This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University of

Huddersfield]
On: 02 January 2015, At: 12:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychology, Crime & Law

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpcl20

The impact of bullying and coping

strategies on the psychological distress
of young offenders
a b
Susie Grennan & Jessica Woodhams
a
Psychology Department , HMP Wormwood Scrubs , London, UK
b
School of Psychology – Forensic Section , University of
Leicester , Leicester, UK
Published online: 06 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Susie Grennan & Jessica Woodhams (2007) The impact of bullying and coping
strategies on the psychological distress of young offenders, Psychology, Crime & Law, 13:5,
487-504, DOI: 10.1080/10683160601060598

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160601060598

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Psychology, Crime & Law, October 2007; 13(5): 487
504

The impact of bullying and coping strategies on the

psychological distress of young offenders

SUSIE GRENNAN1 & JESSICA WOODHAMS2

Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

1
Psychology Department, HMP Wormwood Scrubs, London, UK, and 2School of Psychology
Forensic
Section, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
(Received 3 October 2005; revised 3 July 2006)

Abstract
This study investigated the involvement in bullying, the psychological distress, and the coping
strategies of 99 males in an English young offenders institution. The Direct and Indirect Prisoner
Behaviour Checklist (DIPC; Ireland, 1998), the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS;
Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and the 48-item Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ; Roger et al., 1993)
were administered. Over 60% of prisoners were involved in bullying (as a victim or bully), as indicated
by responses on the DIPC. Emotional and avoidance coping were significantly related to psy-
chological distress. Bully/victims were significantly more depressed than prisoners not involved in
bullying, and being a bully/victim was a significant predictor of higher stress scores. Significant
correlations were observed between all psychological distress measures and the number of bullying
behaviours experienced by prisoners. These findings are discussed in relation to their implications for
prisoner care and avenues for future research are proposed.

Keywords: Victimization, inmate, mental health, prison

Introduction
In the last decade, a wealth of research has developed which indicates that bullying is
experienced by a significant proportion of prisoners whilst incarcerated (e.g. Ireland, 1999;
Ireland & Power, 2004; Palmer & Thakordas, 2005). Bullying can have a negative impact
on the individuals involved and the prison as a whole. At the individual level, bullying has
been linked to poor psychological health (e.g. Biggam & Power, 1999; Viljoen, O’Neill, &
Sidhu 2005), self-harm and suicide (Blaauw, Winkel, & Kerkhof, 2001; HM Prison
Service, 1999; Liebling, 1995; Livingston & Chapman, 1997), and failed rehabilitation and
recidivism (Patrick, 1998). At the prison level, bullying has been linked to increased levels
of assault, drug use or trading, escape attempts, and staff and prisoner stress (HM Prison
Service, 1999).
Awareness of the problems associated with prison bullying led to the development of the
England and Wales Prison Service’s anti-bullying strategy. Most interventions mandated
by this strategy have examined ways to reduce opportunities for bullying through cultural
and environmental change and improvements in supervision and detection (Beck, 1995;

Correspondence: Jessica Woodhams, School of Psychology
Forensic Section, University of Leicester, 106 New
Walk, Leicester LE1 7EA, UK. E-mail: jaw38@le.ac.uk

ISSN 1068-316X print/ISSN 1477-2744 online # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10683160601060598
 488 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

HM Prison Service, 1999). It has, however, been noted that the social and physical
environmental factors associated with bullying, such as high population density with limited
resources, limited staff supervision and an ‘‘inmate subculture’’ supportive of aggression,
are difficult to change (Ireland, 2003). Interventions based on individual treatment and
behaviour change could be an alternative approach.
Research has started to investigate the individual characteristics of those involved in
bullying (e.g. Eitel-Smith, 2003; Ireland, 2001a; Ireland & Power, 2004; Leddy &
O’Connell, 2002). However, gaps in the literature remain. Little research has examined
the effects of bullying on the psychological or physical well-being of those involved. That
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

which has been conducted suggests that bullying has a negative impact (e.g. Biggam &
Power, 1999; Leddy & O’Connell, 2002; Rigby, 1998). In relation to interventions that
custodial establishments could develop, the exploration of factors that reduce the negative
effects of stressors in prison would be a useful area of research. One study carried out by
Biggam and Power (2002) suggested that a general coping intervention aimed at providing
prisoners with better social problem-solving skills could be successful in reducing the
negative effects of stressors in prison. Following a five-session programme, levels of
psychological distress were reduced and self-reported social problem-solving skills increased
in a group of vulnerable prisoners up to a 3-month follow-up period. This research
investigated the effectiveness of the programme for a relatively small sample of young
offenders classed as suicidal risk prisoners, formal protection prisoners, or victims of
bullying. In order to develop interventions that help reduce the occurrence of bullying in
prison and their associated problems, a better understanding of the coping styles employed
by all individuals involved in bullying situations could be a valuable area of research. The
current study, therefore, sought to determine the psychological health correlates of bullying
behaviour and the effects of coping styles on this relationship.

Defining bullying
Various definitions of bullying have been used in prison-based research, but Ireland (2000)
has argued that since many are based on research conducted in schools, they fail to take into
account elements of bullying unique to the prison environment. For example, the condition
of repetition of an aggressive act in some definitions is problematic in prisons where
prisoners’ locations might change precluding an opportunity for further aggression (Ireland
& Ireland, 2003). In addition, some definitions fail to consider indirect forms of bullying
(Ireland, 2002a). Whereas direct bullying is a form of overt aggression involving direct
interaction between the bully and the victim, indirect bullying is more covert (Buss, 1961).
Due to its more covert nature, indirect bullying is less detectable and is therefore more
commonly used in secure settings (Ireland, 1999). In light of such considerations, the
following definition of bullying has been proposed (Ireland, 2001b, p. 232): ‘‘An individual
is being bullied when they are the victim of direct and/or indirect aggression happening on a
weekly basis, by the same or different perpetrator(s). Single incidences of aggression can be
viewed as bullying, particularly when they are severe and when the individual either believes
or fears that they are at risk of future victimisation by the same perpetrator or others’’.
Because of the stigma attached to being a victim of bullying and the perception of
bullying as being childish (Connell & Farrington, 1996), there is a tendency for bullying to
be underreported in prison, and some researchers have, therefore, chosen to avoid using the
term ‘‘bullying’’. Instead prisoners have been presented with a checklist of behaviours
believed to represent bullying. One such measure is the Direct and Indirect Prisoner
Behaviour Checklist (DIPC; Ireland, 1998), which was used in the current study.
 The impact of bullying 489

