Psychology Homework help

Creating An Anti-Bullying Culture In Secondary Schools: Characterists to Consider When Constructing Appropriate Anti-Bullying Programs

Author(s): Joseph R. Jones and Sharon Murphy Augustine

Source: American Secondary Education , Summer 2015, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Summer 2015), pp. 73-84

Published by: Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43694219

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Secondary Education

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Creating An Anti-Bullying Culture In Secondary Schools: Characterists to

Consider When Constructing Appropriate Anti-Bullying Programs

Authors

Joseph R. Jones, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Tift College of Educa- tion at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia.

Sharon Murphy Augustine, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Tift Col-

lege of Education at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia.

Abstract

Bullying in schools is a tremendous challenge that many secondary educators are attempting to address within their school environments. However ; educa- tors are often unsure of the attributes of an effective anti-bullying program; thus , they tend to create programs on a "trial and error" basis. This article provides an overview of the problem of bullying and discusses six character- istics that should be included in attempting to create an effective anti-bullying program: community involvement , an assessment of the school climate , a consensus on the definition of bullying , student and parental engagement , professional development for faculty and staff, and ongoing program evalu- ation.

Bullying is not a new phenomenon in schools, but the topic is currently experiencing a renaissance of scholarly attention (Miller, Burns, & Johnson, 2013; Vail, 2009). Increased attention anti-bullying curricula in schools, es- pecially in secondary school environments, has occurred within the context of horrifying, deadly, and highly publicized events such as the Columbine school shootings, which resulted in the murder of twelve students and one teacher and the suicides of the two teen gunmen.

73

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

In her recent article on gun violence in American schools, Gupta (201 5) documented 55 school shootings between 1991 and 2013, which further shows a pattern of school violence. That pattern also includes cyberbully- ing, which has been linked to the teen suicides of Ryan Halligan in Vermont in 2003, Megan Meier in Missouri in 2006, Jessica Logan in Ohio in 2009, and Tyler Clementi in New Jersey in 2010. All of these teenagers committed suicide after being targeted by individuals using social media (Wood, 201 5). Vail (2009) noted that all forms of bullying have been linked by the "FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice" to school violence and low academic achievement (p. 43). All educators, especially secondary school educators, must address what the Centers for Disease Control (201 1 ) has labeled a pub- lic health crisis.

A Bullying Epidemic Statistics about students' lived experiences in schools describe a dire en- vironment of bullying. Haynie, et al. (2001) postulated that up to 45% of students in schools were involved in bullying practices, either as the target or as the bully. It has been estimated that 25% of students are bullied on a regu- lar basis, and 20% of students have bullied their peers (Bullying Statistics, 2013). In another study, 37.9% of students surveyed were involved in bully- ing behavior (O'Brennan & Sawyer, 2008). According to researchers (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Hawker & Boulton, 2000), targets of bullying behaviors are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and loss of self-esteem.

Cyberbullying is bullying behavior that involves the use of electronic media, such as cell phones and social media. This type of bullying is differ- ent because harassment may be posted anonymously and may happen off school property; thus, it is more difficult for school administrators to address. 1 6% of high school students are cyberbullied (CDC, 201 1 ). Students who are cyberbullied experience the same detrimental results as traditional bullying (stopbullying.org).

Factors Associated with Bullying

In discussing the bullying epidemic, it may be beneficial to view a snapshot of factors that impact levels of harassment in secondary schools. Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2013) show that racial bullying is a tremendous challenge facing educators. In fact, racial bullying is quite rampant among adolescents. Every minority group experienced being a target of bullying behaviors, and Asian Americans reported receiving the most harassment (NCES, 2013).

Data from the NCES (2013) indicate that lower socio-economic students are at a higher risk of being bullied because of their socioeconomic status… Students from impoverished families are at a higher risk for becoming tar- geted and victimized by others in their schools (Due, et al., 2009). Gender

74

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

also plays a role in the bullying epidemic with a majority of female adoles- cents being harassed by other females. As female students continue through secondary school, reports of harassment for girls are dramatically higher than boys (NCES, 2013). A majority of female bullying exists within high school settings and connects to the "mean girl" phenomenon in which girls demean and discipline each other (Garandeau & Cillessen, 2006).

Marginalized Students

As the data above support, bullying is a tremendous challenge in schools as it relates to race, class, and gender, but there are two specific marginal- ized groups who are the recipients of a majority of the harassment from their school-age peers: non-heterosexual students and students with special needs. One's perceived sexual orientation is one of the strongest contributing factors impacting bullying behavior, and the effects of homophobic bullying are devastating for students whose sexual orientation and gender expression differs from the majority population. Statistics reported by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network in their National School Climate Survey (GLSEN, 201 1 ), create a picture of what students face in schools on a regular basis:

• 84.9% of students heard 'gay' used in a negative way frequently or often at school

• 91 .4% reported that they felt distressed because of this language

• 71 .3% heard other homophobic remarks frequently or often.

• 56.9% of students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their teachers or other school staff.

• 81.9% were verbally harassed (e.g., called names or threatened) in the past year because of their sexual orientation.

• 38.3% were physically harassed (e.g., pushed or shoved) in the past year because of their sexual orientation.

