, influence bullying behavior among students.
Lastly, it endeavors to examine prevention and intervention strategies against
bullying, to provide a database on bullying and victimization for middle school
students, and to build further studies to reduce the spread of bullying.
Research on this area is important for school principals, specialists, and
workers in middle schools, as well as the Ministry of Education, to reduce the
spread of bullying and to develop prevention programs to avoid bullying in
schools.
Four
research questions guide the present research:
1. What
is the difference between gifted and nongifted students in terms of sociability
and feelings toward schools?
2. What
is the difference in bullying and victimization among gifted and nongifted
students?
3. What
are the relationships between bullying victimization and the type of education,
and between sociability and feelings?
4. What
are the prevention and intervention strategies for bullying?
2.
Methodology
2.1 Research Design
The
research methodology focuses on investigating the phenomenon of bullying among
gifted and nongifted female students in a middle school in Kuwait by utilizing
a comparative approach. The study intends to elucidate and compare the
prevalence, types, and impacts of bullying experienced by the two groups within
the educational context of Kuwait. Toward this end, it employs a mixed-method
approach by using the School Bullying Questionnaire for students and
interviewing the social worker of the school.
This
combination of the interview with the social worker and the completion of
questionnaires by the students provides a comprehensive approach to
understanding the complex dynamics of bullying and its relationships with
sociability and feelings among gifted and nongifted female students.
Qualitative insights from the social worker and quantitative data from the
students contribute to a holistic understanding of the bullying phenomenon
within the specific cultural and educational contexts of Kuwait.
2.2 Data Collection
The
survey was conducted during the academic year 2022-2023 at Al-Qadisiya
Intermediate School for Girls. To obtain authorization for administering the
questionnaire, official approval was first secured from the Head of the Special
Education Department at the College of Basic Education. Following this, we
proceeded with the Educational Research Administration at the Ministry of
Education to review the survey, which led to receiving the necessary approval.
This included drafting an official letter addressed to the educational district
associated with the school. After receiving approval from the Educational
Research Administration, we visited the educational district to obtain the
final consent. Finally, we secured permission from the school principal to administer
the questionnaire to the students. All participation in this study was
voluntary, and we have ensured compliance with ethical standards throughout the
research process.
The
data collection phase was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the
questionnaire was administered to gifted female students. The questionnaire
aimed to gather information about students’ personal experiences with bullying,
the nature of the bullying, the frequency of occurrences, and the emotional and
psychological consequences. Then, an interview was conducted with the social
worker to gather insightful information regarding the resolution of bullying
incidents based on the social worker's professional experience and expertise.
Additionally, the interview aimed to gather information on the school's current
policies, support networks, and preventive measures.
2.3 Participants
In
Kuwait, the criteria to accept gifted students into the gifted program are
based on:
·
Academic achievement: measured by the
average of the first semester grades in fifth grade, especially in Mathematics,
Science, and Arabic.
·
Behavioral characteristics of the
talented and creative: assessed using a criterion for evaluating behavioral
traits (by the teacher).
·
Academic readiness: measured through
performance in academic readiness tests for verbal and quantitative reasoning.
- General
mental ability: assessed using collective and individual intelligence
tests that can be applied in some special cases determined by the testing
and guidance management advisor (Sabah AlAhmad Center for Giftedness and
Creativity, 2018).
In addition, female gifted students are only integrated
into regular school, but in separate classrooms. Thus, the research sample was
purposively selected from a school that comprised two types of education,
regular and gifted classrooms. The sample consisted of 93 female students from
the eighth (n = 43) and ninth (n = 50) grades, which were classified under four
classes, namely, two regular classes in grades eight (n = 19) and nine (n = 29),
and two gifted classes in grades eight (n = 24) and nine (n = 21). The
selection of participants from the regular and gifted classrooms enables a
comparative analysis in terms of bullying experiences, sociability, and
feelings toward school. This approach enables an in-depth understanding of the
dynamics of bullying among gifted and nongifted female students in middle
schools in Kuwait. The GPAs of the participants were also provided as an
indicator of academic achievement. In the regular classes, GPAs reached a mean
of 87.5, which ranges from a minimum of 70 to a maximum of 98.8. Conversely,
the gifted classes obtained a mean GPA of 96.04, which ranges from a minimum of
90 to a maximum of 100. These differences in GPA between the two groups may
help in identifying potential associations between academic performance and
bullying experience.
Conversely,
the study initiated a qualitative data collection process by interviewing the
social worker at the school. This interview was intended to gather insights
into various aspects of bullying, including its nature, typology, underlying
motivation, prevalent issues, and practical approaches for addressing such
incidents. The interviewee presented an extensive professional background with
17 years of hands-on experience in school-based social services. The interview
lasted 22 min and 52 seconds and was conducted in the school's social service
office.
2.4 School Bullying Questionnaire
Using
questionnaires enables the collection of quantitative data directly from the
gifted and nongifted female students. The questionnaires are designed to obtain
information about personal experiences with bullying, including the type of
bullying, frequency of incidents, and emotional and psychological impacts. By
including both groups in the study, a comparative analysis was conducted to
identify any differences or similarities in bullying experiences.