Psychological well-being
As noted above, bullying can have negative implications for the prisoners involved as well as
the prison. A few studies have examined the effect of bullying on the psychological well-
being of prisoners. Biggam and Power (1999) found victims to have greater psychological
distress than bullies or those not involved on all measures, with mild levels of depression,
moderate levels of anxiety, and elevated levels of hopelessness. This research was extended
by Viljoen et al. (2005) who compared the psychological well-being of bullies, victims,
bully/victims (individuals who are both bullies and victims), and those prisoners not
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

involved in bullying. They found victims and bully/victims to have the highest levels of
psychological distress and emotional health concerns. Leddy and O’Connell (2002) also
found both victims and bully/victims to have significantly poorer psychological well-being
on measures of depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, and social dysfunction than bullies
or those not involved. Bullies did not differ significantly from non-bullies on scores of
general health. These studies have tended to focus more on direct forms of bullying
therefore it was an aim of the current study to use a measure of bullying which included
indirect forms of bullying.

Coping
Coping refers to how an individual deals with stress (Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001) and can
involve both cognitive and behavioural strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Research has
shown that stress usually impacts negatively on psychological well-being (Lombardo, 1985)
and it has been suggested that coping strategies play an important role in the way an
individual responds to stressful events (Endler & Parker, 1990; Endler, Parker, &
Summerfeldt, 1998; Mohino, Kirchner, & Forns, 2004). Bullying could be considered as
a stressful event which could negatively impact on those involved (Hunter & Boyle, 2002).
If so, an examination of the coping styles used by those involved in prison bullying could
assist in the development of interventions to tackle bullying and its apparent associated
health problems.
The two most commonly identified coping styles are problem-focused and emotion-
focused coping (e.g. Endler & Parker, 1990). Problem-focused coping involves cognitive
and behavioural efforts to alter the stressful situation by changing the circumstances or
seeking ways to solve the problem causing the distress. This term has been used
synonymously with the term ‘‘task-oriented coping’’ (Endler et al., 1998). Efforts in
emotion-focused coping involve regulating emotional distress through, for example,
changing the meaning of the stressful situation (e.g. Endler, Parker, & Summerfeldt,
1993). A third coping strategy identified in the literature is avoidance coping (e.g. Roger,
Jarvis, & Najarian, 1993), in which efforts are made to avoid the stressor. A more recently
identified strategy, detached coping (Roger et al., 1993), involves cognitive efforts to
‘‘remove’’ oneself from the stressful event and the emotion associated with it.
A few studies have examined the types of coping style prisoners typically use in response
to stressful situations. Gullone, Jones, and Cummins (2001) asked a sample of Australian
male prisoners how much they engage in various cognitive or behavioural responses when
faced with difficult, upsetting or stressful situations and found their sample to be more likely
to adopt emotional or avoidance coping than task-oriented coping. In contrast and using a
different coping categorization, Mohino et al. (2004) assessed the predominant coping
strategies of young male prisoners (aged 18
25) in response to problems specific to them
and found that ‘‘approach’’ coping, a problem-focused coping style, was used more often
 490 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

than ‘‘avoidance’’ strategies. In another study, Zamble and Porporino (1990) assessed the
coping strategies of a sample of prisoners by asking them how they generally dealt with
problems experienced in and out of prison and whilst they did not classify prisoners’ coping
strategies into types, they noted the coping skills of their sample to be poor and ineffective.
They added that rarely did prisoners’ reported attempts at coping involve deliberate
planning of a response and, although their attempts could be classified as trying to solve a
problem, their methods were counterproductive.
Research has indicated a relationship between the coping strategies typically
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

employed by an individual in response to stressful situations and their psychological

and physical health, with emotion-focused coping being associated with poorer
outcomes and problem-focused coping being associated with positive outcomes or
having no effect (Endler et al., 1998; Rector & Roger, 1996). Avoidance coping has
been reported to have positive effects on reducing stress, at least in the short term
(Dusenberg & Albee, 1988, as cited in Parker & Endler, 1992). A few studies (e.g.
Gullone et al., 2001; Ireland, Boustead, & Ireland, 2005) have investigated the
relationship between coping and psychological well-being in a sample of prisoners.
Consistent with previous research (e.g. Endler et al., 1998), Gullone et al. (2001)
found that use of emotion-focused coping had a negative effect on psychological well-
being as measured by depression, anxiety, and self-esteem, whilst task-focused coping
had a positive effect on psychological well-being. Avoidance coping was significantly
and positively associated with well-being. Similar results were found by Ireland et al.
(2005) who examined the association between coping styles and psychological health
among juvenile and young offenders. Emotional coping was shown to predict overall
increased psychological distress in the whole sample across all symptoms assessed
(somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction and severe depression).
Rational coping (a problem-focused strategy) predicted decreased overall psychological
distress across all symptoms in the young offender sample and a decrease in depression
for juveniles. Avoidance coping did not relate to overall psychological distress or any of
the psychological health dimensions. The use of detached coping was also examined,
and found to predict for the juvenile sample, a decrease in overall psychological distress
and decreased social dysfunction.
The above findings could imply that some coping strategies are more adaptive and some
more maladaptive, but there is evidence to suggest that the effects of these various coping
strategies can depend on the controllability of the situation. For example, research has
found psychological symptoms to be worse for those using emotion-focused coping when
the situation is perceived as controllable compared to when it is perceived as uncontrollable,
with the inverse relationship being reported for problem-focused coping (Vitaliano,
DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, & Katon; Wells & Matthews, 1994).
When considering the potential relationship between bullying, psychological well-being
and coping strategies in prison, the controllability of the situation requires thought.
Researchers have commented that the inmate code against informing on other prisoners
would leave few alternative means for prisoners to deal with a stressor such as bullying
that might impact on their psychological health (Ireland, 2002a, in press). This would
suggest that prisoners are limited in the actions available to them and hence the situation
might seem relatively uncontrollable. In such circumstances, avoidance behaviours that
remove the victim from the bullying situation could be viewed as adaptive (Ireland, in
press).
 The impact of bullying 491