Although these data are alarming, truly conceptualizing the problem of ho- mophobic bullying requires putting a face to the grim statistics. Consider the case of Madison, a 20 year-old college student:

[Madison] grew up in a middle class family, one where he was ex- pected to attend college. Although he had not come out in high school, everyone knew he was gay. They constantly harassed him, and he avoided sports because of the harassment and possible locker room assaults. He learned how to skip school without his parents finding out. To him, high school was not about having fun, but rather it was about survival (Jones, 2014b, p.3).

75

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

Students with special needs are another marginalized population within K-12 schools who receive a great amount of harassment. Students who self- reported taking ADHD medication, for instance, experienced more bullying than their peers did (Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Wiener & Mak, 2009). The online community AbilityRath.org (2014) provides statistics, resources, and networking opportunities for parents and educators. Their research reports disturbing statistics similar to those that non-heterosexual students encoun- tered:

• Students with special needs are two to three times more likely to be bullied than the general population of the school building.

• 47% of parents reported that their children had been hit by peers or siblings.

• 50% of parents reported their child was scared of their peers.

• 9% of the students with special needs were attacked by a group of students and hurt in their "private parts."

• 12% of parents indicated their child had never been invited to a birthday party.

• 6% of students were almost always picked last for teams.

• 3% of students ate alone at lunch every day (abilitypath.org).

Additionally, students with special needs were told not to tattle on others who had bullied them nearly twice as often as their non-special education counterparts. AbilityPath (2014) presents the case of Tyler Long as an ex- ample of the devastating effects of bullying.

[Tyler's] diagnosis with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) caused unique personality traits that made him unpopular in school. His mother, Tina Long, says being different made him a target of bul- lying. Classmates took his things, spat in his food and called Tyler names. On October 17, 2009, 17-year-old Tyler's battle with the bullies led to a tragic end. Depressed; he hanged himself before school and committed suicide. It devastated his family and engulfed a community to seek answers. (AbilityPath, 2014)

Bullying behaviors create hostile and oppressive climates for all students, especially non-heterosexual and students with special needs. It is not enough to be disheartened, outraged, or even angry that these statistics and personal accounts exist in the very place where students should learn, be safe, and be transformed by educational experiences rather than be targets of the bully-

76

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

ing. Instead, school systems must take action to change the climates of the school.

Creating an Empathetic School Teachers often assume that children come into school with the ability to empathize with their classmates, but empathy is a characteristic that must be taught (Schachter, 2011). Empathy clearly plays a tremendous role in an effective anti-bullying program. In addressing homophobia in schools, Jones (2010) argued that realizing the personal pain that homophobic bul- lying causes other students is vital in attempting to create safe places for all students Research supports the necessity of including empathy training in anti-bullying programs.. Stanbury, Bruce, Jain, & Stellern (2010), for instance, developed an empathy building anti-bully program that decreased bullying behaviors in their school building. Another study, (Rock, Hammond, & Ras- mussen, 2002) implemented a program teaching fairness, aiding victims, and other empathie traits. That program reduced bullying incidents in the build- ing by 73% .

Creating empathetic educators and students can be accomplished by implementing a community-based anti-bullying curriculum within schools, but doing so requires six important components: (a) community involvement, (b) an assessment of the school climate, (c) a consensus on the definition of bullying, (d) student and parental engagement, (e) professional development for faculty and staff, and (f) program evaluation. In the following discussion, we explore each of these components that are necessary to consider when constructing anti-bullying programs.

Community Involvement

Because we believe bullying exists because of a social construction of dif- ference, we argue, that successful programs must incorporate everyone in- volved in the schooling process such as administrators, teachers, parents, and community organizations. Engaging all members of the community ensures that the program will be appropriate for the school culture in which it is used (OJJDP, 2014). Effective anti-bullying programs should not be prefabricated (OJJDP, 201 4). As Langdon and Preble (2008) have argued, the entire school community and all educational stakeholders should be considered when at- tempting to combat bullying. Research has advocated that individuals must work together to effectively reduce bullying practices within schools (Croth- ers & Kolbert, 2004; Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006).

We are advocates of a paradigm shift within society concerning the process of social normalization. Jones (2014b) argued that combating bully- ing requires a change in the normalizing process of schooling. He believes that bullying behaviors develop because of the structures of binary opposi- tions, which control the ways through which individuals view difference,

77

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullymg Culture Jones & Augustine

which engenders bullying behavior. For example, in terms of sexuality, so- ciety views sexual difference through a straight versus gay binary. Straight becomes the positive, or accepted, side of the binary, and gay is the negative side. Because society views these concepts as oppositional within a "good versus bad" mentality, homophobic bullying continues to thrive in society and schools.

Jones (2014b) postulated that the same oppositional framework exists with all forms of bullying as it relates to difference in race, class, gender, and so forth. Bullying only exists because society places difference within op- positional frameworks, and this view of difference is normalized within chil- dren as they grow. In this manner, schools become the major normalizing factor in students' lives when they enter the schooling process. Schools must, therefore, change how students view difference and build tolerant attitudes toward other individuals. In essence, Jones posits that schools must break the binary oppositions through which students view their world, and specifically view difference within their worlds.

Effective anti-bullying programs must combat social normalization by causing students to grapple and engage with their beliefs about otherness and to conceptualize how those beliefs were framed and constructed. We believe that this recognition has the possibility to lead individuals to a more tolerant attitude toward difference. However, beginning just with students is not enough, it is necessary to assess the school community.

