3. Results
Six major themes emerged: (1) the concept of bullying (2) difficulty in defining bullying in early childhood (3) difficulty in communicating with other mothers about bullying (4) children who do not reveal their experiences (5) ways to be aware of bullying and (6) mothers’ concern. Each theme consisted of categories that were sometimes divided into subcategories.
Table 2 shows the hierarchy of themes and categories (and subcategories).
Due to the limited space, only the quotes that were most representative of each category (or subcategory) were shown. In some categories, more than one quote were displayed, while in other categories, only one quote was indicated if it carried the meaning of the category (or subcategory) efficiently.
Theme 1. Concept of bullying.
The theme concept of bullying explains how mothers conceptualized bullying, and what criteria they used to define bullying among young children. This was further explained by the category “criteria of bullying” and its subcategories.
Category 1-1. Criteria of bullying. (Subcategories: Physical/psychological harm, repetition, power, intention, and victim-centeredness).
Mothers’ concepts of bullying were similar to those defined by academic researchers: They used the criteria of physical/psychological harm, repetition, power, and intention. Additionally, mothers focused on defining young children’s bullying from victims’ perspectives.
“Of course, hitting is goerophim, but psychological suffering also often occurs among girls” (M4). (Subcategory: physical/psychological harm).
“If this goes on for long, it is goerophim” (M2). (Subcategory: repetition).
“A child can once in a while engage in these behaviors for fun, but if those are repeated, they can be harmful” (M3). (Subcategory: repetition).
“The child (aggressor) does not consider his/her friend an equal” (M5). (Subcategory: power).
“If they know that they commit goerophim, then it is goerophim: even if they do not know what they do. If someone is victimized, that is goerophim regardless of whether the children are aware of the meaning of their actions” (M2). (Subcategory: intention).
“If the child (victim) is so distressed that he/she cannot sleep, then their experience is goerophim” (M6). (Subcategory: victim-centeredness).
“If an individual feels pain from an action directed at them, that is goerophim” (M4). (Subcategory: victim-centeredness).
Mothers often mentioned that stress or pain from the victims’ perspective was an important criterion for defining bullying, rather than the use of relatively more objective standards (repetition, intention, power).
The subcategory “victim-centeredness” may have resulted from the ambiguity of the bullying situation in early childhood, which leads to difficulties in defining bullying in early childhood.
Theme 2. Difficulty in defining bullying in early childhood.
The theme difficulty in defining bullying in early childhood leads to obstacles that interfere in judging certain aggressive episodes as bullying or not. It consisted of the categories “ambiguity of situation,” and “different standpoints of mothers”, and subcategories of each category.
Category 2-1. Ambiguity of situation. (Subcategories: Severity, repetition, self-defense, and peer interaction).
Mothers have difficulty in defining bullying, although they are aware of the basic criteria (harmfulness, repetition, power, intention, and victim-centeredness), because of the ambiguity of the aggressive situation. This was further explained by subcategories such as severity, repetition, self-defense, and peer interaction. When aggressive behaviors occurred, it was difficult to decide to what extent these subcategories were involved (whether the aggressive behavior was severe, how many times it was repeated, whether it was done in self-defense, and whether it was negative peer interactions or general peer conflicts rather than bullying).
“X says nasty words and hits others. Are these behaviors that have resulted from having experienced humiliation? It is not clear whether X hit Y though Y has done nothing to him/her… or if X swears at Y, and Y hits X, which behavior is more punishable?” (M5). (Subcategory: severity, self-defense).
“A teacher told children not to report an aggressive behavior until it had happened seven times. This is the solution provided by a teacher. The teacher said there was nothing wrong with the accounts of either of the children (the aggressor and the victim). Each had reasonable explanation for their behavior. Children only consider their own views. There is a gap between the children, which the teacher may have difficulty balancing… It may be strange from an adult’s perspective, but children feel victimized” (M1). (Subcategory: peer interaction).