With regard to the relationship between bullying and coping strategies, only a few studies
have been conducted and these have sampled non-forensic populations (Kochenderfer-
Ladd & Ladd, 2001). For example, Olafsen and Viemero (2000), with a sample of Finnish
school children, found that bully/victims used significantly more aggressive and self-
destructive strategies than bullies, victims or those not involved in bullying. It has also been
noted that the coping strategies employed in response to being bullied could affect whether
an individual continues to be bullied (Olafsen & Viemero, 2000).
To the authors’ knowledge, no study has thus far investigated the relationship between
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

bullying and coping strategies in a prison environment. In addition, whilst research has
assessed the relationship between bullying and psychological well-being (e.g. Biggam &
Power, 1999) and coping and psychological well-being (e.g. Gullone et al., 2001; Ireland
et al., 2005) in the prison environment separately, no research has yet considered these
three variables in combination. As noted previously, it has been suggested that coping
strategies can play an important role in the way an individual responds to stressful
events. Since stressful events, such as bullying, can impact negatively on psychological
health, it is possible that the effect of bullying on prisoners’ psychological well-being
could be affected by their coping strategies. Coping could therefore have a moderating
or mediating effect on the relationship between bullying and psychological well-being. As
a moderator, coping would affect the direction or strength of the relationship, whereas
as a mediator it would account fully or in part for the relationship (Baron & Kenny,
1986).

Rationale
The current study sought to examine the psychological health outcomes and coping
strategies used by those involved in bullying in prison. Rather than limit its focus to one
involved party, participants completed the DIPC (Ireland, 1998), which categorizes
participants into bully, victim, bully/victim and ‘‘not involved’’ groups. The study aimed
to extend the work of Gullone et al. (2001) and partially replicate that of Ireland et al.
(2005) by examining the coping strategies of a group of young male offenders and how
these were associated with levels of psychological distress. No previous study has
investigated the relationship between bullying and coping strategies in a prison setting
and hence the study sought to address this. Finally, with the need to develop bullying
interventions in mind, the study also aimed to investigate the interrelationships between
bullying, psychological distress, and coping strategies.
The research questions investigated by the study were:
(1) Whether there would be a significant difference between DIPC groups on scores of
depression, anxiety and stress.
(2) Whether there would be a significant difference between DIPC groups on scores of
rational, detached, emotional, and avoidance coping.
(3) Whether scores on rational, detached, emotional and avoidance coping would be
significantly associated with (a) scores on depression, anxiety and stress; (b) the
number of bullying behaviours experienced; and (c) the number of bullying
behaviours employed.
(4) Whether scores on depression, anxiety and stress would be significantly associated
with (a) the number of bullying behaviours experienced and (b) the number of
bullying behaviours employed.
 492 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

Method
Participants
One hundred and six male young offenders were selected using systematic sampling
whereby a list of prisoners was obtained and every seventh person was selected, starting at a
number between one and seven (Robson, 2002) chosen using a random numbers table
(Clark-Carter, 1997). Selected prisoners were approached to determine their willingness to
participate. Of those approached five (4.7%) declined to take part and two (1.9%) did not
fully complete the questionnaires. The final sample thus comprised 99 male prisoners aged
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

between 18 and 21 years (M 19.4 years, SD 0.97 years). Eighty-nine respondents

(89.9%) described their ethnicity as White or White British, three (3%) as Black or Black
British, five (5.1%) as Mixed, and two (2%) as Asian or Asian British. Nineteen prisoners
(19.2%) were on remand, 79 (79.8%) were sentenced, and one (1%) was both on remand
and sentenced. Sentence lengths ranged from 3 weeks to 6 years (M 23.3 months,
median 18.0 months, SD 17.2 months) with the mean length of time spent currently at
the establishment being 5.44 months (SD 5.70 months, median 3.5 months, range of 6
days to 2.5 years).

Materials
The following questionnaires were completed by each prisoner or in the case of prisoners
with literacy difficulties, a structured interview was conducted (Leddy & O’Connell, 2002).

Demographics questionnaire. This requested information regarding age, ethnicity, time spent
at the establishment for current offence, prisoner type (remand or sentenced), and length of
current sentence.

Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC; Ireland, 1998). This is a self-report
behavioural checklist which aims to measure direct and indirect forms of bullying. Ninety-
nine items are included, 48 of which address direct forms of these behaviours, and 17 of
which address indirect forms. Participants are asked to indicate in the past week which
behaviours they have carried out and which behaviours they have experienced. A score of
one is given to each ticked item, so that a range of scores can be obtained for each subgroup
of items. The DIPC does not offer an explicit definition of bullying. The remaining items
address issues such as behaviour towards others in the prison and prison rules.
Using the DIPC, prisoners can be classified into one of four categories: ‘‘bully’’, ‘‘bully/
victim’’, ‘‘victim’’, and ‘‘not involved’’. Prisoners reporting at least one incident of bullying
others but no incident of victimization are classified as ‘‘bullies’’. Those who report at least
one incident of bullying others and at least one of victimization are classified as ‘‘bully/
victims’’. Those who report at least one incident of victimization and no incident of bullying
others are classified as ‘‘pure victims’’. Participants are classified as ‘‘not involved’’ if they
report no incident of bullying others or being victimized.
Formal statistical measures of reliability have not been used to assess the DIPC, however
the measure’s author reports that similar results have been found with regards to the nature
and extent of bullying across different groups of prisoners indicating some evidence of
reliability (Ireland, 2002a). Research has also indicated that the characteristics associated
with the group classifications from the DIPC are similar for both prisoners and school
children (Ireland, 2002a). This suggests that the DIPC is measuring behaviours indicative
of bullying and not some other construct.
 The impact of bullying 493

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The shortened
21-item version of the DASS was used. DASS-21 and DASS-42 have been shown to have a
similar factor structure, although DASS-21 has a more interpretable factor solution with
smaller inter-factor correlations, higher mean loadings and fewer cross-loadings, and may
therefore have advantages over DASS-42 (Anthony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998;
Lovibond, 1998). Given this and the fact that DASS-21 is shorter, this measure was
employed in the current research. This self-report inventory assesses three negative affective
states of depression, anxiety and stress on seven-item scales. The available responses are 0
‘‘did not apply to me at all’’, 1 ‘‘applied to me to some degree, or some of the time’’, 2
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