Assessing the School Climate

Before an effective anti-bullying program can be constructed, one must as- sess the school community to fully understand how bullying is impacting the school building. As Jones (2014a) argued, school communities determine how they define difference and otherness based on socialized belief systems. For example, a student with a specific characteristic may be rejected and bul- lied in one community, but accepted within another community. Bullying ex- ists and strengthens because of social constructions about others. Therefore, it is important to assess, through surveys and interviews, the types of bullying behaviors that exist and the school personnel's overall beliefs about bully- ing in the school. Further, it may be necessary to survey the student body to gather data about specific bullying practices. This data provides informa- tion that is necessary for designing an anti-bullying program, and it provides directions for professional development that will be offered for faculty and staff. After assessing the school culture, the data should be used to construct the program, but every effective program must also have a consensus under- standing of how bullying is defined.

A Consensus on the Definition of Bullying

As Thompson and Cohen (2005) postulated, bullying must be defined in clear and understandable terms so everyone in the community can compre-

78

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

hend how the school defines bullying behaviors. In doing so, it is necessary for the school and surrounding community to recognize the myths related to bullying (Scarpaci, 2006). Bullying is not:

• Just teasing,

• Something some students simply deserve,

• A behavior only males commit,

• A natural behavior (i.e., "kids will be kids"),

• A rite of passage for adolescence,

• Simply going to go away if the target ignores it,

• Something that is the result of the bully's low self-esteem,

• Something that requires the target to fight back,

There are numerous definitions of bullying in the literature, but bullying al- ways encompasses some basic attributes. Bullying cannot exist within an equal distribution of power (Costello, 2011). In this capacity, a more pow- erful individual exerts his or her power on a weaker individual. Moreover, bullying is the repeated targeting of an individual; it is not a one-time inci- dent. Finally, bullying behavior is classified as physical, verbal, and/or social harassment (Scarpaci, 2006).

In order for an anti-bullying program to be effective, the school com- munity must conceptualize how bullying is being defined and what behavior is classified as bullying behavior. Therefore, it may be beneficial to give the school community specific examples of bullying behaviors. It may also be beneficial for students to view skits that depict bullying practices to illustrate a clear definition.

Student and Parental Involvement

Effective anti-bullying programs should "increase student engagement, model caring behavior for students, offer mentoring programs, provide stu- dents with opportunities for service learning, address the difficult transition between elementary and middle school" (OJJDP, 2014, p.6). Moreover, the program must include an appropriate method for students to report incidents without the fear of the bully finding out, and must offer avenues for targets of bullying behavior to receive assistance and emotional support (Swearer, Espelage, & Napolitano, 2009).

Another aspect to consider when constructing anti-bullying programs in- volves educating parents and communicating with them about the program and its importance (OJJDP, 2014). Parents must also be trained to recognize

79

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

when their child is being bullied. Students who are being bullied may exhibit a decrease in grades, fear attending school or faking an illness, a decrease in cell phone and social media use, or bruises or other injuries. Parents must be able to recognize these symptoms so that an intervention can place.

Preparing Faculty and Staff

Because colleges may not have provided formal training to address bullying behaviors within school environments, school districts must offer profession- al development for faculty and staff to address this challenge. This is impor- tant because, in a majority of instances, faculty and staff do not intervene in bullying practices (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000, GLSEN, 201 1), which sends a message to all of the students in the classroom who witness the teacher's avoidance (Jones, 201 0). Perhaps teacher reluctance to intervene grows from their lack of self-confidence in "intervention skills, or a lack knowledge' (Holmgren, Lamb, Miller, & Werderitch, 2011, p. 35). Moreover, a number of teachers do not intervene because they are not sure if what they are seeing is, in fact, bullying, which highlights the need for a well-developed definition of bullying in the school culture.

For years researchers (Olweus, 1993; Pepler, Craig & O'Connell, 1999) have postulated teacher intervention is necessary for reducing bullying prac- tices in schools. That being said, as Yoon (2004) discovered that it is impera- tive to provide continual staff development to increase teachers' awareness of the problem, which increases the likelihood that they will intervene in bullying behaviors. In order for professional development to be effective, however, teachers must believe that bullying is a problem in their schools (Marachi et al., 2007). Thus, it is necessary to share the results of the school- wide assessment that was conducted prior to attempting to construct the anti- bullying program. Receiving local and real data about their own students and school community impacts teachers' beliefs about bullying and tolerance (Jones, 2010).

Knowledge about one's own students raises awareness of the problem, which in turn, impacts teachers' adherence to the anti-bullying program. For example, Amy Grimes, a middle school science teacher, taught for several years without recognizing the bullying practices that were transpiring in her school. Several years after a student left her science lab, she received a letter and wept as she read how he "looked forward to my class each and every day because it was the one hour that he felt safe and accepted" (Jones, 201 2, p. 93). As a result of the letter, she changed her pedagogy and now keeps a post-it note on her desk that reads "minutes matter." She continues, "it made me stop and to think about how many minutes passed each year in my class- room, and how many life-changing consequences occurred with or without my knowledge" (p. 99).