The questionnaire items are rated using a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. The
authors developed the questionnaire after conducting a comprehensive review of
the related literature and examining previous empirical studies on bullying.
The questionnaire focuses on different aspects related to bullying experiences
among gifted and nongifted female students in middle schools in Kuwait and is
structured into three sections. The first collects demographic information,
including class, grade, and GPA (four items), to provide a contextual
understanding. The second aims to identify the degree of sociability and
feelings among participants (six items). The third focuses on the experiences
of participants as victims of bullying (19 items) to explore various types of bullying,
such as social, verbal, and physical bullying, and incidents related to
possessions. The participants indicated the frequency with which they
experience each type of bullying behavior, which enables a comprehensive
assessment of the prevalence and nature of victimization experiences. Lastly,
the fourth assesses participants' engagement in bullying behaviors (19 items)
by asking about their tendencies to engage in physical, verbal, and social
bullying, as well as their inclination to damage others' possessions. This
section aims to elucidate the involvement of the participants in bullying
behaviors and provides insights into the potential dynamics of aggression
within the sample.
2.5 Interview With the Social Worker
The
interview with the social worker serves as a valuable source of qualitative
data by providing insights into professional observations and experiences of
addressing bullying incidents among students. The expertise and perspective of
the social worker can shed light on the overall school climate, intervention
strategies, and existing support systems in place to address bullying. The
authors conducted a semi-structured interview in the office of the social
worker, which lasted for approximately 23 min. The interview protocol consisted
of 15 questions, which were designed to explore various aspects related to
school bullying, victimization, bullying behavior, the negative impact of
bullying, and school procedures against bullying.
The
questions posed during the interview aimed to collect valuable insights from
the professional experience and expertise of the social worker in addressing
bullying incidents. For example, one question focused on the different forms of
bullying that the social worker encountered in the role to understand the range
of bullying behaviors prevalent within the school environment. Another question
asked about the frequency of bullying cases every week, which indicates the
extent of the bullying problem. In addition, a question to rank the types of
bullying (verbal bullying – physical bullying, bullying by property – social
bullying) from most prevalent to least prevalent, and a question to know if
there is bullying among students in gifted classes due to academic competition
or other factors. This information can contribute to the assessment of the
prevalence and severity of bullying incidents. Additionally, the interview
sought to explore the perspectives of the social worker on the impact of
bullying on students. By inquiring about the effects of bullying, the
researchers intended to gain insight into the emotional, psychological, and
academic consequences experienced by the students as victims. Furthermore, the
interview protocol included questions about the school procedures and
interventions against bullying by asking the social worker these questions: is
there an action plan to reduce the phenomenon of bullying and what does it
entail, is there a therapeutic program for the bully to modify their behavior, and
also, a therapeutic program for the victim of bullying to reduce the negative
effects. This line of inquiry aimed to collect information on the existing
policies, support systems, and preventive measures implemented within the
school to address bullying effectively. By conducting the semi-structured
interview, the authors aimed to obtain a professional perspective on the
dynamics of bullying among gifted and nongifted female students in middle
schools in Kuwait and the school's procedures for dealing with bullying.
2.6 Validity and Reliability
The
questionnaire was developed following the applied steps to ensure validity and
reliability. First, the researchers reviewed the related literature and
empirical studies to compare their research procedures with current ones (i.e.,
Erwin, 2015; Espelage and King, 2018; Peterson and Ray, 2006a; Ryoo et al.,
2017). Second, an advisor and two lecturers specialized in gifted education
examined the tool to check its appropriateness in terms of content, language,
style, and typographical error; changes were made based on feedback. Third, we
conducted a pilot study on 39 middle school students to check for consistencies
among items, domains, and subscales. The students were encouraged to add notes
for each item that they deemed imprecise.
Table 1: Internal Reliability of Major Subscales
|
Scale
|
Pilot
Sample
|
Items
|
Cronbach’s
Alpha
|
Spearman–Brown
Coefficient
|
Split-Half
Coefficient
|
|
Victimization
|
39
|
18
(from 7 to 24)
|
0.868
|
0.814
|
0.809
|
|
Bully
Behavior
|
39
|
17
(from 25 to 42)
|
0.935
|
0.922
|
0.922
|
As a result of the
piloting procedures, three items were omitted (VPB5, PB6, and DB4) to increase
the internal reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Table 1 indicates
that multiple reliability tests confirmed the reliability of the victimization (α = 0.868) and bully behavior subscales (α
= 0.935). In addition, the items of each domain illustrate acceptable degrees
of reliability, in which Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.583 to 0.859
(Table 2).
