Zhanna Khamzina, Yermek Buribayev
In the full sample, 69.3% classified bullying as mass/frequent, 20.3% as isolated, and 10.4% selected "difficult to answer." Relative to the low anti-value cluster, adjusted odds ratios were 12.75 (95% CI 8.36-19.44) in the medium cluster and 64.07 (95% CI 42.50-96.58) in the high cluster. Large perceived value differences between affluent and low-income groups were associated with higher odds of a mass/frequent classification (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.16-4.09); estimates for value differences between officials and the public were nonsignificant. Cross-classification identified 1,589 respondents who endorsed all four ethical values as very important and classified bullying as mass/frequent, representing 50.9% of the full sample and 69.1% of respondents meeting the ethical-core criterion.
INTRODUCTION: Research on bullying has focused primarily on schools and workplaces. This cross-sectional study analyzes how adults in Kazakhstan assess bullying prevalence and how their assessments relate to the perceived prevalence of nine other socially disapproved practices, perceived value differences between social groups, and endorsement of four ethical values.
METHODS: Data came from a nationwide, quota-controlled computer-assisted personal interviewing survey conducted from May to June 2025 (N = 3,123). Descriptive analysis retained four response categories. Binary logistic regression coded mass/ubiquitous and frequent responses as Y = 1 and isolated manifestations as Y = 0; exclusion of 325 difficult-to-answer responses produced an analytical sample of 2,798. Predictors included the anti-value prevalence cluster, perceived value differences between officials and the public and between affluent and low-income groups, an ethical-core indicator, sociodemographic covariates, and regional fixed effects. Exact cross-classification examined the coexistence of the ethical-core criterion and the four-category bullying response.
RESULTS: In the full sample, 69.3% classified bullying as mass/frequent, 20.3% as isolated, and 10.4% selected "difficult to answer." Relative to the low anti-value cluster, adjusted odds ratios were 12.75 (95% CI 8.36-19.44) in the medium cluster and 64.07 (95% CI 42.50-96.58) in the high cluster. Large perceived value differences between affluent and low-income groups were associated with higher odds of a mass/frequent classification (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.16-4.09); estimates for value differences between officials and the public were nonsignificant. Cross-classification identified 1,589 respondents who endorsed all four ethical values as very important and classified bullying as mass/frequent, representing 50.9% of the full sample and 69.1% of respondents meeting the ethical-core criterion.
DISCUSSION: The survey records a concentrated pattern of mass/frequent assessments across bullying and other anti-values, along with an independent association for perceived affluent-poor value differences.