80

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

As with Amy, if teachers are aware that bullying is a problem in their school building, they are more likely to make changes. Teachers, as well as parents, must also be trained to recognize indicators of bullying such as a decrease in grades, fear of attending school, or an increase in bruises or injuries. Further, students who are being bullied may begin stealing money or being dishonest about being ill. Although it is important for teachers to recognize the signs of bullying, Allen (201 0) postulates most teachers do not recognize those signs because they have not been formally trained to do so.

Program Assessment

It is important to note that data suggest mixed results for the success of an- ti-bullying programs. Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, and Isava (2008) discovered little to no change in bullying behaviors after an intervention was conducted. Further, programs in the United States are less effective in completing their aim to reduce bullying behavior (Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008). This fail- ure may be a result of attempting to use a "one size fits all" approach to addressing bullying, rather than constructing a program infused with school and community beliefs. Therefore, it is imperative to annually assess the ef- fectiveness of the program. In doing so, there should be clear and measurable objectives, which provide comparable data. Viable methods of data collec- tion include pre and post surveys about bullying behaviors, increases or de- creases in student referrals that are related to bullying behavior, and teacher reflective journals about student interactions. After each annual assessment, changes should be made if necessary.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is to illuminate for secondary educators the impor- tance of a community's social construction of difference and how that con- struction creates unsafe educational settings. We posit that each school com- munity must develop its own anti-bullying program with input from school and community stakeholders. In constructing that program, schools should consider the attributes we have discussed above. Anti-bullying programs can be effective if approached in these comprehensive and serious ways, not as an add-on program but integrated part of the school experience. Effective anti-bullying programs must clearly define bullying for the community. They must involve faculty, staff, administrators, students, parents and others from the community. In doing so, the program must teach children and adults to be empathetic to others. Finally, bullying prevention programs must be assessed annually to discover how well the program is working and what aspects may need to be adjusted. Bullying continues to cause horrendous pain for too many students. We must create safe places for all our children to learn, to grow, and to develop into the great individuals they are able to be.

81

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Antí-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

References

Allen, K. (2010). "A bullying intervention system: Reducing risk and creating support for aggressive students/' Journal of Preventing School Failure , 54 (3), 1 99-209.

Bullying Statistics. (2013). School bullying statistics: Retrieved from: http://www.bullying- statistics.org/content/school-bullying-statistics.html

Centers for Disease Control. (201 1 ). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov Costello, M. (201 1 , November). Make your school a bully free zone. Our Children , 37 ( 12),

10-13.

Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International ., 21, 22-36.

Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2004). Comparing middle school teachers' and studentsViews on bullying and anti-bullying interventions. Journal of School Violence, 3(1), 17-32.

Crothers, L. M., Kolbert, J. B., & Barker, W. F. (2006). Middle school students' preferences for anti-bullying interventions. School Psychology International , 27, 475-487.

Due, P., Merio, J., Harel-Fisch, Y., Damsgaard, M., Holstien, B., Hetland, J., Currie, C, Gabhainn, S., Gaspar de Matos, M., & Lynch, J. (2009). Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 907-914.

Garandeau, C., & Cillessen, A. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view of bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 11, 612-625.

GLSEN. (201 1). Retrieved from www.glsen.org. Gupta, S. (2015). School shootings: An American problem? Harvard Political Review.

Retrieved from http://harvardpolitics.com/special_features/gun.html Hanish, L., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment follow-

ing peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89. Haynie, D., Nansel,T., Eitel, P., Crump, A., Saylor, K., & Yu, K. (2001). Bullies, victims, and

bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 2 1, 29-49.

Hawker, D., & Boulton, M. (2000). Twenty years of research on peer victimization and psy- chosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441-455.

Holmgren, J., Lamb, J., Miller, M., & Werderitch, C. (201 1) Decreasing bullying behaviors through discussing young-adult literature, role-playing activities, and establishing a school-wide definition of bullying in accordance with a common set of rules in language arts andmat/7.(Unpublished thesis). Chicago, IL: St. Xavier University.

Jones, J. (2014a). Purple boas, lesbian affection and John Deere hats: Teacher educators' role in addressing homophobia in secondary schools. Teacher Education and Practice, 27(1), 154-167.

Jones, J. (2014b). Unnormalizing education: Addressing homophobia in higher education and K-12 schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Jones, J. (201 2). Bullying in schools: A professional development for educators. Seattle, WA: Kappa Delta Pi.

Jones, J. (2010). Making safe places unsafe : A discussion of homophobia with teachers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Langdon, S., & Preble, W. (2008). The relationship between levels of perceived respect and bullying in 5th through 12th graders. Adolescence, 43 (1 71), 485-503.

Marach i, R., Astor, A, & Benben ishty, R. (2007). Effects of teacher avoidance of school poli- cies on student victimization. School Psychology International, 20(4), 501 -518.

82

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Iones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S., & Isava, D. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly , 23(1), 26-42.

Miller, S.J., Burns, D. B., & Johnson, T. S. (Eds.). (2013). Generation bullied 2.0: Prevention and intervention strategies for our most vulnerable students. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (201 3). Student reports of bullying and cyber- bullying: Results from the 20 1 1 school crime supplement to the national crime victim- ization survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Olweus, D. (1 993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O'Connell, P. (1999). Understanding bullying from a dynamic sys- tem perspective. In A. Slater & D. Muir (Eds.) The Blackwell Reader In Developmental Psychology 440-451. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Rock, E., Hammond, M., & Rasmussen, S. (2002). Schools based program to teach chil- dren empathy and bully prevention. Paper presented at the APA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Scarpaci, R. (2006 Summer). Bullying: Effective strategies for its prevention. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 170-174.

