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is typically proactively aggressive Uses aggression to control peers Physical (boys) or relational (girls) Victim is withdrawn, submissive, reactively aggressive, provocative VICTIM BLAMING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