Mothers and teachers were all confused by the boundary between bullying and other negative interactions (such as fighting and joking). Mothers were confused about what behavior was worse among several types of aggressive behaviors. Even more confusing was aggressive behaviors that occurred in response to others’ provocation. Mothers stated that teachers regarded the aggressive behaviors among children as general conflicts rather than as bullying. It seems to be the reason why teachers did not react to every single conflict among children, and told children to report only when an aggression was repeated many times (such as seven times in the example above). In contrast, children were clear about these concepts: if they were at the receiving aggressive behavior, it was regarded as being bullied or victimized whereas if they were the aggressors, it was just for fun. Teachers’ views were different from those of mothers, which caused mothers to distrust teachers, and explained the category of trust/distrust of the teacher under the sixth theme, mothers’ concern.
Category 2-2. Different standpoints of mothers. (Subcategory: Aggressors’ mothers versus victims’ mothers, and mothers’ personal characteristics).
Mothers had different perspectives, depending on whether their children were the victims or the aggressors. Their responses also depended on their personal characteristics. Some mothers, when their children were involved in bullying behavior, apologized to the victim’s mother, which was regarded as reasonable and understandable by other mothers. However, some mothers of aggressive children reacted aggressively toward the victim’s mother and did not admit their children’s wrongdoing. Participants perceived that these different responses resulted from the mothers’ personal characteristics. These could make them reluctant to tell other mothers about their children’s victimization.
“My girl could not sleep and did not want to go to kindergarten. However, because it was not her girl who was victimized, she perceived the situation as simple and downplayed it, and that hurt me…They said my girl is too sensitive and fussy” (M6). (Subcategory: aggressors’ mothers versus victims’ mothers).
Mothers reported that aggressors’ mothers tended to regard the incident not as bullying but a misunderstanding among children.
“They (aggressors’ mothers) are not humble enough to apologize to victims or their mothers. They think there is something wrong with the other child (victim), or that there has simply been a misunderstanding between children” (M5). (Subcategory: aggressors’ mothers versus victims’ mothers).
“I told her frankly that I felt bad about her girl’s careless words. H cries whenever H is reminded of the incident. It was hurting H… I know she was not at fault, her girl was…but she didn’t take this situation as seriously as I did” (M8). (Subcategory: aggressors’ mothers versus victims’ mothers).
There were a lot of comments regarding these different points of view. Not all aggressive mothers justified their children’s mistakes. Mothers’ personal characteristics played a part in how they reacted upon hearing that their children were bullies. This is important, because their own nature makes the victims’ mothers unlikely to tell aggressors’ mothers about their children’s bullying, which in turn, makes it difficult to stop such incidents.
“The first type, mother says, “No matter what, hitting is wrong and I apologize.” This is normal. The second type says, “Oh, I will apologize…but maybe there is some issue among the children.” This is still a mild reaction; the third is pushy, “No, there must be something wrong” and, ask her child. The child could be lying, but the mother chooses to only believe her child’s words. This is what poses a problem” (M5). (Subcategory: mothers’ personal characteristics).
Theme 3. Difficulty in communicating with other mothers about bullying.
The theme difficulty in communicating with other mothers about bullying represents mothers’ reluctance and worries of telling or sharing bullying-related experiences of their children. The category “relationships among mothers” was deeply involved with the difficulties in communicating. Further, the category “links between mothers” and “children’s relationships” explained that the relationships among mothers and those among children were connected and influenced each other, which made mothers more careful about talking about their or other children’s experiences of bullying.
Category 3-1. Relationships among mothers. (Subcategories: Closeness, fear of being wang-ta).
Mothers found it difficult to directly talk to the aggressor’s mother or to other mothers uninvolved in the bullying situation. They were afraid of damaging of their relationships with other mothers after telling experiences of their children.
The subcategory “closeness among mothers” can either make it easier or more difficult to tell other mothers of their children’s bullying. In one way, closeness can easily solve this problem.
“If I know the aggressor and the aggressor’s mother, I can approach her more easily, such as, ‘Hey, your girl hits my girl, could you ask your girl about this?’ However, if I do not know the mother, I would already be upset before asking her and would be ready for an argument” (M12). (Subcategory: closeness).
However, mothers of victims could also be unlikely to speak to aggressors’ mothers about the situation if the two share a close relationship.
“She was not at fault, but we may be uncomfortable because of the children’s matter. I pretended and tried to be fine because no one was (physically) harmed, but I am not actually…(fine)” (M6). (Subcategory: closeness).