Schachter, R. (201 1, Winter). Can kindness be taught? Instructor, /20(14), 58-63. Seely, K., Tombari, M., Bennett, L., & Dunkle, J. (2011, December). Bullying in schools:

An overview. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs.

Stanbury, S., Bruce, M., Jain, S., & Stellern, J. (2009). The effects of an empathy building program on bullying behavior. Journal of School Counseling, 7(2), 3-27.

Stopbullying.gov (2014). What is cyberbullyingì Retrieved from www.stopbullying.gov Swearer, D., Espelage, D., & Napolitano, S. (2009). Bullying, prevention & intervention :

Realistic strategies for schools. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Thompson, M., & Cohen, L. (2005). When the bullied must adjust. Education Digest,

70( 16),16-19. Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., & Baldry, A. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school

bullying. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, Information, and Publica- tions.

Unnever, J., & Cornell, D. (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence, 81(2), 129-147.

Vail, K. (2009). From words to action: A decade after Columbine, schools have made numerous changes to confront bullying, but has it worked? American School Board Journal, /96(19)41-45.

Wiener, J., & Mak, M. (2009). Peer victimization in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyper- activity Disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (2), 116-131.

Wood, K. (2015) Case studies. Cyberbullying website: http://cyberbullying.ua.edu/index. php/casestudies/

Yoon, J. (2004). Predicting teacher intervention in bullying situations. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 27(1), 37-45.

83

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

Author Biographies: Joseph R. Iones, PhD is a former high school English teacher and is known widely for his research addressing homophobia and bullying in educational environments. He has coined two terms in his academic community, con- textual oppositions and unnormalizing education. He has been interviewed extensively by media outlets about homophobia and bullying in schools, and has published copiously (22 publications) on the topic. In November of 2010, his book, Making Safe Places Unsafe: A Discussion of Homophobia with Teachers, was released. Bullying in Schools : A Professional Development for Educators , was released in the Fall of 2012. His most recent books were released in the 2014, Unnormalizing Education : Addressing Homophobia in Higher Education and K-12 Schools and Under the Bleachers : Teachers' Reflections of What They Didn't Learn in College . More recently, he has co- constructed a K-12 anti-bullying program with an academic colleague. In 2014, he was awarded a prestigious national award from Auburn University and the National Anti-Bullying Summit for his scholarship and service in attempting to create safe schools for all students. He currently teaches at Mercer University.

Sharon Murphy Augustine, PhD is an associate professor in the Tift College of Education at Mercer University. She earned her B.A. in English from Agnes Scott College, M.Ed, in Secondary English from Georgia College & State Uni- versity, and Ph.D. in Language and Literacy Education from the University of Georgia. She is the chair of teacher education in Macon and teaches a variety of literacy, theory, and writing courses in the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral programs. She is interested in how socially constructed identi- ties marginalize some students and how reading young adult literature can deconstruct bullying as a rite of passage in adolescence. Her research inter- ests include poststructural and socio-cultural theories of teaching and learn- ing, adolescent literacy, writing pedagogy, qualitative research methods, and gender in education. She has published in the Journal of Teacher Education , English Education , English in Australia , The Teacher Educator , and Qualitative Inquiry

84

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Children's Physiological and Emotional Reactions to Witnessing Bullying Predict Bystander Intervention

Author(s): Lydia R. Barhight, Julie A. Hubbard and Christopher T. Hyde

Source: Child Development , JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013, Vol. 84, No. 1 (JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013), pp. 375-390

Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23469421

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23469421?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Child Development, January/February 2013, Volume 84, Number 1, Pages 375-390

Children's Physiological and Emotional Reactions to Witnessing Bullying Predict Bystander Intervention

Lydia R. Barhight and Julie A. Hubbard University of Delaware

Christopher T. Hyde BioAssessments

Study goals were to explore whether children clustered into groups based on reactions to witnessing bullying and to examine whether these reactions predicted bullying intervention. Seventy-nine children (M = 10.80 years) watched bullying videos in the laboratory while their heart rate (HR) was measured, and they self-reported on negative emotion after each video. Bullying intervention was assessed by school peers. Two groups emerged based on reactions to the bullying videos: The Emotional group (43% of children) dis played HR acceleration and reported high negative emotion, whereas the Unemotional group (57% of chil dren) showed HR deceleration and reported low negative emotion. Group membership predicted bullying intervention, with peers reporting that Emotional children were more likely to stop a bully than Unemotional children.

Bullying is defined as intentional actions repeated over time that harm, intimidate, or humiliate another person (Olweus, 1993). An aggressive act is only defined as bullying when the perpetrator is more powerful than the victim, either physically or socially (Baldry & Farrington, 2007; Olweus, 1993). Bullying is an alarmingly common problem in schools. Although prevalence estimates vary, in the most recent large-scale study in the United States, 13% of students reported being the victim of physi cal bullying and 37% of students reported being the victim of verbal bullying (Wang, Iannotti, & Nan sel, 2009).