‘‘applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of the time’’, and 3 ‘‘applied to me

very much or most of the time’’. The Depression subscale (DASS-D) measures symptoms
relating to dysphoric mood (e.g. sadness, worthlessness), for example ‘‘I couldn’t seem to
experience any positive feeling at all’’. The Anxiety subscale (DASS-A) assesses symptoms
associated with physiological hyperarousal such as autonomic arousal, situational anxiety
and fear, for example ‘‘I felt I was close to panic’’. The Stress subscale (DASS-S) includes
items such as ‘‘I tended to over-react to situations’’ and measures symptoms such as
nervous arousal, tension, irritability, and a tendency to overreact in stressful situations
(Anthony et al., 1998). Scores are calculated for each subscale by summing the scores of the
appropriate items. For DASS-21 to be comparable to DASS-42, scores for each subscale
are doubled (Devilly, 2001). Scores between 0 and 42 are therefore possible for each
subscale. These can be compared to a severity-rating index (Table I), which gives
recommended cut-offs for normal, moderate, and severe scores (Devilly, 2001).
Good internal consistency and validity for the DASS have been found with samples of
clinical patients and non-clinical volunteers (Anthony et al., 1998). However, because the
DASS had not previously been used with a prison population, its internal consistency was
assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Each subscale proved to be reliable (Dancey & Reidy,
2002), producing alpha coefficients of 0.91, 0.83 and 0.86 for the Depression, Anxiety and
Stress subscales, respectively.

Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ; Roger et al., 1993). A refined 48-item version of the
60-item CSQ was administered to minimize the amount of time a prisoner would have to
spend on each questionnaire. The CSQ asks participants to state how they ‘‘typically
react to stress’’ by indicating for each item whether they ‘‘always’’ (score of 3), ‘‘often’’
(score of 2), ‘‘sometimes’’ (score of 1) or ‘‘never’’ (score of 0) react in the way described.
The 48-item CSQ comprises four subscales of 12 items each. The subscales relate to
rational coping (e.g. ‘‘take action to change things’’), detached coping (e.g. ‘‘see the
problem as something separate from myself so I can deal with it’’), emotional coping (e.g.
‘‘become miserable or depressed’’), and avoidance coping (e.g. ‘‘sit tight and hope it all goes
away’’).

Table I. Severity Rating Index for the DASS (Devilly, 2001).

Depression Anxiety Stress

Normal 0
9 0
7 0
14
Mild 10
13 8
9 15
18
Moderate 14
20 10
14 19
25
Severe 21
27 15
19 26
33
Extremely Severe 28 20 34
 494 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

Reliability scores in a prison population only exist for the 60-item CSQ. Therefore, the
internal consistency of the 48-item CSQ was assessed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of
0.77, 0.71, 0.85 and 0.75 for the rational, detached, emotional and avoidance coping scales,
respectively, were reported, indicating that the CSQ is a reliable measure (Dancey & Reidy,
2002).

Procedure
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

Prisoners were approached during work hours to determine whether they would like to
participate. Willing participants were provided with an information sheet which informed
them that the study aimed to determine how prisoners cope with life in prison and the ways
in which this might affect their general well-being and behaviour towards others. In
addition, it informed prisoners about several important ethical issues, such as anonymity.
To ensure that this information was understood it was read to each participant and any
questions they had were answered. Participants who were willing to continue were asked to
sign a consent form and to complete the four measures. Participants who reported reading
or writing difficulties were given the option of having the questionnaires read to them, and
13 participants (13.1%) requested such assistance. To reinforce anonymity, participants
placed their completed anonymous questionnaires in a provided envelope.

Ethical issues
This research was conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society’s Ethical
Principles (British Psychological Society, 2001). Due to the power dynamics within prisons
it is important to ensure that prisoners give their informed consent (Francis, 1999; Robson,
2002). To avoid prisoners feeling pressurized or obligated to participate, they were
approached individually during working hours, rather than when in their cells. Prisoners
were made aware of any limits to confidentiality and they were informed of sources of
support should any issues have arisen that they wished to discuss further, or should they
have been distressed as a result of their participation.

Results
Data considerations
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all measures and data assumptions were assessed.
The distributions for the Depression and Anxiety scales of the DASS and for the number of
bullying items experienced or employed were significantly different to normal distributions.
When testing for associations, the non-parametric Spearman’s rho test was used for these
variables.
The assumptions of one-way between subjects ANOVA were checked and all were met
except the assumption of equal sample sizes (Clark-Carter, 1997). ANOVA is, however,
relatively robust with small violations of its assumptions (Dancey & Reidy, 2002) therefore
it was used with all variables except depression and anxiety, which also violated its
assumption of normality. In these two cases the non-parametric Kruskal
Wallis test and
Mann
Whitney U test were used.
To test which variables could predict psychological health, multiple regression was
initially chosen. However, transformation did not normalize the distributions of depression,
anxiety, number of bullying behaviours experienced and number employed, preventing the
 The impact of bullying 495
Table II. The proportion of young offenders reporting at least one behaviour indicative of being bullied or bullying
others.

Being bullied Bullying others

(N45) (N45)

Indirect Behaviours 25.3% (n25) 36.4% (n 36)

Direct Behaviours 30.3% (n30) 33.3% (n 33)
Physical 10.1% (n10) 10.1% (n 10)
Psychological
Verbal 18.2% (n18) 32.3% (n 32)
Theft-Related 12.1% (n12) 11.1% (n 11)
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

opportunity to investigate the interrelationships of bullying, coping strategies and

psychological distress via hierarchical multiple regression analyses. In situations where
transformation cannot normalize the distribution of a dependent variable, Tabachnick and
Fidell (2001) recommend dichotomizing the variable. This was performed via a median-
split. Three logistic regressions were computed instead with depression, anxiety and stress
as the dependent variables, respectively. The assumptions of logistic regression were also
checked and were satisfied. Due to the large number of statistical tests being conducted on
the data, a Bonferroni correction was calculated yielding a corrected alpha value of 0.002.

Frequency of bullying and incidence of DIPC categories

On the basis of the DIPC, 16 of the 99 participants (16.2%) were classified as bullies, 16
(16.2%) as pure victims, 29 (29.3%) as bully/victims and 38 (38.4%) as ‘‘not involved’’.
Forty-five of the 99 participants (45.5%) reported behaviours indicative of being bullied
(16 pure victims and 29 bully/victims) and an identical number reported behaviours
indicative of bullying others (16 bullies and 29 bully/victims). A breakdown of the different
types of bullying behaviours experienced or employed can be seen in Table II.