Victims’ mothers were unable to gauge how aggressors’ mothers would react upon hearing of their children’s behavior. Unless the aggressor’s mother was sensible and empathized with the victimized child, the friendship between the mothers would end, or at least become uncomfortable.
The subcategory “fear of being wang-ta” explains that mothers could not tell victimization experiences of their children because they were afraid of being isolated if the victimization did not elicit other mothers’ empathy. Mothers were worried about how the victimization of their child would be perceived, and whether other mothers could understand the situation.
“If I react very strongly even though it was the other child’s fault, they might think that I overreact and regard me as a violent and stubborn person. I would become a cause for alarm’” (M5). (Subcategory: fear of being wang-ta).
Another mother’s interview clearly demonstrated this worry.
“I have lived in this town for eight years, so I know the aggressor who makes trouble here…One child was victimized by this aggressor. The victim’s mother is not one to remain silent; she made sure the whole school knew, sending instant messages directly even to her child’s teacher. She opened a chat room for mothers, so that they could be aware of what happened among the children” (M2). (Subcategory: fear of being wang-ta).
M2 did not show a positive attitude toward the victim’s mother; she seemed to think the situation could have been handled in other ways.
Generally, mothers know both aggressor and victim, because they live in the same town, and their children usually go to the same school in the district. Thus, their relationships are complicated: sometimes they may be close to aggressor’s mother, in that case, they might tend not to blame aggressor too much.
Category 3-2. Links between mothers’ and children’s relationships.
Mothers’ and children’s relationships are related. Children’s peer relations can be influenced by mothers’ relationships. If mothers had conflicts, their children are not allowed to play together by their mothers.
“It is very common. Mothers’ relationships directly affect those of the children. Children can recover their relationship, but they cannot play anymore because their mothers’ relationship has been severed” (M7).
Sometimes, mothers can contribute to making a child or a child’s mother wang-ta intentionally or unintentionally; they can stigmatize a child who has trouble with other children in the town, and the child and his/her mother can be socially excluded.
“If some mothers say that a child is weird, he/she is socially excluded, rumors spread implicitly around mothers; they overreact even over very trivial things…Mothers only think about their own children.” (M9).
Mothers’ selfishness in thinking only of their own children can be detrimental to the reputations of other children, contributing to making certain children wang-ta. In contrast, when an aggressive child bullied other children and his/her mother ignored the situation, other mothers were distressed by the mother and the child.
“If a child (aggressor) lacks self-control. He/she fights with others, then his/her mother should say ‘it is your fault, you should have behaved better’ but she responds, ‘Um…I see’ and that is the end of it. Then the boy would think ‘Whatever I do is okay’ Then, the mother gets in trouble with the other mothers, and she is socially excluded by the other mothers” (M6).
Theme 4. Children who do not reveal their experiences.
The fourth theme, children who do not reveal their experiences to, explained why children were unlikely to tell their bullying-related experiences to parents. The categories “fear”, “introversion,” and “desire to play with aggressor” were related to the psychological reasons for the children’s difficulty in determining victimization. “limited language ability” was regarded as a cognitive factor that contributed to children’s difficulty in reporting incidences of bullying to their parents.
Category 4-1. Fear.
If children were threatened or dominated by someone who is physically or socially more powerful, they felt fear, which made them difficult to report the bullying.
“The boys drank soap bubbles because they were frightened of the aggressor. There were 10 boys in the class, and five of them drank the bubbles” (M2).
“X commanded A to put up her hands and reflect upon her faults. I was speechless…The teacher told X that they must not do it” (M1).
The order of a dominant child seems to be undeniable in the children’s social world. Children seem to panic, and are unable to think about what to do and how to cope with the dominant child’s behavior.
Category 4-2. Introversion.
Some mothers worried that their children’s introverted characteristics led to their being unaware of events in kindergarten.
“X is not weak nor tender like my girl… A is not talkative; usually she doesn’t speak about what happens at the daycare center…She was so tender, she couldn’t react to it” (M1).
Also, when a dominant child meets one who is tender and introverted, bullying is more likely to occur, as the introverted child is unlikely to directly express their displeasure to the aggressor.
“O is a dominant child, if there are children who are younger than O, O snatches what they are doing, and uses it” (M10).