Table 2: Internal Reliability of Domains
|
Subscales
|
Domain
|
N
of Items
|
Items
|
Deleted
Item
|
Alpha
|
|
Victimization
|
Social
bullying
|
4
|
VSB1,
VSB2, VSB3, and VSB4
|
–
|
0.583
|
|
Verbal
bullying
|
6
|
VVB1,
VVB2, VVB3, VVB4, VVB5, and VVB6
|
–
|
0.675
|
|
Physical
bullying
|
4
|
VPB1,
VPB2, VPB3, and VPB4
|
VPB5
|
0.771
|
|
Incidents
related to possessions
|
4
|
VIP1,
VIP2, VIP3, and VIP4
|
–
|
0.610
|
|
Bullying
behavior
|
Social
|
4
|
SB1,
SB2, SB3, and SB4
|
–
|
0.740
|
|
Verbal
|
5
|
VB1,
VB2, VB3, VB4, and VB5
|
–
|
0.763
|
|
Physical
|
5
|
PB1,
PB2, PB3, PB4, and PB5
|
PB6
|
0.859
|
|
Damaging
the possessions of others
|
3
|
DP1,
DP2, and DP3
|
DP4
|
0.779
|
The majority of
domains exceeded .7 in the Cronbach’s alpha test, apart from the three other
domains, namely, victim of social bullying (α = 0.583), victim of verbal
bullying (α = 0.675), and incidents related to possessions (α =
0.610). However, these domains remain acceptable due to the small number of
items in these domains. As Pallant (2013) statistically justified, Cronbach’s
alpha can be influenced by the number of items in scales, which include fewer than
10 items, and tend to obtain low Cronbach’s alpha values.
Table
3: Internal Validity of Subscales
|
Victimization subscale
|
|
Social
bullying
|
Verbal
bullying
|
Physical
bullying
|
Incidents
related to possessions
|
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
|
VSB1
|
0.704**
|
VVB1
|
0.682**
|
VPB1
|
0.753**
|
VIP1
|
0.700**
|
|
VSB2
|
0.632**
|
VVB2
|
0.531**
|
VPB2
|
0.894**
|
VIP2
|
0.761**
|
|
VSB3
|
0.561**
|
VVB3
|
0.472**
|
VPB3
|
0.883**
|
VIP3
|
0.623**
|
|
VSB4
|
0.793**
|
VVB4
|
0.585**
|
VPB4
|
0.456**
|
VIP4
|
0.627**
|
|
|
|
VVB5
|
0.774**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VVB6
|
0.686**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bully behavior subscale
|
|
Social
bullying
|
Verbal
bullying
|
Physical
bullying
|
Damaging
the possessions of others
|
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
Item
|
Alpha
|
|
SB1
|
0.561**
|
VB1
|
0.736**
|
PB1
|
0.827**
|
DP1
|
0.727**
|
|
SB2
|
0.914**
|
VB2
|
0.759**
|
PB2
|
0.950**
|
DP2
|
0.971**
|
|
SB3
|
0.806**
|
VB3
|
0.888**
|
PB3
|
0.691**
|
DP3
|
0.784**
|
|
SB4
|
0.873**
|
VB4
|
0.747**
|
PB4
|
0.668**
|
|
|
|
|
|
VB5
|
0.415**
|
PB5
|
0.955**
|
|
|
|
**Correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
|
According to Table
3, nearly all 35 items were significantly correlated with their domains, in
which the correlations ranged from 0.415 to 0.971, except for item 19, which
was weakly correlated with its domain. Moreover, the correlations between
domains and subscales were also significantly correlated with the results,
ranging from 0.658 to 0.960 (Table 4).
Table 4: Correlations Between Domains and Scales
|
Scales
|
Domains
|
|
Victimization
|
Social
bullying
|
Verbal
bullying
|
Physical
bullying
|
Incidents
related to possessions
|
|
0.658**
|
0.910**
|
0.887**
|
0.811**
|
|
Bully
behavior
|
Social
bullying
|
Verbal
bullying
|
Physical
bullying
|
Damaging
the possessions of others
|
|
0.863**
|
0.960**
|
0.935**
|
0.885**
|
|
**Correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
|
To ensure the
credibility of the interview, two researchers were involved in the coding
process to enhance the reliability and validity of the analysis. In the case of
discrepancy or disagreement, the coders discussed dissimilar codes to reach a
consensus and ensure the accuracy of the coding. In addition, one of the
researchers tended to maintain proper documentation throughout the process,
including detailed notes, memos, and an audit trail of decisions made. This
documentation aided in ensuring the transparency and traceability of the data
analysis process and enhances the overall validity and reliability of the
study.
2.7 Data Analysis
Data
analysis involves quantitative analyses of questionnaire data using SPSS 23 and
interview data using MaxQDA Pro. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies,
means, and standard deviations, were computed to summarize the demographic
information of the participants, which includes class, grade, GPA, and
sociability, including social concept, number of friends, and feelings toward
school. Inferential statistics, especially the t-test, were frequently
employed to examine group differences between gifted and nongifted students in
terms of bullying experiences, sociability, and feelings to explore
associations among sociability, feelings, and the likelihood of being a victim
or engaging in bullying behaviors.
The
coding strategy for the interview data can involve a thematic analysis
approach. First, interview recordings can be transcribed verbatim to ensure
accuracy in representing the responses of the social worker. The data were then
subjected to open coding, in which data are examined per line to identify
initial codes that capture important concepts or ideas related to school
bullying, victimization, bully behavior, impact of bullying, and school
procedures against bullying. The coding process was guided by the interview
questions and the emerging themes from the data. Following open coding, the
codes were organized into categories or themes that capture the major ideas and
patterns observed in the interview data. These categories were refined and
further developed through axial coding, which involves the examination of the
relationships between the codes and identifying subthemes or higher-order
themes. The process was iterative with constant comparisons made between data
segments to ensure consistency and coherence in the coding structure.
