Children with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) have been found to be at greater risk of experiencing peer victimisation and bullying behaviours than children without SEND (Mishna, 2003). This thesis investigated how individual level factors (e.g. SEND, emotional symptoms, reciprocal friendships, attitudes) and school level factors (e.g. inclusion) are related to peer victimisation and bullying, as well as the additional bullying roles, such as followers and defenders. 1,599 pupils (aged 11-14) from nine schools completed self-report measures to assess the variables of interest. Data on teacher (n = 194) and parent (n = 193) attitudes towards inclusion were collected along with parents’ experiences of inclusion at the schools as proxy measures of school inclusion. Each school’s inclusion/SEND policy and the Ofsted report also provided information on ‘inclusion’ at the school. Multilevel models were run for victimisation and bullying to investigate which variables predicted these experiences. Disability and emotional symptoms positively predicted victimisation while friendships negatively predicted victimisation with an interaction between emotional symptoms and disability also being significant. Attitudes towards SEND significantly positively predicted bullying behaviour. In both models, Ofsted scores were included at the school level and showed that as general Ofsted scores improved, levels of bullying and victimisation decreased. Although the developed measures of school inclusion (Ofsted reports and school policy analyses) did not appear to predict bullying of children with SEND, this study adds to a growing body of research which suggests that school level factors are important, with schools rated highly by Ofsted appearing to have lower levels of bullying.

A wealth of research evidence has been accumulating over the last two decades, highlighting the association of childhood trauma and psychosis. The literature review evaluates empirical evidence and builds upon the previous literature reviews in this area. In addition, the literature review examines the theoretical bases and the underlying psychological factors that contribute to the relationship between childhood trauma and psychosis. It concluded that despite a large body of literature on the association between childhood trauma and psychosis, there is a paucity of empirical research which investigates other forms of childhood trauma, such as, bullying. The empirical paper investigates whether ‘anxiety’, ‘depression’, ‘interpersonal sensitivity’, and/or negative beliefs would mediate the relationship between childhood bullying and paranoid thinking in people with psychosis. Data were collected through self-report measures on demographics, childhood bullying (‘direct aggression’, ‘indirect aggression’), ‘anxiety’, ‘depression’, ‘interpersonal sensitivity’, ‘other-self negative beliefs’, ‘self-self negative beliefs’, ‘self-other negative beliefs’, and paranoid thinking (‘ideas of social reference’, ‘persecution’). A significant association was found between childhood bullying and paranoid thinking. ‘Interpersonal sensitivity’ was found to mediate the relationship between childhood bullying (‘direct aggression’, ‘indirect aggression’) and ‘ideas of social reference’, indicating the importance of the Rejection Sensitivity Model in the understanding of paranoid thinking in victims of childhood bullying. Clinical and research implications, as well as, directions for future research are highlighted.

Behaviour difficulties displayed in childhood and adolescence have pervasive and long term effects into adulthood and across various domains of functioning (Healey, et al. 2004, Woodward, et al. 2002). The numbers of children who suffer with them remain worryingly high (Green et al. 2005). Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are considered particularly at risk of displaying behaviour difficulties; however, despite representing around one fifth of the school population (DfE 2011), little research to date has explicitly investigated these problems in this population. The present study therefore aimed to investigate risk, promotive and protective factors for behaviour difficulties in children with SEND across multiple ecological levels. Data were collected through a concurrent research project evaluating Achievement for All (Humphrey et al. 2011). The sample comprised children identified with SEND in years 1, 5, 7 and 10, from ten local authorities deemed representative of England. A final sample consisted of 2660 primary pupils nested in 248 primary schools and 1628 secondary pupils nested within 57 secondary schools. Predictor variables were measured at the individual and school levels at baseline, along with a teacher reported measure of behaviour difficulties which was assessed again eighteen months later. Analyses were carried out using multi-level modelling revealing that primary schools accounted for 15% and secondary schools 13% of the total variance in behaviour difficulties, with the remainder being at the individual level. Significant risk factors for these problems across both school types were: being male; eligibility for FSM; and being a bully. Risk factors specific to primary schools included being autumn born, being older in the school, having poor positive relationships, and attending schools with lower levels of academic achievement. Risk factors specific to secondary schools included being younger in the school, having poor attendance, having poor academic achievement, being a bystander to bullying and attending a larger school. Results showed evidence for a cumulative risk effect that increasing numbers of contextual risk factors, regardless of their exact nature, resulted in heightened behaviour difficulties. This relationship was non-linear with increasing risk factors in an individual’s background having a disproportional and detrimental increase in behaviour difficulties displayed. The specific type of risk was however, more important than number of risk factors present in an individual’s background in accounting for behaviour difficulties displayed. Finally, results revealed significant protective factors at the school level; specifically attending primary schools with high academic achievement and with more children on the SEND register at school action can protect against the display of behaviour difficulties when these children are at risk in terms of having poor positive relationships. Attending urban secondary schools can also protect against the display of behaviour difficulties, when these children are at risk in terms of having poor academic achievement. The implications of these findings are discussed along with directions for future research.

This study used a Participatory Action Research (PAR) framework to explore bullying in a private day and boarding school. Six students from the school were recruited and trained in research; we worked together to answer this question: What do young people in this private day and boarding school view as the core issue of bullying in the school and how do they want to address this? This thesis presents three cycles of PAR through inquiry, action and reflection: Cycle one, initiated by myself, investigated the bullying definition at the school and how this was understood by the school community. Online questionnaires and a focus group were used to collect data. Cycle two was initiated by the research team following analysis of cycle one data. The ‘core bullying issue’ was identified as that of the ‘snitch’ and how participants conceptualised ‘serious’ and ‘not serious’ bullying. Paper questionnaires and student-led interviews were used to collect data. Cycle three focussed on the tangible ‘action’ from the project: the development of a draft anti-bullying strategy for the school. This thesis has two separate contributions. Firstly there is a subject contribution about ‘snitching’; students had to navigate a complex web in their decision to ‘snitch’ or not to ‘snitch’. Deciding whether the bullying was ‘serious’ enough to ‘snitch’ impacted on their initial decision. Furthermore students needed to decide if ‘snitching’ was the right thing to do. Secondly there is a methodological contribution; I further developed an existing framework for evaluating the participation of children in research (Dual-axis Model of Participation, Moules and O’Brien, 2012), through adding the dimensions of ‘ideas’ and ‘knowledge’.