Descriptive statistics for psychological distress

The range of scores for the DASS and the mean, median and standard deviations for the
total sample of 99 prisoners and the four DIPC groups across each subscale of the DASS
are displayed in Table III. Higher scores are indicative of greater psychological distress.
When comparing the DASS scores in Table III to the severity cut-offs for the DASS
(Table I) (Devilly, 2001), the majority of prisoners in the sample, between 54 (54.5%) and
66 (66.7%), scored in the normal range for depression, anxiety and stress. A sizeable
minority of prisoners, between 18 (18.1%) and 27 (27.3%), had scores in the mild or
moderate range and between 13 (13.1%) and 18 (18.2%), in the severe or extremely severe
range.
Table III. Means and standard deviations for the DASS across DIPC group.

Total sample Bully Bully/victim Victim Not involved

(N99) (n16) (n29) (n16) (n 38)

DASS subscale Range M (Median) SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Depression 0
42 10.63 (6.00) 10.94 6.13 6.83 15.72 11.91 12.88 12.61 7.68 9.27
Anxiety 0
40 6.24 (2.00) 7.90 3.75 5.84 9.52 10.07 8.50 8.08 3.84 5.39
Stress 0
38 12.57 (12.00) 10.08 13.63 9.64 16.97 9.44 13.75 10.35 8.26 9.23
 496 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams
Table IV. Means and standard deviations for the CSQ across DIPC group.

Total sample Bully Bully/victim Victim Not involved

(N99) (n 16) (n29) (n16) (n38)
CSQ
subscale Range M (Median) SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Rational 0
28 15.22 (15.00) 5.80 16.94 5.47 16.34 5.82 14.50 6.09 13.95 5.66
Detached 0
30 13.51 (13.00) 5.23 15.00 3.93 14.48 4.78 13.19 6.38 12.29 5.39
Emotional 0
30 11.45 (11.00) 6.50 9.56 4.99 13.17 6.14 13.63 6.10 10.03 7.09
Avoidance 3
32 17.19 (17.00) 6.38 17.19 6.05 18.07 6.34 16.75 6.22 16.71 6.78
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

Descriptive statistics for coping styles

The descriptive statistics for coping styles are displayed in a similar manner in Table IV.
A higher score is indicative of greater use of that coping strategy. The coping style most
used by the total sample, and across the DIPC groups, was avoidance coping, with rational
coping also being common.

The relationship between bullying and psychological distress

Correlational analyses were used to investigate the relationship between psychological
distress and the total number of bullying items reported as experienced or employed. The
correlation coefficients can be seen in Table V.
Significant positive relationships were observed between the total number of bullying
behaviours experienced and all three measures of psychological distress. All of these
relationships were, however, weak in strength (Dancey & Reidy, 2002).
An examination of the DIPC groups’ mean scores in Table III indicated that bullies and
those not involved were within the normal range for each subscale. However, bully/victims
showed moderate levels of depression, and mild levels of anxiety and stress. Victims
reported mild depression and anxiety but scored within the normal range for stress. To
determine whether there were significant differences between the DIPC groups on
measures of psychological distress, one-way between subjects ANOVAs or their non-
parametric equivalent, Kruskal
Wallis tests, were carried out followed by Mann
Whitney
U tests. There was a significant difference on depression between those not involved and
bully/victims (U 289.50, p 0.001) and a marginally significant difference on stress for
those not involved and bully/victims (p 0.002). There were no significant differences
found between the DIPC groups for anxiety (x2 (3, N 99)13.53; p0.004).

Table V. Correlation coefficients for relationships between the total number of bullying behaviours experienced or
employed and psychological distress.

Total number of bullying Total number of bullying

behaviours experienced behaviours employed

Depression 0.38** 0.07

Anxiety 0.38**
0.03
Stress 0.35** 0.25*

*pB0.05, **p B0.001.

 The impact of bullying 497
Table VI. Correlation coefficients for relationships between the total number of bullying behaviours experienced or
employed and measures of coping style.

Total number of bullying Total number of bullying

behaviours experienced behaviours employed

Rational coping 0.07 0.08

Detached coping 0.12 0.15
Emotional coping 0.22* 0.07
Avoidance coping 0.03 0.04
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

*pB0.05.

The relationship between bullying and coping styles

The relationship between the number of bullying behaviours experienced or employed and
coping styles was investigated using correlational analyses. Correlation coefficients between
the total number of bullying behaviours experienced or employed and coping styles are
shown in Table VI.
A positive correlation was observed between emotional coping and the total number of
bullying behaviours experienced, however this association was weak (Dancey & Reidy,
2002) and was not significant following the Bonferroni correction. An examination of the
descriptive statistics in Table IV reveals that the bully/victim and the victim groups appear
to utilize emotional coping more than the other groups. To assess whether there were
significant differences between the DIPC groups on the measures of coping style, one-way
between subjects ANOVAs were used. No significant differences were observed between the
DIPC groups on rational coping (F(3,95) 1.55, p 0.05), detached coping (F(3,95) 1.50,
p 0.05), emotional coping (F(3,95) 2.44, p 0.05) and avoidance coping (F(3,95) 0.27,
p 0.05).

The relationship between coping styles and psychological distress

Correlations were computed to investigate the relationship between coping styles and
psychological distress. The resultant correlation coefficients can be seen in Table VII.
As can be seen from Table VII, significant positive relationships were found between both
emotional and avoidance coping and measures of depression, anxiety and stress. These were
of moderate strength (Dancey & Reidy, 2002).

Predicting psychological distress

Three logistic regressions were computed, one for each of the psychological distress
measures. The dependent variables were categorical and dichotomous with 1 representing a
high score on the measure and 0 representing a low score. In each analysis, the continuous
independent variables were scores on the four subscales of the CSQ, and the categorical
Table VII. Correlation coefficients for relationships between coping style and psychological distress.

Rational coping Detached coping Emotional coping Avoidance coping

Depression 0.07 0.02 0.67*** 0.46***

Anxiety 0.004 0.02 0.55*** 0.39***
Stress 0.20 0.11 0.62*** 0.34***

***p 50.001.
 498 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

independent variable was DIPC group with four levels: bully, bully/victim, pure victim, and
not involved. In SPSS discrete predictor variables with more than two categories are
automatically re-coded as ‘‘indicator’’ or ‘‘dummy’’ variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
SPSS entered only three of these into each logistic regression equation, and the ‘‘not
involved’’ group was excluded. In total, seven predictors were entered into the logistic
regressions.
An examination of the contribution of the individual predictors to the model for
depression indicated that in light of the Bonferroni correction to the data none of the
variables were significant predictors of depression. The use of emotional coping approached
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

significance (Wald x2 (1, n 99) 7.22; p 0.007) and had a positive regression coefficient
(B0.17), suggesting that those using emotional coping were likely to score high on
depression. Similarly, with the Bonferroni correction in place, none of the variables were
significant predictors of anxiety scores.
A different relationship emerged for Stress. On examining the statistical output, being
a bully/victim (Wald x2 (1, n 99) 9.91; p 0.0016) was a significant predictor of scores
on the Stress subscale. Being a bully approached significance (Wald x2 (1, n 99) 7.37;
p 0.007). The positive regression coefficients for the bully (B 2.42) and bully/victim
groups (B2.46) indicate that bullies and bully/victims were likely to score high on stress.