3.
Findings
This
section presents the findings based on descriptive statistics, inferential
statistics, and statements of the social worker. The section is divided into
three subheadings, namely, friendships and feelings, bullying and
victimization, and relationships among bullying, friendships, and feelings.
3.1 Sociability and Feelings
Beginning
with sociability, the study found interesting results from the analysis. Table
5 presents the findings that female students, who were identified as gifted,
exhibit higher degrees of sociability.
Table 5: Sociability Between Gifted and Nongifted
Groups
|
Number
of friends
|
None
|
Only
1 friend
|
2
to 3 friends
|
3
to 5 friends
|
Above
5 friends
|
Total
|
|
Group
|
Gifted
students
|
1
|
0
|
7
|
12
|
25
|
45
|
|
Nongifted
students
|
9
|
7
|
11
|
6
|
15
|
48
|
|
Total
|
|
10
|
7
|
18
|
18
|
40
|
93
|
Among the cohort
of 45 gifted students, 25 reported having more than five friends, while 12 out
of 45 attested to having a social network comprising four to five friends. The
study found that seven of the gifted students maintained a circle of two to three
friends, and only one reported the lack of any friends. Conversely, within the
cohort of 48 nongifted students, nine disclosed that they lacked friends
entirely, while an additional seven students indicated having only one friend.
Furthermore, 11 nongifted students were found to maintain two to three friends,
and merely 15 nongifted students reported having more than five friends. This
result demonstrates that gifted students have larger social networks, with the
majority having more than five friends. In contrast, a greater number of
nongifted students have limited social connections, because a significant
percentage reported having no friends at all or only one friend.
Fig. 1: Sociability among gifted and nongifted female
students
Figure 1 exposes
an interesting pattern of sociability among gifted and nongifted female
students. The study observed that many gifted female students (32 out of 45)
reported that their friends primarily consisted of other gifted students who
were also classmates. In contrast, the remaining gifted students (13 out of 45)
stated that a significant portion of their friends originated from different
classes, which indicates a broad social network. Conversely, a different trend
emerged from the nongifted students, because the majority (32 out of 48) had
friends from various classrooms, which suggests a diverse social circle.
From
another angle, sociability and feelings toward school are compared between the
two groups. t-Test analysis revealed a statistically significant
differentiation in terms of sociability between gifted (M = 4.33, SD = 0.91)
and nongifted (M = 3.23, SD = 1.51) female students, as attested by the t-statistic
(t(77.85) = −4.318, p < 0.001). Furthermore, another
statistically significant distinction was observed in feelings toward school,
in which gifted students (M = 3.58, SD = 0.54) demonstrate a favorable disposition
compared with nongifted students (M = 3.06, SD = 1.04; t(91) =
−2.966, p < 0.001). These results are followed by a correlation
test to examine potential connections. The study found a significant positive
correlation between sociability and feelings toward school (r = 0.520, p
< 0.001).
3.2 Victimization and Bullying
The
study examined experiences of bullying by utilizing two distinct subscales,
namely, one focused on being a victim of bullying and the other on bullying
behavior. The results presented substantial disparities in subscales between
the gifted and nongifted groups. Regarding victimization, the mean score of the
gifted group (M = 1.42, SD = 0.38) was notably lower than that of the nongifted
group (M = 2.57, SD = 0.47), which results in a highly significant t-test
statistic (t(91) = 12.912, p < 0.001). Similarly, the subscale
related to perpetrating bullying behavior indicated that the gifted group (M =
1.17, SD = 0.29) displayed a lower mean score compared with that of the
nongifted group (M = 2.77, SD = 0.45), which signifies a reduced tendency
toward bullying behavior among the gifted students (t(72.652) = 21.619, p
< 0.001).
These
findings suggested that gifted students are less likely to experience
victimization and are less prone to engaging in bullying behavior compared with
their nongifted counterparts. To gain a nuanced understanding of these results,
the study conducted further comparisons to examine specific domains within each
subscale (Table 6).
Analysis
revealed substantial differences in victims of bullying between gifted and
nongifted groups. The gifted students consistently reported significantly lower
mean scores across various dimensions of bullying, including social (M = 1.34
vs. M = 2.48), verbal (M = 1.53 vs. M = 2.67), and physical (M = 1.15 vs. M =
2.57) bullying, and incidents related to personal possessions (M = 1.42 vs. M =
2.57), compared with their nongifted counterparts in regular classes. These
findings underscore that nongifted students are more likely to experience and
engage in these forms of bullying as victims, as evidenced by the higher mean
scores. Furthermore, SDs indicated that although both groups exhibit
variability in their responses, students from regular classes tend to have
slightly more varied experiences in these bullying dimensions. These findings
highlighted a notable disparity in victimization between gifted and nongifted
students.
