| Literature DB >> 26606393 |
Dario Bacchini1, Maria Rosaria Licenziati2, Alessandra Garrasi3, Nicola Corciulo4, Daniela Driul5, Rita Tanas6, Perla Maria Fiumani7, Elena Di Pietro8, Sabino Pesce9, Antonino Crinò10, Giulio Maltoni11, Lorenzo Iughetti12, Alessandro Sartorio13, Manuela Deiana14, Francesca Lombardi15, Giuliana Valerio16.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Being overweight or obese is one of the most common reasons that children and adolescents are teased at school. We carried out a study in order to investigate: i) the relation between weight status and school bullying and ii) the relation between weight status categories and types of victimization and bullying in an outpatient sample of Italian children and adolescents with different degrees of overweight from minimal overweight up to severe obesity. PARTICIPANTS/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26606393 PMCID: PMC4659571 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Bullying roles by weight status.
| NW (n = 129) | OW (n = 126) | Mod-OB (n = 568) | Sev-OB (n = 124) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| f (%); SR | f (%); SR | f (%); SR | f (%); SR | |
| Bullies (n = 67) | 16 (12.4%); 2.5 | 11 (8.7%); 0.8 | 36 (6.3%); -1.1 | 4 (3.2%); -1.8 |
| Victims (n = 260) | 29 (22.5%); -1.4 | 25 (19.8%); -1.9 | 169 (29.9%); 1.9 | 37 (29.8%); 0.8 |
| Bully-Victims (n = 315) | 27 (20.9%); -3.2 | 43 (34.1%); 0.2 | 190 (33.5%); 0.2 | 55 (44.4%); 2.8 |
| Not-involved (n = 305) | 57 (44.2%); 3.1 | 47 (37.3%); 1.3 | 173 (30.5%); -1.4 | 28 (22.6%); -2.5 |
Note: Cross tabulation bullying roles by weight status. Observed frequencies (f), percentages (%; by column) and standardized residuals by chi square test (SR)
* p < .05 (standardized residuals ± 2)
Victimization and weight status.
| Weight Status | Gender | Gender by Weight Status | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NW | % | OW | % | Mod-OB | % | Sev-OB | % | F | F | F | |
| Teasing for physical appearance | 1.39a±.11 | 11.7 | 1.65a ±.11 | 21.4 | 2.10b ±.05 | 38.1 | 2.624c ±.12 | 54.0 | 24,59 | .42 | 3.93 |
| Teasing for other reasons | 1.50 ±.09 | 15.5 | 1.37 ±.09 | 12.8 | 1.46 ±.04 | 15.8 | 1.65 ±.09 | 23.4 | 1.36 | .68 | 1.38 |
| Name calling | 1.24 a ±.10 | 10.1 | 1.62 b ±.10 | 20.6 | 1.74 b ±.05 | 24.7 | 2.15 c ±.11 | 44.4 | 14.01 | .03 | 0.8 |
| Physical victimization | 1.22 a ±.08 | 5.4 | 1.32 ±.08 | 8.7 | 1.41 ±.04 | 11.5 | 1.54 b ±.08 | 21.0 | 3.23 | 3.38 | 1.91 |
| Threatens | 1.04 a ±.05 | 0.8 | 1.16 ±.05 | 5.6 | 1.18 ±.02 | 5.5 | 1.34 b ±.05 | 11.3 | 3.39 | 1.85 | 425 |
| Spreading rumors | 1.24 ±.07 | 8.5 | 1.33 ±.07 | 11.9 | 1.36 ±.04 | 11.5 | 1.39 ±.07 | 14.5 | 1.19 | .03 | 3.67 |
| Ignoring | 1.17 ±.07 | 6.3 | 1.18 ±.06 | 6.2 | 1.33 ±.04 | 10.1 | 1.35 ± .07 | 14.5 | 2.54 | .09 | 2.72 |
| Stealing | 1.40 ±.09 | 8.5 | 1.59 ±.08 | 20.6 | 1.52 ±.04 | 15.9 | 1.76 ±.09 | 26.6 | 2.20 | .14 | 1.36 |
| Exclusion from sports activities | 1.12 a ±.07 | 3.9 | 1.24 ±.07 | 8.7 | 1.31 ±.03 | 10.4 | 1.52 b ±.07 | 18.5 | 4.48 | 1.36 | .08 |
| Exclusion from group activities | 1.18 a ±.08 | 5.4 | 1.33 ±.08 | 10.4 | 1.42b ±.04 | 14.3 | 1.59 b ± .08 | 18.5 | 4.66 | .08 | -03 |
| Exclusion from parties | 1.21 ±.07 | 7.8 | 1.25 ±.07 | 8.7 | 1.38 ±.03 | 12.5 | 1.36 ±.07 | 10.5 | 2.47 | .03 | .07 |
| Total Victimization score | 12.48a ±.64 | 13.62a, b ±.44 | 14.85b ±.20 | 17.14c ±.44 | 16.62 | .07 | 2.15 | ||||
Note: Comparison between normal weight, overweight, moderate obese and severe obese participants. Adjusted means, standard errors, percentages, ANOVA’s F values, and statistical significance. Percentages indicate the numbers of subjects who declare to have been victimized 2 or 3 times a month or more. ANOVA was performed on log transformed values, but untransformed data are shown. Different letters indicate statistical differences (p < .05) between groups based on adjusted means and Sidak post-hoc test
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
Fig 1Interaction gender by weight status for victimization.
