3: Interventions for Bullying
Intergroup approach
Bullying carried out by members of one social group, targeting the members of an out-group e.g immigrants Can emerge due to prejudice
Social desirability bias
A tendency to give socially approved answers to questions about oneself Self report issues
Group approach gender differences
Boys more frequently reinforcers and assistants of bully Girls more frequently defenders of victim or outsiders
Intra/interpersonal approach
Bullying due to individual differences e.g. appearance Bully is typically proactively aggressive Uses aggression to control peers Physical (boys) or relational (girls) Victim is withdrawn, submissive, reactively aggressive, provocative VICTIM BLAMING
SUMMARY
Bullying in school is a pervasive problem Research has focused on intra/interpersonal, group and intergroup contrubutors Intergroup approach NEGLECTED Translate research and theory into practice pls
Group approach
Bullying involves people other than the bully and the victim - Bully - Victim - Assistants side with bully - Reinforcers - Outsiders, passive - Defenders, assertively intervene
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
Bullying prevention program - talks with bullies and victims - classroom/assembly discussions - staff meetings Multi-layered approach
Dan Olweus 1995
Developed a bullying prevention program "A student is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students"
Tattum 1997
Emphasised the importance of measuring SINGLE ACTS of bullying
Cunningham et al., 2010
Focus groups have shown that focusing on what NOT to do makes the message go ignored Negatively worded messages ("don't bully") are not the way to go
Smith, Lopez-Castro, Robinson & Gorzig 2018
GENDER Boys more involved in bullying - both as bullies and victims Girls more involved as victims of cyber-bullying vs offline
Cyber-bullying
Increasing levels Extension of name-calling?
Aboud & Joong 2007
Highlighted the importance of bystanders in challenging bullies and confronting victims
Sutton, Smith, Sweetenham 1999
INTELLECT Investigated bullies social cognition in relation to others Completed false belief tasks to test their emotional and mental state reasoning RESULTS Bullies be smart
Intervention strategies aims
Improve awareness and support Develop social skills of at-risk individuals Encourage student support
Bullying
Intention to harm Repetitive Imbalance of power
Theoretical approaches to bullying
Intra/interpersonal approach Group approach Intergroup approach
Indirect bullying
Involvement of a third part, typically more covert Gossiping, spreading rumours
KiVa programme
Largest programme to acknowledging peers Kiusaamista Vastaan = against bullying Beneficial effects on 7 out of 11 DVs - self reported victimisation - peer reported victimisation - self reported bullying
Cross-lagged
Measures a dependent variable and an independent variable at two points in time Pre intervention results from year 5 compared to post intervention results from year 4
Name-calling
Most common type Tilt towards verbal bullying as children grow (not as much physical)
Awareness campaigns
Need to be continuous and interlinked to school's policy Problems with negatively worded messages ("don't bully)
Consequences
Numerous negative psychological, physical and academic consequences Even for bystanders!
Evaluation of OBPP
Olweus & Limber 2010 Found significant reductions in bullying rates 50% or more Success of multi-layer school-wide intervention
Assertive bystanders
One of the most effective means of combating bullying in schools esp. INTERGROUP bullying 10 seconds But! rare
Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias 2015
PERSONALITY Meta-analysis of 19 studies Bullying was negatively correlated with - agreeableness .24 - affective empathy .16 - conscientiousness .15 Boys more likely, young more likely
No trap! Intervention
Peer-led approach to tackle traditional and cyber-bullying Significant decrease over time in victimisation, bullying, cybervic and cyberbu
Direct bullying
Physical or verbal behaviours overtly directed at another e.g name calling
Salmivalli et al., 1996
Pupils are more likely to choose a role that supports the bully Least likely to choose the defender role (20%)
Restorative justice
Restore a positive relationship between the bully and the victim Shaming techniques Promote forgiveness and reconciliation
Department of Education Sheffield Anti-bullying project
Social skills training Focused on how to be assertive in the face of harassment (victim) How to control your anger and develop empathy (bully) Whole-school policy Primary: 17% reduction Secondary: 3-5% reduction
Measuring bullying
Teacher and parents reports (may not be aware) Self report (paranoids/deniers tho) Peer report (most reliable, time consuming) School based systems (incidence reporting etc, variability) Observations (CCTV? Ethical considerations)
Olweus & Limber 2010
The bullying circle Students who bully Followers or Henchmen Supporters or Passive bullies Passive supporters or Possible bullies Disengaged onlookers Possible defenders Defenders
Summary of interventions
Usually take an intra or inter personal approach Neglect the potential for others Initial meta analysis found minimal effects More recently, school based programmes are effective 20-23%
What makes an effective anti-bullying intervention?
Whole-school programmes Intensity and duration Parent training/meetings Disciplinary methods Mobilisation/awareness of bystanders Anti-bullying classroom norms Clear & well communicated policy
