The phenomenon of bullying, characterised by systematic and unprovoked acts of aggression (physical, verbal or indirect), is to be studied in the free play situation. The application of observational methods to study bullying behaviours in the playground situation is useful for at least two main reasons. The first is that the playground offers an ideal environment to study spontaneous social and aggressive behaviours, and the organisation of the group. The situation observed in a playground serves as a natural context for many social developments (such as positive and negative social behaviours). The time spent in the playground is really the primary focus of social interactions with peers. The second is that school bullying, in many cases, takes place in the playground, according to a lot of data (Whitney & Smith, 1993; Genta & al., 1996). Previous research has observed bullies' and victims' behaviours (Boulton, 1995; Costabile et al., 1997) in the playground with the help of an ethological checklist. In the TMR working group it is intended to study bullies and victim's behaviour in the playground context according to ethological methodology, and at the same time, to combine this with two other approaches: an integration of sociobiology and ethology with an interest in reciprocal and non reciprocal movements, considering both the status position (bully and victim) and the internal coordination of these movements; and an approach based upon the theory of dynamic systems, in which interest is on the quality of communication evaluated according to the Relational Coding System (Fogel, 1997) with the use of categories: symmetrical and asymmetrical co-regulation, coercion and non-regulation.
Systematic observation is important in many areas of psychology. It has been widely used in studies of infant animal behaviour in play and real fighting. Several studies have shown that play fighting can provide some benefits to the participants and overall may develop fighting skills (Humphreys & Smith, 1987) and practice social skills (Pellegrini, 1988). Some studies have investigated the importance of interactions between peers observed in the playground (Boulton 1991; Carvalho, Smith, Hunter & Costabile, 1990; Humphreys & Smith, 1987; Pellegrini, 1987, 1988; Smith & Boulton, 1990). These studies noted that the playground is a place of intense social interaction and strong physical activity. It seems that the time spent in the playground is really the primary focus on social interaction with peers, but it can take both positive and negative forms.
One of the most important issues in the study of bullying is the place where it occurs, frequently this is the playground. As many studies have shown, bullies intimidate their victims more often in contexts where adults are rarely present, and when children play in a free way. This place is the playground, where children play and interact more intensively, so it is easier to observe bullies and victims. Whitney and Smith (1993) found, in their survey on a large sample of primary school pupils in England, that the children were bullied in the playground more than elsewhere: about 75 per cent, compared to 30 per cent in the classroom and 13 per cent in the corridors.
It is interesting to note that bullying tends to be manifested in different ways for boys and girls. Girls are more involved in indirect bullying while that involving boys is more often physical (Rivers & Smith, 1994). Children's aggression develops with age from physical to direct verbal aggression to indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992).
Observation is a way to watch and to study a particular phenomenon. Through systematic observations we can get much more knowledge about an event than in other ways; so to study school bullying through direct observation will bring us more information about what happens, verbal and non-verbal communication, verbal and non-verbal responses, and the cause and effect of actions. The naturalistic method can be used to explore school bullying; it allows us to record information about what happens in the playground and in peer-interaction.
Traditionally observational methods used in studying bullying have been either laboratory or naturalistic. Observational studies in the laboratory have made an important contribution to our knowledge of bullying and intimidation behaviours (Dodge et al., 1990). Nevertheless, some limitations should be mentioned, like external validity, and the contextual effects on the children. Therefore, the naturalistic method could be a more ecological way of studying the children's interactions (Boulton, 1995; Craig & Pepler, 1994; Koyama & Smith, 1991; Pepler, Craig & Roberts, 1998).
Some observational studies using a focused child time-sampling schedule have been useful in studying differences between bullies and victims in terms of size of the group or type of activities involved (Boulton, 1995). However, the use of video recording can enable researchers to analyse the interactions in more detail, and also to explore causes and effects of the behaviours (Pepler & Craig, 1995). There is still a problem associated with this technique: recording verbal interactions. Video recording is useful for the behaviours but not for verbal interactions. Pepler and Craig developed a special technique putting radio-microphones in the children's clothes in order to solve this problem.