Table 6: Differences Between Gifted and Nongifted
Groups Regarding Bullying Dimensions
|
Subscale
|
Domain
|
Class
type
|
N
|
M
|
SD
|
Equality
of variances
|
df
|
t
|
Sig.
|
|
Victim
|
Social
bullying
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.48
|
0.57
|
Assumed
|
91
|
10.937
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.34
|
0.42
|
|
Verbal
bullying
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.67
|
0.54
|
Assumed
|
91
|
9.869
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.53
|
0.57
|
|
Physical
bullying
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.57
|
0.65
|
Not
assumed
|
66.55
|
13.456
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.15
|
0.29
|
|
Incidents
of related possessions
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.57
|
0.47
|
Assumed
|
91
|
6.696
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.42
|
0.38
|
|
Behavior
|
Social
bullying
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.56
|
0.68
|
Not
assumed
|
76.81
|
12.092
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.18
|
0.40
|
|
Verbal
bullying
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.60
|
0.48
|
Assumed
|
91
|
15.909
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.17
|
0.37
|
|
Physical
bullying
|
Regular
|
48
|
2.78
|
0.54
|
Not
assumed
|
86.61
|
16.707
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.14
|
0.40
|
|
Damaging
the possessions of others
|
Regular
|
48
|
3.13
|
0.70
|
Assumed
|
91
|
16.853
|
0.000*
|
|
Gifted
|
45
|
1.20
|
0.32
|
Furthermore, a
comprehensive analysis of the dimensions of bullying behavior between gifted
and nongifted groups pointed to consistent disparities. The gifted students
consistently obtained significantly lower mean scores across various forms of
bullying behavior, including social (M = 1.18 vs. M = 2.56), verbal (M = 1.17
vs. M = 2.60), and physical (M = 1.14 vs. M = 2.78) bullying and the tendency
to damage the possessions of others (M = 1.20 vs. M = 3.13), compared with
nongifted students in regular classes. These findings emphasized that nongifted
students are more likely to behave as bullies. SD values indicate variability
in responses within both groups, but unequal variances in a few dimensions
necessitated the use of Welch’s t-test, which still confirmed
significant differences between groups. In summary, this data highlights the
notable distinction in bullying behavior between the gifted and nongifted
students, which underscores the significance of addressing and preventing bullying
within educational contexts.
3.3 Bullying, Sociability, and Feelings
Table
7 provides compelling insights into the relationship between bullying
victimization and two critical variables, namely, socialization and feelings
among the participants. Strong negative associations characterized these
correlations, which indicates the significance of these factors in mitigating
bullying experiences.
Table 7: Correlations Among Sociability, Feelings, and
Domains of Victimization
|
|
|
Victim
of
social
bullying
|
Victim
of
verbal
bullying
|
Victim
of
physical
bullying
|
Incidents
related
to
personal
possessions
|
Total
victimization
|
|
Socialization
|
Pearson’s
correlation
Sig.
(two-tailed)
|
−0.391**
0.000
|
−0.273**
0.008
|
−0.373**
0.000
|
−0.222*
0.032
|
−0.353**
0.001
|
|
Feelings
|
Pearson’s
correlation
Sig.
(two-tailed)
|
−0.370**
0.000
|
−0.267**
0.010
|
−0.179
0.085
|
−0.232*
0.025
|
−0.290**
0.005
|
Notably,
heightened levels of socialization were strongly linked to reduced
victimization in various dimensions, including social (r = −0.391,
p < 0.001), verbal (r = −0.273, p = 0.008), and
physical (r = −0.373, p < 0.001) bullying and incidents
related to personal possessions (r = −0.222, p = 0.032).
These findings underscore that individuals who are more socially engaged are
less likely to experience different forms of bullying, which highlights the
protective role of social interaction. Additionally, a global measure of total
victimization demonstrated a strong negative correlation with socialization (r
= −0.353, p = 0.001), which reaffirms the universal protective
impact of socialization against bullying across various domains.
Similarly,
feelings toward the school environment exhibit substantial negative
correlations with bullying victimization. Positive feelings are strongly linked
to a reduced likelihood of being victims of social (r = −0.370, p
< 0.001) and verbal (r = −0.267, p = 0.010) bullying.
Although the correlation between feelings and physical bullying victimization
is statistically nonsignificant (r = −0.179, p = 0.085), it
suggests a potential protective effect. Furthermore, the association between
positive feelings and incidents related to personal possessions was
significantly negative (r = −0.232, p = 0.025), which
emphasizes the role of positive attitudes in reducing such victimization.
Ultimately, feelings are also negatively correlated with the total measure of
victimization (r = −0.290, p = 0.005), which emphasizes
their universal protective impact against bullying.
Table
8 provides critical insights into the interplay between bullying behavior and
two key variables, namely, socialization and feelings within the participant
groups. Strong negative associations characterized these correlations, which
underscored the pivotal roles of these factors in the formation of bullying
dynamics. Socialization emerges as a significant protective factor against
various forms of bullying behavior, as evidenced by strong negative
correlations between socialization and social (r = −0.331, p
= 0.001), verbal (r = −0.288, p = 0.005), and physical (r
= −0.362, p < 0.001) bullying and incidents related to damaging
the possessions of others (r = −0.348, p = 0.001). These
findings emphasized that individuals actively engaged in social interactions
are less likely to engage in bullying behaviors, which highlights the
preventive role of socialization.