Children who are bullied are at increased risk

for a host of negative outcomes. They are more likely than their nonbullied peers to be depressed (Hanish & Guerra, 2002) and to engage in self-harm (Barker, Arseneault, Brendgen, Fontaine, & Mau ghan, 2008). Bullied children are also more likely to be anxious and to experience psychosomatic com plaints, such as headaches and dizziness (Natvig, Albrektsen, & Qvarnstrom, 2001). In addition, bul lied children suffer academically, with poorer

This research was supported by a Belfer-Aptman Dissertation Award from The Melissa Institute. The authors would like to

thank Jean-Phillipe Laurenceau for his statistical consultation, as well as the project's undergraduate research assistants for their hard work and dedication. Most of all, they appreciate the help of the children, parents, teachers, and principals who made this project possible.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie A. Hubbard, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

grades and higher rates of absenteeism than their nonbullied peers (Irving & Parker-Jenkins, 1995; Srabstein & Piazza, 2008). Of most concern, bully ing can lead to tragic consequences; bullied chil dren are at increased risk for suicidal behavior

(Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2008), and 71% of children who perpetrated school shootings were chronically bullied (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). For all these reasons, bullying has been identified as a public health risk, one that must be addressed primarily through intervention in schools.

The Importance of Bystanders in Bullying Episodes

A common myth about bullying is that it occurs covertly. In fact, Pepler and Craig (1995) found that bystanders are present in at least 85% of bullying episodes. These bystanders are usually peers, since most bullying occurs during unsupervised periods and in unsupervised areas at school (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 2008).

Children who witness bullying have great poten tial power. The reactions and behaviors of these bystander children may impact the outcome of the bullying event. Cheering the bully on, joining in the bullying, or even just ignoring the incident could encourage victimization, whereas telling an adult

© 2012 The Authors

Child Development © 2012 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2013/8401-0028 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01839.x

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

376 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

or defending the victim could end the incident and discourage the bully in the future. The Olweus Bul lying Prevention Program (e.g., Olweus et al., 2007) describes how every bystander to a bullying epi sode is involved in some way. For example, the "follower" joins in, the "defender" actively sup ports the victim, and the "disengaged onlooker" is not affected by seeing the bullying.

Estimates vary concerning the percentage of bystander children who engage in each of these behaviors. Using self report, Whitney and Smith (1993) found that about half of 8- through 11-year old students reported that they would try to help a victim of bullying. In contrast, O'Connell, Pepler, and Craig (1999) observed actual bystander behav ior during bullying episodes on the playground among first- through sixth-grade children. They found that, compared to the self report estimates mentioned earlier, fewer children intervened (only 25%); most children ignored the incident (roughly 50%), or even joined in (25%). This discrepancy between children's self reports and their actual behaviors is consistent with the findings of Salmiv alli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiai nen (1996), which suggest that children tend to overestimate the likelihood that they would inter vene. The authors compared peer- and self-report estimates of different "participant roles" in bully ing episodes in a sample of sixth graders. Many children self-reported that they would intervene when they saw bullying happen; however, peer report indicated that a significantly lower number of children (only 17%) actually intervened.

Increasing bystander intervention is an important goal, because it has been shown to be effective. Pe pler and Craig (1995) found that when a bystander actively expressed disapproval during a bullying incident, bullies stopped aggressing approximately 50% of the time. Together, this information high lights the need for bullying interventions that target the important role that bystander children can play in decreasing school bullying.

Interventions: Inclusion of Components Aimed at Bystanders

In fact, many school-based bullying interventions do include a component aimed at bystanders. This component usually involves parents and teachers emphasizing to children the necessity of interven ing or seeking adult help if they see a peer being bullied. The positive outcomes of such interven tions for bullied children are stressed, and role plays are often included for children to model and

practice the skills needed to intervene or tell an adult. Parents and teachers are encouraged to praise and reward children who engage in these behaviors (e.g., Olweus, 1993; Pepler, Craig, O'Con nell, Atlas, & Charach, 2004; Rigby, 2008; Stevens, Van Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2004). The KiVa program, an antibullying curriculum recently eval uated in Finland, is notable for its more compre hensive focus on bystanders. This program actively works to enhance children's empathy for victims, increase their self-efficacy about intervening in bul lying episodes, and provide them with concrete support when they do try to help bullied peers (Kama et al., 2011).

Few evaluations of bullying interventions report specifically on change in bystander behavior. How ever, in several studies that have, the change was not dramatic. In one study, only 34% of children who indicated at preintervention that they would ignore a bullying episode reported at postinterven tion that they would now intervene (Evers, Proch aska, Van Marter, Johnson, & Prochaska, 2007). In another study, Pepler et al. (2004) reported no sig nificant increases in peer report of fellow students' bystander intervention. Even the Finnish KiVa pro gram, which demonstrated strong effects for decreases in self- and peer-reported victimization, did not produce similar sustained effects for bystan der intervention. Although children in schools receiving the KiVa intervention reported that their peers defended victims of bullying more than chil dren in control schools at the mid-point of the inter vention year, these effects were not maintained by the end of the intervention (Kama et al., 2011). Thus, despite efforts to encourage bystander chil dren to intervene, evaluations of bullying interven tions suggest that many children resist doing so.