SMILING (SM) = a child smiles at another;
EMBRACING (EM) = a child embraces another or puts his arm on another's shoulder;
KISSING (K) = a child kisses another;
HOLDING HANDS (H) = a child holds hands with another;
CARESS (C) = a child caresses the face or a part of another 's body;
LOOKING (L) = a child looks at another;
WALKING TOWARDS (W) = a child walks toward another or a peer group;
WALKING FOLLOWING (WF) = a child walks following another or a peer group;
WALKING ALONGSIDE (WA) = a child walks alongside another;
POINTING (PO) = a child indicates something to another;
SHOWING AN OBJECT (SHO) = a child indicates an object to another;
TOUCHING FRIENDLY (T) = a child touches another one with the aim of calling him/her, or involving him/her in a game;
TALKING (TA) = a child talks to another;
ATTRACTING ATTENTION VERBALLY (AAV) = a child invites another to look, calls another, says something in a loud voice to another, asks something loudly;
DISPLAYING VERBALLY (DV) = a child draw attention to one's own qualities e.g. "I can";
SINGING (S) = a child sings a song or encourages another to sing;
HELPING (HE) = a child helps another;
DEFENDING/PROTECTING (DP) = a child during a dispute or a discussion, defends another or tries to protect him from something;
DANCING (D) = when a child dances together with others or performs dancing steps or physical exercises.
We named the social categories according to McGrew's studies.
PLAY WITH OBJECT (PO) = a child plays with an object, tramples upon it, handles it;
PLAY WITH RULES (PR) = every game with rules to be followed, in which the child is involved (soccer, hopscotch, catch);
WITHOUT RULES(PsR) = a child is involved in spontaneous play which requires neither fixed rules nor the reaching of a particular aim;
PLAY ATTEMPT SUCCEEDED = a child provokes another one into looking at him, smiling at him, chasing him or getting involved in a game;
PLAY ATTEMPT NOT SUCCEEDED = as above but the child attempts without succeeding.
We named the social categories according to Blurton Jones' studies.
Each category presents the facial expression called "play-face", a laughing expression, showing teeth. Usually the children stay together after the encounter.
FIGHTING (F) = two or more child interact physically by, for example, pushing, pulling, and grasping;
RUNNING (R ) = a child's body moves forward at a rapid pace;
CHASING (CH) = a child runs suddenly, changing direction, towards or away from another; usually, this behaviour involves 3 or 4 children.
HITTING WITH AN OBJECT (HO) = a child hits with an object; for example a child has an object in his hand and uses it as a weapon;
HITTING WITH OPEN HAND (HH) = a child hits raising an arm with an open hand. It goes with chasing.
PUSHING (AP) = a child pushes another in order to hurt him;
PULLING (APU) = a child pulls another in order to hurt him;
KICKING (AK) = a child kicks another;
HITTING (AH) = a child hits another;
SPITTING (SP) = a child spits at another;
EXLUSION (EX) = a child swears at another, excludes another from a group or a game, tells others not to speak or play with the child using verbal expressions or gestures;
TEASING (TE) = a child interferes with games or ongoing activities, or swearing, taunting, jeering;
VERBAL THREAT (VT) = verbally threatens violence or hostility, e. g., "I'll tell the teacher" or "I won't invite you to my birthday party";
PHYSICAL THREAT (with or without object) = an intimidating act towards the victim or close proximity threats, e.g., a "monster" towering over its victim or close threat especially if involving a weapon.
STATIONARY POSITION (ST) = a child remains alone for more than 20 seconds, for instance, leaning against a wall, sitting far from the others; during this time she/he is not near the others and doesn't look at them.
Any behaviour that the child shows in the playground which we do not know the aim of.
WALKING
RUNNING
ONLOOKING
STANDS ALONE
WALKS ALONE
WALKS AWAY
INTERRUPTS TO CHANGE DIRECTION
SELF MANIPULATION
Classroom observations are decoded using a catalogue on the basis of Fogel's definitions. Relational coding system is a valid instrument for specifying behavioural differences between bullies, victims and control children. The method can be applied to all forms of interpersonal communication (verbal and non-verbal) between individuals at any age. This perspective is based on a theory of communication as a continuous process of mutual adjustment of actions, rather than communication as an exchange of discrete signals (S-R). A minimal unity of analysis is defined co-action with an opportunity to reply. This method is designed to capture relational dynamics of the communication process. It rates the quality of communication process.
High quality communication is characterised by co-regulation: Co-regulated communication consists of the active and continuous participation of all partners. It is typified by the creative innovation of joint patterns of action. Fogel suggests that is important to find a qualitative as well as descriptive and quantitative dimension of the relations. The interactions between partners are essential. The qualitative analysis regards the evaluation of the structural communication of the dyad; it requires identification and indication in real time of the duration of categories. The following categories are mutually exclusive.
BJORKQVIST K., OSTERMAN K. & KAUKIAINEN A. (1992) The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In: Bjorkqvist K., Niemela P. (eds). Of mice and women: aspect of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.