Table 8: Correlations Among Sociability, Feelings, and
Domains of Bully Behavior
|
|
|
Social
bullying
|
Verbal
bullying behavior
|
Physical
bullying behavior
|
Damaging
the
possessions
of
others
|
Total
bullying behavior
|
|
Sociability
|
Pearson’s
correlation
Sig.
(two-tailed)
|
−0.331**
0.001
|
−0.288**
0.005
|
−0.362**
0.000
|
−0.348**
0.001
|
−0.361**
0.000
|
|
Feelings
|
Pearson
correlation
Sig.
(two-tailed)
|
−0.362**
0.000
|
−0.286**
0.005
|
−0.260*
0.012
|
−0.242*
0.019
|
−0.307**
0.003
|
In a parallel
fashion, positive feelings toward the school environment emerge as a robust
protective factor against bullying behavior. Positive feelings are strongly
associated with the reduced likelihood of participating in social (r =
−0.362, p < 0.001) and verbal (r = −0.286, p
= 0.005) bullying, which indicates the role of positive attitudes in deterring
these forms of bullying behavior. Although the correlations between physical
bullying behavior (r = −0.260, p = 0.012) and incidents
related to damaging the possessions of others (r = −0.242, p
= 0.019) are slightly lower, they continue to emphasize the essential role of
positive feelings in preventing these types of bullying behavior. The total
measure of bullying behavior also exhibits a strong negative correlation with
socialization (r = −0.361, p < 0.001) and feelings (r
= −0.307, p = 0.003), which reiterates the universal protective
impact of these factors against engaging in various forms of bullying behavior.
3.4 School Social Services Versus Bullying Experiences
The
personal interview with the social worker yielded a range of results that shed
light on the prevalence, types, causes, evaluation methods, and management of
bullying. The social worker stated the following:
…
bullying occurs daily, primarily among eighth and ninth-grade female students,
with occasional minor problems swiftly resolved, but severe cases necessitate
intervention by the school’s social services office … typically ranging from
one to two cases per week …. These problems among gifted students are much less
prevalent, potentially attributed to their smaller class sizes or superior
communication skills.
Verbal
bullying emerged as the most common form of bullying among female students,
followed by property damage, with physical bullying as the least frequent.
Several motivations for bullying were identified, including “feelings of power
and boldness, boredom, jealousy, competition …, family issues, and domestic
violence. Occasionally, students may support their friends in disputes and
engage in bullying as a form of support.”
The
social services of the school employ two primary strategies, namely,
community-level guidance (e.g., enlightening sessions, workshops, and
qualitative training sessions), while individual counseling services encompass
four categories, namely, addressing behavioral, social, and familial issues,
scholastic hindrances, and special educational needs, in addition to
health-related concerns. Paying attention to bullying cases falls under the
domain of behavioral, social, and familial issues, which involves collaboration
between the social worker, a psychological specialist, and, if necessary,
interviews with counselors, parents, and teachers to diagnose and address the
problem.
The
social services office aims to support victims and bullies to understand the
issue and prevent its recurrence. The counselor frequently seeks psychological
relief, support, and safety in the cooperation among the social worker,
psychological specialist, and school administration, “as it constitutes half of
the remedy. The other half involves an anti-bullying program that focuses on
strengthening the counselor’s social circle” and enhances communication skills
through “various enjoyable activities aimed at mitigating different bullying
issues, fostering a sense of belonging, social acceptance, and emotional
relief,” and encouraging participation in the “school’s social and skill-based
activities such as art, music, and agriculture.”
4.
Discussion
The
result fills a gap in the literature by providing insight into the various
manifestations of school bullying experienced by gifted and nongifted students
in the State of Kuwait. Additionally, the research intended to examine the
relationship between giftedness and levels of bullying and victimization, as
well as to find out the relationships between bullying victimization and the type
of education and between sociability and feelings. Lastly, the study aimed to
identify potential interventions and prevention strategies for bullying
behavior.
4.1 Difference Between Gifted and Nongifted Students
in Sociability and Feeling Toward Schools
During
the data collection and analysis, a trend that emerged was that the gifted
female students demonstrated higher levels of sociability compared with their
nongifted peers. The study found that many gifted female students reported that
their closest friends were also high-achieving peers. However, a distinct
pattern appeared among average students: they were more likely to have friends
outside of their classroom, which suggests a diverse social circle.
This
finding can be linked to earlier observations on the sociability tendencies of
gifted and nongifted students. The fact that the friends of the majority of the
gifted students are also gifted may reflect shared academic interests and
abilities. Alternatively, the inclination of nongifted students to make friends
from different classrooms may signify a broader range of social connections,
which could be influenced by various factors beyond academic performance. These
patterns of socialization shed light on the potential impact of educational
grouping and academic identity on the social networks of students.
This
result implies the existence of a robust association between socialization
levels and attitudes toward school. Students who exhibited high levels of
socialization tended to hold more positive views regarding school experiences.
These findings are in line with those of Francis et al. (2016), who proposed
that gifted students displayed stronger socio-emotional abilities and fewer
behavioral difficulties than their nongifted classmates.