First Goal: Identification of Groups Differing in Reactions to Witnessing Bullying

These findings suggest that basic research on children's reactions to bullying is needed, as con nections between these reactions and bystander intervention are not well understood. The degree to which children are upset by bullying may be a criti cal factor in predicting active bystander interven tion. It is likely that children react in different ways when they are bystanders to bullying incidents. Some children may be strongly affected, demon strating emotional and physiological arousal corre sponding with empathy and concern for the victim. However, witnessing bullying may not particularly bother other children. These children may not have

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 377

an emotional or physiological reaction and instead may respond with indifference.

The first goal of the current project was to exam ine the prediction that children would cluster into identifiable "Emotional" and "Unemotional"

groups based on their physiological and emotional reactions to bullying, as depicted in videos shown in a laboratory procedure. We hypothesized that an "Unemotional" group of children would not dem onstrate significant physiological or emotional arousal, corresponding to the indifferent reaction described earlier. The second hypothesized group was an Emotional group, whom we predicted would be particularly affected by the bullying videos. We expected that these children would show an increase in heart rate (HR) and report feeling high levels of negative emotions, corresponding to the concerned and upset reaction described earlier.

Second Goal: Prediction of Bystander Intervention

Our second goal was to investigate the hypothe sis that children's physiological and emotional re action to the bullying videos would predict their likelihood of intervening in bullying episodes at school. We expected that children in the Emotional group would be rated by peers in the classroom as more likely to "stop a bully" than children in the Unemotional group. Thus, our study was not designed to test whether children's in-the-moment reactions to witnessing bullying would correspond to intervention in that same bullying episode. How ever, we wanted to explore associations between children's reactions to witnessing bullying in a lab oratory procedure and their tendency to intervene when bullying happens at school.

Little is understood about how children's reactions

to bullying relate to bystander behavior. Some previ ous work has suggested that individuals who are emotionally aroused may be less likely to engage empathically or prosocially, if their main goal is to reduce personal distress (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1994). However, the theory of emotion utilization (Izard, Stark, Trentacosta, & Schultz, 2008) suggests that both positive and negative emotions can lead to adaptive action. For example, fear or worry may cause someone to take steps to ensure safety, or anger may give someone the strength to face a difficult confrontation. In the context of our study, the physio logical and emotional arousal that emotional children feel when witnessing bullying may be associated with intervening to try to stop the bully. Arousal may serve as the catalyst that children need to have the strength and determination to confront a bullying peer.

Our goal was not only to explore whether chil dren's physiological and emotion reactions to bully ing videos predicted the likelihood that they would intervene in bullying episodes at school, but to determine whether this prediction held over and above other factors hypothesized to influence the likelihood of intervention. Moreover, through this approach, we aimed to identify additional factors that may help determine whether children attempt to stop bullying peers.

The first additional factor that we included was

the extent to which children are victimized by peers. Previous studies suggest that children who have a history of being bullied are less likely to intervene when they witness bullying than other children (e.g., Rigby, 2008; Rigby & Johnson, 2006). In this situation, these children may be more focused on their own safety than on that of their peers. Thus, we hypothesized that peer victimiza tion would negatively predict children's bystander intervention in bullying.

The second factor that we investigated was chil dren's sense of efficacy in confronting peers. In pre vious work, Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and Altoè (2008) demonstrated that social self-efficacy was an impor tant predictor of bystander intervention in bullying. However, the broader construct of social self efficacy incorporates the ability to perform a variety of social behaviors, such as making friends. In the current study, we focused specifically on the nar rower construct of efficacy about confronting peers. To attempt to stop a bully, children likely need to believe that they will be successful in handling that particular and difficult social situation. This specific element of efficacy is quite distinct from a general sense of oneself as a socially skilled person. For this reason, we hypothesized that children's perceived self-efficacy about confronting peers would be a strong positive predictor of bystander intervention in bullying incidents.

The third factor that we included was the extent

to which children tend to be emotionally expressive across situations. Although some children are generally open and express emotions freely, other children are temperamentally cooler and more detached. Following from the theory of emotion utilization described earlier, we reasoned that gen eral levels of emotional expressiveness might influ ence children's likelihood of intervening to help bullied peers, with more emotionally expressive children being more inclined to get involved and attempt to help. However, we were interested in exploring whether children's specific emotional reactions to the bullying videos versus their more

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

378 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

trait-like tendency to be emotionally expressive across situations would more strongly predict their intervention in bullying episodes. We hypothesized that both factors would be important but that emo tional responses to the bullying videos in particular would emerge as a significant predictor over and above children's temperamental emotional expres siveness.

The fourth factor that we examined was affective

empathy. Separate from the construct of emotional expressiveness, empathy refers to the extent to which children understand or experience others' emotions. Theorists have distinguished two forms of empathy, cognitive empathy and affective empa thy (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). While cognitive empathy refers to the ability to understand how others are feeling, affective empathy represents the tendency to actually feel the same emotions as oth ers. Previous work by Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and Altoè (2007) found that affective empathy in partic ular positively predicted helping a victimized class mate. The emotional pull of affective empathy may more strongly motivate children to intervene when others are being bullied, compared to the detached reasoning of cognitive empathy, and so we focused on this form of empathy in the current study. When children keenly experience the same fear or humili ation that a victim is feeling, these emotions may compel them to act to try to help the distressed peer. By including affective empathy in our model, we were able to explore whether children's specific emotional reactions to the bullying videos pre dicted the likelihood that they would intervene in bullying episodes beyond their more general ten dency to be affectively empathie. We hypothesized that both factors would predict intervention, with emotional reactions to the bullying videos in partic ular making a significant contribution over and above the general tendency to be affectively empathie.