Discussion
The present study aimed to determine the levels of psychological distress experienced by a
sample of incarcerated young offenders and to examine the relationship between
psychological distress and involvement in bullying and the role that coping strategies might
play in these outcomes.

Involvement in bullying
Over 60% of the sample were involved in bullying (as a bully or as a victim). DIPC group
prevalence rates were similar to those found in previous juvenile and young offender
samples (Ireland, 2002b) with most prisoners falling into the ‘‘not involved’’ group. Also
consistent with previous research (e.g. Ireland, 1999; Ireland & Ireland, 2000; Palmer &
Thakordas, 2005), just under half the sample reported having experienced in the past week
behaviours indicative of being bullied and an equal number, behaviours indicative of
bullying others.

The psychological distress of young offenders

With regard to the psychological distress of the young offenders, over half of the prisoners
were within the normal range on levels of self-reported depression, anxiety and stress.
However, between 30 and 40% of the sample reported at least mild levels of each of the
negative emotional states, and approximately 10
20% reported severe or extremely severe
levels. These figures suggest that there is cause for concern regarding the psychological
distress of some young offenders.

The coping strategies of young offenders

The most commonly used coping strategy for the overall sample and for the individual
DIPC groups was avoidance coping. This finding contrasts with that of Mohino et al.
 The impact of bullying 499

(2004) but is similar to other previous prison research (Gullone et al., 2001) and is not
surprising considering the prison environment. Factors such as the inmate code against
informing on others and pro-violence attitudes (Ireland, 2001a) are likely to leave prisoners
with few means of dealing actively with stressors which could lead to a preference for
strategies other than rational coping in a prison context.

Psychological distress and coping

With regards to the relationship between psychological distress and the coping strategies
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

utilized by prisoners, emotional and avoidance coping strategies showed significant and
moderate positive correlations with depression, anxiety and stress. A greater reliance on
these coping strategies was thus associated with greater psychological distress. These results
are consistent with previous research into emotional coping strategies (Endler et al., 1998;
Gullone et al., 2001; Ireland et al., 2005), but not with research indicating that avoidance
coping is beneficial to the psychological health of prisoners (Gullone et al., 2001) or that it
has no effect (Ireland et al., 2005). It is important to recognize that the direction of the
relationship between psychological distress and coping is unclear. Whether psychologically
distressed prisoners show a tendency to adopt emotional and avoidance coping or whether a
reliance on these types of coping results in psychological distress cannot be determined.
The differences in findings may relate to the use of different measures of coping or
psychological distress between the current study and previous research. An alternative
possibility that might account for these differences is that avoidance coping might be
beneficial in the short term through helping to reduce initial anxiety and preventing
problems from becoming overwhelming (Dusenberg & Albee, 1988, as cited in Parker &
Endler, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991) but maladaptive in the long term due to it reducing
opportunities for developing more effective strategies (Ireland, in press). Ireland et al.
(2005) argue that there may be limited opportunities for the use of avoidance coping
strategies in prison due to the physical restrictions of a prison environment, which may lead
to a reliance on other coping strategies. It is possible that different prison environments will
provide greater or fewer opportunities for avoiding a particular stressor, which could
potentially explain differences in findings. Further, given that coping involves both
cognitive and behavioural strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it could be that whilst
behavioural efforts to avoid the stressor may not always be successful in prison, it may be
possible to employ cognitive avoidance-strategies such as pretending there is nothing wrong
or thinking about other issues.
No relationship was found between scores on rational coping and psychological distress.
These results are consistent with some (Endler et al., 1998; Rector & Roger, 1996) but not
all (Ireland et al., 2005) previous research. Consistent with the findings from the young
offender sample of Ireland et al. (2005), there was no relationship between detached coping
and psychological distress.

Involvement in bullying and psychological distress

Having investigated the relationships between coping styles and psychological distress for
the whole sample, these variables were examined in relation to the different groups involved
in bullying. Bully/victims were found to be significantly more depressed than those not
involved in bullying and a marginally significant difference in levels of stress was found
between bully/victims and those not involved, with bully/victims being more stressed. No
other significant differences were found. These findings are congruent with the suggestion
 500 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

that bully/victims have difficulty regulating their behaviour and affect, leaving them
vulnerable to emotional distress (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001).
The lack of significant differences in levels of psychological distress between the victim
group and other DIPC groups is surprising in light of previous prison-based research (e.g.
Biggam & Power, 1999; Viljoen et al., 2005). This discrepancy could be a result of the
current study measuring both direct and indirect forms of bullying whereas past research
has focused on more direct forms of bullying. Alternatively, prisoners experience numerous
sources of stress other than bullying that may influence psychological distress, including
adjustment to prison life, boredom and isolation (Liebling, 1992). If a prisoner does not feel
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

they are being victimized it is questionable whether this factor would impact on their
psychological distress. These possibilities, coupled with the fact that a large proportion of
prisoners in the current sample experienced at least mild psychological distress, could
partially explain this lack of significant differences between victims and the other DIPC
groups.
Previous research has indicated that the frequency of victimization has an important
effect on the relationship between bullying and psychological distress, with those frequently
victimized being at greater risk for poor health outcomes (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd,
2001). The findings of the current study suggest some support for this. Significant but weak
positive correlations were found for the number of bullying behaviours experienced and all
three psychological distress measures. It is important to note, however, that this study used
a relatively crude measure of frequency of victimization. Unfortunately, the Yes/No
response format of the DIPC (Ireland, 1998) does not allow for the indication of how
often a behaviour has been experienced in the past week. Thus a prisoner being frequently
victimized but on just one type of behaviour (e.g. ‘‘I was hit or kicked’’) will appear to be
less frequently victimized compared to a prisoner who has experienced three different
behaviours albeit once. The DIPC could be adapted and improved by replacing the Yes/No
response with a scale of frequency for each item on the checklist, and such findings re-
examined in light of this. No significant relationship was found between psychological
distress and frequency of bullying behaviours employed.