4.2 Difference in Bullying and Victimization Between
Gifted and Nongifted Students
One
of the most important results is that gifted students are less likely to
experience victimization and are less prone to engaging in bullying behaviors
compared to their nongifted counterparts. This result follows that of Erwin
(2015), who reported that gifted students were much less likely to experience
victimization compared with nongifted peers across forms of victimization.
However,
studies that compared the prevalence of bullying among gifted and nongifted
students produced different conclusions, because the data of certain studies,
such as Ryoo et al. (2017) and Garcia et al. (2020), suggested that no
differences exist in bullying and victimization between gifted and nongifted
students. However, this finding is in contrast with those of Dalosto and
Alencar (2013) and González-Cabrera et al. (2019), who revealed that gifted
students frequently experienced bullying at school in various forms.
A
potential explanation for the higher rate of prevalence of bullying among
nongifted students is the fact that the number of gifted students is very
limited per grade level; that is, they do not exceed 40 students per grade and
are divided into two classrooms. These students stay together from the sixth to
twelfth grades and do not want to engage in bullying behavior, because they
will need to stay together until graduation from high school. Therefore, the
phenomenon of bullying is small for them, because they know each other and are
socially together, which leads to the response to the following research
question.
4.3 Relationships Between Bullying Victimization and
Type of Education and Between Sociability and Feelings
In
the context of Kuwait, this study is the first to identify the relationship between
bullying victimization and socialization with feelings. Consistent with
previous studies, the results underline the protective function of social
interaction, which demonstrates that social engagement is negatively correlated
with various types of bullying. In addition, social engagement is positively
correlated with positive feelings toward the school. Collectively, these
findings underscore the pivotal role of socialization and feelings in
cultivating a positive, inclusive, and socially supportive school culture,
which effectively reduces the prevalence of bullying experiences among students
(Ryoo et al., 2017). A possibility exists that the greater the social interaction
of students, the stronger the sense of belonging to others, which decreases
bullying and victimization. More precisely, addressing the relationship between
gifted students' sociability, feelings towards school, and bullying requires a
multifaceted approach that prioritizes both prevention and intervention
strategies. Creating a positive and inclusive school climate that celebrates
diversity, promotes empathy and respect, and provides support for
social-emotional development can help mitigate the risk of bullying and foster
a sense of belonging for all students, including the gifted (Cross, 2015).
4.4 Prevention and Intervention Strategies for
Bullying
The
findings continue to support the importance of prevention and intervention
strategies for bullying. The social services of the school use two major
strategies for preventing bullying. The first is community-level guidance,
which includes illuminating seminars, workshops, and qualitative training
sessions. The second refers to individual counseling services, which are
classified into four areas, namely, solutions for behavioral, social, and
familial issues, academic difficulties, special educational requirements, and
health-related concerns. Bullying occurs within the context of behavioral,
social, and familial concerns, which requires coordination between social
workers and psychological experts and interviews with counselors, parents, and
teachers, if necessary, to diagnose and solve the problem.
The
social services office intends to understand the problem and prevent its
recurrence by assisting victims and bullies. As it constitutes half of the
remedy, a counselor frequently finds psychological comfort, support, and safety
in the collaboration among social workers, psychological experts, and school
administrations. The other half consists of an anti-bullying program that
focuses on “strengthening the counselor’s social circle” and improving
communication skills through “various enjoyable activities aimed at mitigating
different bullying issues, fostering a sense of belonging, social acceptance,
and emotional relief.” It encourages participation in the “social and
skill-based activities, such as art, music, and agriculture, of the school.”
Instead
of assuming that gifted students are immune to victimization, educators should
focus on their experiences for the prevention of bullying of gifted students.
The findings collectively underscore the need to cultivate positive school
environments and promote active socialization and positive attitudes to create
a culture that reduces bullying behavior, which ultimately contributes to a
safer and more inclusive educational setting that welcomes gifted and nongifted
students. In other words, by fostering a supportive and nurturing school
environment, educators and school communities can promote the well-being and
academic success of gifted students while preventing and addressing the harmful
effects of bullying (Cross, 2015). In addition, educators should consider the
vulnerability and unique characteristics of gifted students and help them
develop problem-solving and socioemotional skills to cope with peer
victimization because it is likely that, for gifted students, the perpetration
of bullying is related to prior experiences with victimization. Given that
gifted students are more susceptible to covert forms of bullying (relational
perpetration), formulating interventions for all forms of bullying, including
verbal and relational bullying, is imperative for educators instead of focusing
solely on physical bullying. Students may be safeguarded from bullying and
victimization only if preventive and intervention measures are developmentally
appropriate, address all (gifted and nongifted) students, and consider
individual characteristics (e.g., grade, giftedness) (Ryoo et al., 2017).
4.5 Limitations and Recommendations
Although
the findings appear instructive, the study has its limitations.
The conclusions were confined to data acquired from a self-reported
questionnaire, which was mostly reliant on the personal opinions of students.
Second, the findings are based on quantitative and qualitative approaches (interviews).
Thus, further research should incorporate other qualitative methods, such as
evaluation, observation, and longitudinal follow-up, to corroborate the
findings. Third, data were derived only from the students and the social
worker. Therefore, future research should collect data on bullying from various
sources (e.g., peers, teachers, and families). Lastly, conduct experimental
research to identify evidence-based practices that contribute to the creation
of safer, more inclusive learning environments for all students.
