Bullying Behavior and the Level of Emotional Intelligence of the Perpetrators of Bullying in the Junior High Schools in the Congressional District XYZ: Basis for Prevention Plan

Authors

  • John Emmanuel C. Landicho

Keywords:

bully, bullying, emotional intelligence, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, MEM

Abstract

This study described the profile of the respondents; investigated the type bullying that is most prevalent among the bullies; assessed the level of emotional intelligence of the perpetrators; and determined if there is a significant difference between the bullying behaviour and the level of emotional intelligence of the perpetrators. In this study, the researcher used a descriptive research design and employed a survey questionnaire. The first and second parts of the instrument were personally developed by the researcher. However, the third part, on emotional intelligence, was adopted from previous study. The research conducted the study in 20 junior high schools in the District XYZ in the Division of Quezon. There were a total of 371 perpetrators in locale but only 252 participated. The data obtained were analyzed systematically using descriptive statistics and presented with the help of frequency/percentage table, weighted mean and rank. In addition, the researcher sought the assistance of statistician to analyze correlation between bullying behaviour and level of emotional intelligence. Major findings revealed that between the direct bullying and indirect bullying, direct bullying got the highest frequency. Furthermore, the result showed that physical bullying is the most prevalent type of bullying among the bullies. What is interesting to know is that despite the occurrences of bullying in schools, the present study revealed that students have high level of emotional intelligence. More so, in correlation analysis, the study proved that there is a significant difference on bullying behaviour and the level of emotional intelligence of the perpetrators of bullying, thus the null hypothesis is rejected. Other findings, conclusions and recommendations were further discussed the succeeding chapters.

Published

2018-10-18