Category 4-3. Desire to play with the aggressor.
Quite often, children seemed to think that if they reported the situation, they would be unable to continue playing with the aggressor.
This makes mothers frustrated.
“I told E not to play with the other girl, but she wants to, and I can’t stop her, which really disappoints me” (M5).
Children seemed to want to play with aggressor, because they attracted characteristics that the aggressor had
“I asked B ‘Why do you want to play with her?’ and B said. ‘Because she dresses like a princess and other children like her’…” (M2).
Category 4-4. Limited language ability.
Children have difficulty in expressing their victimization experiences, because their language ability restricts them from expressing their victimization experiences appropriately and in a timely manner. This was very frequently mentioned by mothers.
“C is a child of my friend. C has been suffering from atopic eczema since she was a baby, when she joined first grade in elementary school, she told her mother that she had had a very difficult time in kindergarten. Other kids used to tease her because of her skin. At the time, she had told her mother that she did not want to go to kindergarten, but her mother did not know the reason for this and pushed her to go kindergarten. Her mother had regarded her complaint as general or infantile behavior. She could not express what she was going through at that time because she was too young but she is mature enough now…” (M3).
“J was not able to speak in detail because she was four years old. She said ‘Mom, O is really bad” I asked ‘Why?, then ‘O is nice when teacher is hanging around, but she does whatever she wants when the teacher disappears’ I said to J ‘Children are like that…you also do whatever you want’…I did not think of it as important” (M10).
“A child cannot refute point-by-point when another child says that he/she has done something that he/she has not. He/she just cries and says, ‘I didn’t, I didn’t.’ The other children just see him/her crying; they don’t listen to what he/she actually did, and it turns into a bad situation” (M11).
Young children’s expressions are likely to be simple as the above (e.g., ‘she is bad’ ‘I don’t want to go kindergarten’). This can cause mothers to tend to disregard the importance of their expressions, and other children in the same class are not able to understand the situation.
Also, children were often unaware of whether the bad events that they experienced were bullying. Although they felt bad, it seemed to be difficult for them to tell at the time, which could be a result of their limited language ability, and their desire to play with the aggressor.
This did not mean that they were fine and not hurt; but rather, that they had buried the hurt within themselves for a long time, telling adults much later. This reflects on the fact that children do not forget their victimization. Instead, it seems that they can tell of when their cognitive or language development has reached a level where they are able to explain their experience.
Furthermore, young children could express non-aggressive behaviors which they received from others as aggressive behaviors, due to their limited language abilities, which might have been caused by their cognitive developmental stage in interpreting others’ intensions and behaviors.
“I intentionally teach my boy to improve his language skills because he should be able to express himself if he is victimized, but that backfired. One day, a teacher called me and said that my boy told her I hit him. I was shocked, ‘Did I hit him?’…I just patted him to put him to bed…” (M7).
Children’s simple and delayed expressions of their victimization, or wrong expression of non-victimization experiences renders mothers unlikely to identify bullying incidents correctly. Also, as the incidents described by their children might have occurred months or even years ago, it is difficult for them to discern exactly what happened.
Theme 5. Ways to be aware of bullying.
The fifth theme, ways to be aware of bullying, outlines diverse ways in which mothers were informed of bullying incidents: the categories “online and offline networks among mothers,” “witness,” and “children’s reports” further explained the theme.
Category 5-1. Online and offline networks among mothers.
Mothers heard of bullying incidents among children through group chat rooms, or from other mothers who were close to them.
“I didn’t know at first, but I have heard from other mothers…They talked seriously about what had happened, and I asked them whose child had done it” (M2).
“The mum heard from another mum whose child is in the same class as her son” (M4).
Online chats among mothers were useful for obtaining information related to the children, but also had negative effects. Some mothers reported the following disadvantages of group chat rooms: “Group chat, especially among the mothers of all the children in one class, causes many problems” (M11).
“I only use it for class-related notices.” (M12).
In spite of the negative effects of an online network among mothers, it is not easy for mothers to be logged-out from the online chat room, because some important messages or notices related to the school class are announced online.
Category 5-2. Witness.
Sometimes mothers witnessed what happened among the children, which often made them surprised or angry.