Involvement in bullying and coping styles

Little previous research has examined the coping styles used by the different groups
involved in bullying, and this was an aim of the current research. No significant differences
were found between DIPC groups on scores of coping, indicating that there were no
differences across groups in terms of the coping strategies they employed. With regard to
the frequency of bullying behaviours experienced and employed, again no significant
relationships were found. As discussed above, it should be noted that prisoners have to deal
with various sources of stress whilst incarcerated and it is possible that individuals in the
sample were coping with stressors other than bullying which may have influenced their
preferred coping strategies. Further, because a trait- rather than state-based approach to
coping was employed, prisoners were not assessed on the way in which they coped with
specific bullying situations, and this may have impacted on any relationship between
bullying behaviour and coping styles.

The relationship between involvement in bullying, psychological distress and coping

Having examined the separate relationships between involvement in bullying, coping and
psychological distress, the research aimed to assess the possible interactions between these
 The impact of bullying 501

variables. The non-normative nature of the data unfortunately prevented this. It was,
however, possible to investigate whether coping strategies and involvement in bullying were
predictive of psychological distress. A significant predictive relationship was found for
stress. Being a bully/victim predicted higher stress scores. As with the previous discussion
about bully/victims, this finding could relate to the problems bully/victims appear to
experience in regulating their negative affective states (Schwartz et al., 2001). The lack of a
relationship between those who are victimized and psychological distress is again surprising.
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

Limitations
There are a number of limitations to the current study that may have influenced the
strength of the results and the conclusions drawn. The verbal administration of the DIPC to
prisoners with literacy difficulties, whilst ensuring that sampling was more representative of
the prison population, may have resulted in bullying behaviour being underestimated due to
respondents being less willing to admit to bullying behaviours vocally (Farrington, 1993).
Classification of the prisoners into bullying categories using the DIPC might not
necessarily correspond with the individuals’ own perceptions of their involvement in
bullying. A recent study by Ireland and Ireland (2003) indicated some discrepancy between
prisoners’ definitions of bullying and the criteria used by some researchers. For example,
25% of offenders did not consider a one-off act of aggression as sufficient for a person to be
considered the victim of bullying, yet according to DIPC classifications, that person would
be categorized as a victim. Prisoners’ own perceptions of their involvement in bullying may
have important effects on the coping styles that they use and on their psychological well-
being. This is an area worthy of future research.
The present research was conducted with a sample of young offenders from only one UK
institution. Care should be taken in generalizing these findings to other prison populations.
Research has suggested, for example, that men and women differ in their preferred coping
styles (Endler & Parker, 1990). Future research should examine these variables in different
prison populations, including female, adult and juvenile prisoners, and samples drawn from
high, medium and low security prisons.

Conclusions
The results of the present study have shown that young offenders involved in bullying, as
well as young offenders in general, may experience psychological distress. It is suggested
that psychological distress of young offenders warrants intervention irrespective of the
development of interventions that combat bullying behaviour. Analysis of the relationship
between psychological distress and the frequency of bullying behaviour indicated that the
more bullying behaviours experienced, the greater the prisoner’s psychological distress.
This suggests that frequent victimization might have a negative impact on psychological
health. The measure of frequency used in the current study is crude, however, and future
researchers may wish to investigate this topic further using a more reliable measure of
frequency.
The findings that bully/victims were significantly more depressed and that being a bully/
victim predicted stress scores suggests that interventions addressing the psychological
health of prisoners should not overlook those who bully others. Bully/victims seem
particularly at risk of psychological distress. Whether involvement in bullying for this
group causes psychological distress or whether it is a response to psychological distress is
 502 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams

unclear. Further research is needed to clarify the nature of the relationship between bullying
involvement and psychological distress.
An examination of coping styles indicated that avoidance coping was the preferred coping
strategy of prisoners in the current sample. Further, the coping styles considered to be
maladaptive, namely emotional and avoidance coping (Roger, Najarian, & Jarvis 1994),
were shown to be associated with greater psychological distress, although these relation-
ships were not supported through logistic regression. These conflicting findings prevent any
clear recommendations being made.
Previous research has indicated that the effectiveness of coping strategies in reducing the
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

negative effects of stressors might depend on the situation and its perceived controllability
(e.g. Vitaliano et al., 1990). The present study adopted an inter-individual approach to
coping assessment that assumes coping styles are relatively stable across situations (Endler
et al., 1993). Adopting such an approach meant that the situation was not taken into
account. Further, prisoners’ perceptions of control over bullying incidents were not
assessed, something that could affect the coping strategy used and its effectiveness. Before
any recommendations can be made as to the development of bullying interventions on the
basis of coping styles, further research is warranted to assess the context and perceptions of
control over reported incidents of bullying in order to further assess any potential
relationships between involvement in bullying and coping styles. It would be important
for any interventions devised to teach prisoners coping strategies that are appropriate to the
situation, otherwise they may be unable to deal effectively with the stressors they are
experiencing (whether bullying or not) and consequently psychological well-being may not
improve.

References
Anthony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the
42-item and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety and stress scales in clinical groups and a community
sample. Psychological Assessment , 10 , 176
181.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 ,
1173
1182.
Beck, G. (1995). Bullying among young offenders in custody. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 22 ,
54
70.
Biggam, F. H., & Power, K. G. (1999). Social problem-solving skills and psychological distress among incarcerated
young offenders: The issue of bullying and victimisation. Cognitive Therapy Research , 23 , 307
326.
Biggam, F. M., & Power, K. G. (2002). A controlled, problem-solving, group based intervention with vulnerable
incarcerated young offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46 , 678