References
Aydın,
Y. E., Çok, R., Dengiz, G. & Tunç, E. (2022). Investigation of Peer
Relationships of Gifted and Non-Gifted High School Students. Kastamonu
Education Journal, 30(1), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.685221
Chen,
C. C., Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K., & Mehtaji, M. (2015).
Exceptionality and peer victimization involvement in late childhood: Subtypes,
stability, and social marginalization. Remedial and Special Education, 36(5),
312– 324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515579242
Cross,
R. J.(2015). Gifted Children and Peer Relationships. School of Education
book chapters. 20. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/educationbookchapters/20/
Connolly,
J. P. (2018). Exploring the factors influencing gifted adolescents' resistance
to report experiences of cyberbullying behavior: Toward an improved
understanding. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(2), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218763869
Dalosto,
M. de, & Alencar, E. M. (2013). Manifestações e prevalência de bullyng
Entre Alunos com Altas habilidades/superdotação. Revista Brasileira de
Educação Especial, 19(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-65382013000300005
Erwin,
J. (2015). Prevalence and impact of peer victimization among gifted
adolescents. [Tesis Doctoral, University of California, Berkeley].
Espelage,
D. L., & King, M. T. (2018). Bullying and the gifted. APA Handbook of
Giftedness and Talent, 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-043
Estell,
D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah, D. J.
(2009). Students with exceptionalities and the peer group context of bullying
and victimization in late elementary school. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 18(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1
González-Cabrera,
J., Tourón, J., Ortega-Barón, J., Montiel, I., & Machimbarrena, J. M.
(2022). Are gifted students more victimized than nongifted students? A
comparison in prevalence and relation to psychological variables in early
adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 43(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316211058065
González-Cabrera,
Tourón, Machimbarrena, Gutiérrez-Ortega, Álvarez-Bardón, & Garaigordobil.
(2019). Cyberbullying in gifted students: Prevalence and psychological
well-being in a Spanish sample. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(12), 2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122173
Guilbault,
K. M., & MacFarlane, B. (2021). Bullying. Critical Issues and Practices
in Gifted Education, 75–87. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233961-7
Jadambaa,
A., Thomas, H. J., Scott, J. G., Graves, N., Brain, D., & Pacella, R.
(2019). The contribution of bullying victimisation to the burden of anxiety and
depressive disorders in Australia. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences,
29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796019000489
Jumper,
R. L. (2019). Communicating about bullying: Examining disclosure among gifted
students. Gifted Education International, 35(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429418824113
Lee,
S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2012). Academically gifted
students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568
MacFarlane,
B., & Mina, K. (2018). Cyberbullying and the gifted: Considerations for
social and emotional development. Gifted Child Today, 41(3),
130–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768362
Ogurlu,
U., & Sarıçam, H. (2018). Bullying, forgiveness and submissive
behaviors in gifted students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(9),
2833–2843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1138-9
Olweus,
D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Blackwell.
Pallant,
J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis
using IBM SPSS. 4th edition. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Peairs,
K. F., Putallaz, M., & Costanzo, P. R. (2019). From A (aggression) to V
(victimization): Peer status and adjustment among academically gifted students
in early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219838973
Pelchar,
T. K., & Bain, S. K. (2014). Bullying and victimization among gifted
children in school-level transitions. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 37(4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214552566
Peterson,
J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006a). Bullying and the gifted: Victims,
perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2),
148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000206
Peterson,
J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying among the gifted: The subjective
experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000305
Renzulli,
J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the New
Century. Exceptionality, 10(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1002_2
Ryoo,
J. H., Wang, C., Swearer, S. M., & Park, S. (2017). Investigation of
transitions in bullying/victimization statuses of gifted and general education
students. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 396–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917698500
Sabah
AlAhmad Center for Giftedness and Creativity (2018). “Gifted classes program”.
https://mawhoob.redsoft.org/info.aspx?tp=8
Sureda-Garcia,
I., López-Penades, R., Rodríguez-Rodríguez , R., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2020).
Cyberbullying and Internet Addiction in Gifted and Nongifted Teenagers. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 64(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220919338
UNESCO.
(2017). School violence and bullying: Global status report. Paris,
France: UNESCO. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/news/new-unesco-report-school-violence-and-bullying-bereleased-international-symposium-issue
V´ıllora,
B., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., Alfaro, A., & Navarro, R. (2020). Relations
among poly-bullying victimization, subjective well-being and resilience in a
sample of late adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(2), 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020590
Final declaration:
-
The author/s declare that they got the required voluntary
human participants’ consent to participate in the study as well as the necessary
institutional approvals.
-
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
تصريحات
ختامية:
-
يصرح
المؤلف/المؤلفون
بالحصول على
موافقة الأشخاص
المتطوعين
للمشاركة في
الدراسة وعلى
الموافقات
المؤسسية
اللازمة.
-
تتوفر
البيانات
الناتجة و/أو
المحلَّلة
المتصلة بهذه
الدراسة من
المؤلف
المراسل عند
الطلب.
Journal of Educational Sciences, Qatar University 
مجلة
العلوم
التربوية