“Z commands my girl to obey her when they play together, and my girl cannot command as Z does. This happens consistently and it makes me so upset.” (M8).
Category 5-3. Children’s reports.
Children told their mothers about their victimization experiences, sometimes on the day of the incident, and other times, a while later.
“Usually, B does not tell me what happened in school. However, after that incident (victimization), she said, ‘Mum, I dislike going to school a bit,’ so I was aware that something was wrong” (M2).
“J does not tell me in detail, but she tells me when she is bullied. When she washes her hair, she says it…Children are like that, suddenly they are reminded of previous happenings” (M10).
Theme 6. Mothers’ concern.
The last theme, mothers’ concern, showed mothers’ worries related to bullying. This theme consisted of the categories “worries of being bullies or victims,” “consistency,” “lack of coping strategies,” and “trust/distrust of teacher”.
Category 6-1. Worries of being bullies or victims.
The mothers worried about whether their children could be bullies or victims.
“B can be an aggressor, not a victim, so I warn her when she says something bad. Sometimes she says nasty words. I tell her that she should not say bad things to friends” (M2).
Category 6-2. Consistency.
From early ages, bullying happened frequently, and mothers were afraid that it would be consistent throughout mid-childhood or adolescence.
“I thought these things don’t happen at early ages. However, such incidents occur even among first and second graders in elementary school. I worry about what will happen when they grow up” (M6).
“They met when they were very young. It happened sometimes but disregarded at that time. It continued in elementary school, and now S slaps T’s face” (M3).
As M3 mentioned, mothers perceived that a failure to intervene in children’s problematic peer relations from an early age could cause the behaviors to become severe.
Category 6-3. Lack of coping strategies.
Mothers were embarrassed and surprised when they heard that their children were being bullied. Generally, they did not know what to do. They told teachers, or asked their children how to react, but were unsure of whether their interventions were appropriate and effective.
“I was so embarrassed when I heard of it. I did not know what to do” (M4).
“I did not know what to do, and to what extent I could intervene in a child’s matter…Even when I say something, I cannot blame or tell the boy off…he may say ‘I just call Oh-e to Oh-ri,’ boys are not afraid (of my words)” (M11).
The mothers’ responses reflected that they did not have many options for coping. M11’s daughter (Oh-e) was verbally bullied because her name had similar pronunciation to Oh-ri (in Korean this means “duck”). M11 expected that the aggressor would not listen to her words, as he knew that she could not speak assertively to him. Thus, he justified or trivialized his behavior, rather than admitted it as bullying.
Category 6-4. Trust/distrust of teacher.
Mothers expected that the teacher would be able to solve bullying incidents. Sometimes their expectations were fulfilled, but sometimes they were not. Depending on teachers’ reactions or coping mechanisms, mothers built trustful/distrustful relationships with the teachers. Some mothers formed trustful relationships with teachers while experiencing and dealing with their children’s victimization.
“Last year, the teacher was very helpful. The teacher told me to ask A if she had said bad things. The teacher said that children tend to disclose only specific parts of stories, where they appeared to be the victims. So, I needed to find out what exactly my child’s role had been in the matter” (M1).
In contrast, some mothers were disappointed by teachers’ passive responses to their children’s experiences of victimization. Although they understood the teachers’ stance, they were frustrated by the fact that the matter was not dealt with adequately.
“I told Oh-e to ask for help from the teacher. However, the teacher told children not to complain, but to try solving their issues independently. The teacher considered children’s reporting as tattling. The teacher has difficulty with looking into every report because children complain about even the most trivial things on a daily basis. The boundary between tattling and reporting is not clear. “I do not know to what extent I have to tell Oh-e ‘you have to report to the teacher if bad things happen to you.’ She was hurt, cried, and felt she was being bullied and that no one could help…” (M11).
“I talked through the phone with teacher, the teacher did not consider seriously…The teacher just seemed to think ‘Um… another mother phones me’” (M10).
As mentioned in the subcategory “peer interaction” under category 2-1. Ambiguity of situation, teachers and mothers have different views. Mothers desired the teachers’ help in their children’s victimization; however, from the mothers’ viewpoints, teachers were perceived to handle general conflicts and victimization in the same way, even though they should be treated differently.