The graph shows the different increase of victimization in males and females in function of the weight status.
Bullying and weight status.
| Weight Status | Gender | Gender by Weight Status | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NW | % | OW | % | Mod-OB | % | Sev-OB | % | F | F | F | |
| Teasing for physical appearance | 1.24 ±.07 | 9.3 | 1.31 ±.07 | 9.5 | 1.35 ±.03 | 10.6 | 1.38 ±.06 | 14.5 | 0.87 | 3.57 | 1.99 |
| Teasing for other reasons | 1.24 ±.07 | 10.3 | 1.27 ±.07 | 6.4 | 1.29 ±.03 | 8.9 | 1.31 ±.06 | 10.6 | 0.25 | 2.84 | 2.40 |
| Name calling | 1.34 ±.08 | 10.2 | 1.38 ±.07 | 13.5 | 1.38 ±.03 | 11.9 | 1.51 ±.08 | 18.5 | 1.1 | 4.49 | 1.54 |
| Physical bullying | 1.15 a ±.06 | 3.9 | 1.26 ±.03 | 7.1 | 1.24 ±.06 | 6.9 | 1.45 b ±.06 | 16.1 | 3.67 | 6.40 | 4.79 |
| Threatens | 1.04 a ±.04 | 0.8 | 1.12 ±.04 | 3.2 | 1.08a ±.02 | 2.3 | 1.23 b ±.04 | 8.9 | 4.31 | 5.89 | 1.82 |
| Spreading rumors | 1.07 ±.04 | 1.6 | 1.16 ±.04 | 5.6 | 1.09 ±.02 | 2.1 | 1.16 ±.04 | 5.7 | 1.98 | .97 | 2.58 |
| Ignoring others | 1.54 ±.08 | 18.8 | 1.66 ±.08 | 24,6 | 1.60 ±.04 | 19.1 | 1.58 ± .09 | 21.8 | 0.4 | .06 | 2.58 |
| Stealing | 1.05 ±.04 | 2.3 | 1.13 ±.04 | 2.4 | 1.10 ±.02 | 2.8 | 1.14 ±.04 | 4.8 | 1.10 | .72 | 5.54 |
| Exclusion from sports activities | 1.21 ±.05 | 6.3 | 1.18 ±.04 | 3.2 | 1.15 ±.02 | 4.8 | 1.21 ±.05 | 8.1 | 0.7 | 10.33 | 2.26 |
| Exclusion from group activities | 1.18 a ±.06 | 7.0 | 1.27 ±.06 | 8.7 | 1.18a ±.03 | 5.3 | 1.37b ± .06 | 13.7 | 2.18 | .61 | 4.27 |
| Exclusion from parties | 1.20 ±.06 | 4.7 | 1.21 ±.06 | 7.1 | 1.23 ±.03 | 7.3 | 1.31 ±.06 | 11.3 | 0.68 | .92 | 3.02 |
| Total Bullying score | 12.22a ±.32 | 12.89 ±.31 | 12,62 ±.14 | 13.48b ±.32 | 2.87 | 5.30 | 8.04 | ||||
Note: Comparison between normal weight, overweight, moderate obese and severe obese. Adjusted means, standard errors, percentages, ANOVA’s F values, and statistical significance. Percentages indicate the numbers of subjects who declare to bully others 2 or 3 times a month or more. ANOVA was performed on log transformed values, but untransformed data are shown. Different letters indicate statistical differences (p < .05) between groups based on adjusted means and Sidak post-hoc test
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
Fig 2Interaction gender by weight status for bullying.
The graph show the different increase of bullying in males and females in function of the weight status.