698.
Blaauw, E., Winkel, F. W., & Kerkhof, A. J. F. M. (2001). Bullying and suicidal behavior in jails. Criminal Justice
and Behavior , 28 , 279
299.
British Psychological Society (2001). Code of conduct, ethical principles and guidelines . Leicester: British
Psychological Society.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression . New York: Wiley.
Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing quantitative psychological research: From design to report . Hove: Psychology Press.
Connell, A., & Farrington, D. P. (1996). Bullying among incarcerated young offenders: Developing an interview
schedule and some preliminary results. Journal of Adolescence , 19 , 75
93.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2002). Statistics without maths for psychology: Using SPSS for Windows (2nd edn).
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Devilly, G. J. (2001). DASS (42) . Retrieved 26 June 2003, from The University of Melbourne, Forensic
Psychology and Victim Services web site: http://www.criminology.unimelb.edu.au/victims/resources/assessment/affect/
dass42.html .
 The impact of bullying 503
Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 12 , 33
54.
Eitel-Smith, G. (2003). Bullying behaviour and self-esteem levels in female prisoners. Forensic Update , 74 , 17
21.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58 , 844
854.
Endler, N. S., Parker, J. D. A., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Coping with health problems: Conceptual and
methodological issues. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 25 , 384
399.
Endler, N. S., Parker, J. D. A., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1998). Coping with health problems: Developing a reliable
and valid multidimensional measure. Psychological Assessment , 10 , 195
205.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

research (pp. 381
458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Francis, R. D. (1999). Ethics for psychologists: A handbook . Leicester: BPS books.
Gullone, E., Jones, T., & Cummins, R. (2001). Coping styles and prison experience. Psychiatry, Psychology and
Law, 7 , 170
181.
HM Prison Service (1999). Anti-bullying strategy. Prison Service Order 1702 (Issue No. 60, PSI No. 62/1999).
London: HM Prison Service.
Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control in the victims of school bullying: The importance of
early intervention. Educational Research , 44 , 323
336.
Ireland, C. A., & Ireland, J. L. (2000). Descriptive analysis of the nature and extent of bullying behavior in a
maximum-security prison. Aggressive Behavior , 26 , 213
223.
Ireland, J. L. (1998). Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC) . Lancashire, UK: University of Central
Lancashire.
Ireland, J. L. (1999). Bullying behaviours among male and female prisoners: A study of adult and young offenders.
Aggressive Behavior , 25 , 161
178.
Ireland, J. L. (2000). ‘Bullying’ among prisoners: A review of research. Aggression and Violent Behaviour , 5 , 201

215.
Ireland, J. L. (2001a). The relationship between social problem-solving and bullying behaviour among male and
female adult prisoners. Aggressive Behavior , 27 , 297
312.
Ireland, J. L. (2001b). Distinguishing the perpetrators and victims of bullying behaviour in a prison environment: A
study of male and female adult prisoners. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6 , 229
246.
Ireland, J. L. (2002a). Bullying among prisoners: Evidence, research and intervention strategies . Hove: Brunner-
Routledge.
Ireland, J. L. (2002b). Do juveniles bully more than young offenders? Journal of Adolescence , 25 , 155
168.
Ireland, J. L. (2003). Working with bullies and their victims. In G. Towl (Ed.), Psychology in prisons (pp. 148
158).
Oxford: BPS Blackwell.
Ireland, J. L. (in press). Bullying in prisons: The role of fear. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research .
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Ireland, J. L., Boustead, R., & Ireland, C. A. (2005). Coping style and psychological health among adolescent
prisoners: A study of young and juvenile offenders. Journal of Adolescence , 28 , 411
423.
Ireland, J. L., & Ireland, C. A. (2003). How do offenders define bullying? A study of adult, young and juvenile male
offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8 , 159
173.
Ireland, J. L., & Power, C. L. (2004). Attachment, emotional loneliness and bullying behaviour: A study of adult
and young offenders. Aggressive Behavior , 30 , 298
312.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Variations in peer victimisation: Relations to children’s
maladjustment. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimised (pp. 25
48). London: Guilford Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping . New York: Springer.
Leddy, J., & O’Connell, M. (2002). The prevalence, nature and psychological correlates of bullying in Irish
prisons. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7 , 131
140.
Liebling, A. (1992). Suicides in prison . London: Routledge.
Liebling, A. (1995). Vulnerability and prison suicide. The British Journal of Criminology, 35 , 173
187.
Livingston, M. S., & Chapman, A. J. (1997). Bullying and self-injurious behaviour in young offenders. Inside
Psychology, 3 , 78
81.
Lombardo, L. X. (1985). Mental health work in prisons and jails: Inmate adjustment and indigenous correctional
personnel. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 12 , 17
28.
Lovibond, P. F. (1998). Long-term stability of depression, anxiety and stress syndromes. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 107 , 520
526.
 504 S. Grennan & J. Woodhams
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the
depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research
Therapy, 33 , 335
343.
Mohino, S., Kirchner, T., & Forns, M. (2004). Coping strategies in young male prisoners. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence , 33 , 41
49.
Olafsen, R. N., & Viemero, V. (2000). Bully/victim problems and coping with stress in school among 10- to 12-
year-old pupils in Aland, Finland. Aggressive Behavior , 26 , 57
65.
Palmer, E. J., & Thakordas, V. (2005). Relationship between bullying and scores on the Buss
Perry Aggression
Questionnaire among imprisoned male offenders. Aggressive Behavior , 31 , 56
66.
Parker, J. D. A, & Endler, N. S. (1992). Coping with coping assessment: A critical review. European Journal of
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 12:34 02 January 2015

Personality, 6 , 321
344.

Patrick, S. (1998). Differences in inmate
inmate and inmate
staff altercations: Examples from a medium security
prison. Social Science Journal , 35 , 253
264.
Rector, N. A., & Roger, D. (1996). Cognitive style and well-being: A prospective examination. Personality and
Individual Differences , 21 , 663
674.
Rigby, K. (1998). The relationship between reported health and involvement in bully/victim problems among male
and female secondary schoolchildren. Journal of Health Psychology, 3 , 465
476.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roger, D., Jarvis, G., & Najarian, B. (1993). Detachment and coping: The construction and validation of a new
scale for measuring coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences , 15 , 619
626.
Roger, D., Najarian, B., & Jarvis, G. (1994). The interactive effects of emotion control and coping strategies on
adaptive behaviour. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Annual Conference, Brighton, UK,
March 1994.
Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behaviour
dysregulation as a pathway to victimisation by peers. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:
The plight of the vulnerable and victimised (pp. 147
174). London: Guildford Press.
Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes
in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimised (pp. 332
351). London: Guildford Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th edn). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Viljoen, J. L., O’Neill, M. L., & Sidhu, A. (2005). Bullying behaviours in male and female young offenders:
Prevalence, types and association with psychosocial adjustment. Aggressive Behavior , 31 , 521
536.
Vitaliano, P. P., DeWolfe, D. J., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Katon, W. (1990). Appraised changeability of a stressor
as a modifier of the relationship between coping and depression: A test of the hypothesis of fit. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39 , 582
592.
Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective . Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zamble, E., & Porporino, F. (1990). Coping, imprisonment, and rehabilitation: Some data and their implications.
Criminal Justice and Behavior , 17 , 53
70.