The final factors that we considered were the

demographic variables of age and gender. Previous research suggests that younger children and girls are more likely to intervene when they see bullying happen than older children and boys (Rigby, 2008; Rigby & Johnson, 2006). We were interested to see whether these demographic effects were replicated in the current study.

In summary, when predicting children's likeli hood of intervening in bullying at school, we included the following predictors: age, gender, peer victimization, efficacy in confronting peers, emo tional expressiveness, affective empathy, and mem bership in the Emotional or Unemotional group

(based on reactions to witnessing bullying in videos in the laboratory). Drawing from previous research and our theorizing, we hypothesized that: (a) age and peer victimization would negatively predict intervention, and (b) female gender, efficacy in con fronting peers, emotional expressiveness, affective empathy, and membership in the Emotional group would positively predict intervention. Finally, we expected that membership in the Emotional group would predict bystander intervention in bullying episodes over and above all other factors.

The Importance of Groups in the Current Study

Notably, we expected that the combination of physiological and emotional reactions to the bully ing videos would be important in predicting chil dren's bystander behavior. This combination may more comprehensively and accurately capture chil dren's reactions than any single physiological or emotional variable alone. Moreover, we hypothe sized that children would cluster into distinct Emo

tional and Unemotional groups based on this combination of reactions to witnessing bullying, rather than demonstrating a more continuous range of responses. Thus, we predicted that membership in the Emotional or Unemotional group, based on a combination of variables assessing physiological and emotional reactions to the bullying videos, would predict children's tendency to intervene in bullying episodes at school. Other studies have used a similar approach, forming latent groups based on children's reactions to emotionally evoca tive situations and demonstrating that group mem bership predicted regulatory and behavioral constructs, even when individual reaction variables

often did not (e.g., Wilson, Lengua, Tininenko, Tay lor, & Trancik, 2009).

Method

Overview

Data collection took place in two phases, a class room phase and a laboratory phase. Classroom data collection was conducted in 43 fourth- and fifth

grade classrooms. A fourth- and fifth-grade sample was chosen because bullying becomes increasingly common by this age (e.g., Olweus, 1993). During classroom data collection, we collected peer-report data on bystander behavior to bullying and self report data on peer victimization, efficacy in confronting peers, emotional expressiveness, and affective empathy.

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 379

A subsample of 79 children subsequently partici pated in laboratory data collection. At this time, we assessed children's physiological and self-reported negative emotional reactions as they watched vid eos depicting bullying episodes.

Participants

Classroom sample. Children were recruited for classroom data collection through parental permis sion letters sent home from school. To ensure a

strong participation rate, three rounds of letters were distributed to children who had not returned

a previous letter. Two incentives encouraged chil dren to return their letters. First, each child who returned a letter (regardless of whether the parent granted consent) received a small prize (a colorful pencil). Second, children were told that if 80% of the letters were returned in a class (regardless of whether parents granted consent), children would receive a party with refreshments provided by our laboratory.

Eight hundred and forty-five children (78%) were given permission to participate. Classroom permission rates ranged from 50% to 100% (M = 79.2). At the beginning of classroom data col lection, the experimenter began by reading an assent form aloud and giving children an opportu nity to grant or decline assent. Of the children with parental permission, 2.5% (21 children) declined assent, and an additional 6.3% (53 children) were absent on the day of their classroom data collection.

Thus, our final classroom sample included 771 children (415 girls). Participants' age ranged from 9.25 to 12.59 years (M = 10.58). Four hundred and sixty-four (60.2%) children were identified by their parent or guardian as European American, 140 (18.2%) as Latino American, 89 (11.5%) as African American, 28 (3.6%) as Asian American, 28 (3.6%) as being of mixed race/ethnicity, and 10 (1.3%) as Native American. Twelve parents or guardians (1.6%) declined to respond to the question about race/ethnicity on the parental permission form.

The 43 classrooms were located in nine elemen

tary schools in a mid-Atlantic state. Four of the schools were parochial (Ν = 195, 25% of classroom sample), and five were public (Ν = 576, 75% of sample). Three schools (one parochial, two public) were in suburban areas (N = 323, 42% of sample), and the remainder were in urban areas (Ν = 448; 58% of sample).

Data on the peer victimization experienced by the classroom sample were collected using the self report measure by Neary and Joseph (1994)

described in the following sections. The mean for the classroom sample was 2.11 (SD = .76) on a 1-4 rating scale, with higher scores indicating greater peer victimization. Peer victimization did not vary by public versus parochial schools, F(1, 769) = 1.02, ns. However, children in urban schools (M = 2.17, SD = .76) reported more peer victimization than children in suburban schools (M = 2.03, SD = .75), F(1, 769) = 5.86, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .19.

Laboratory sample. Participants in the laboratory sample included a random subset of 80 children from the classroom sample, stratified by gender. One child's physiological data were lost due to equipment malfunction. We dropped this partici pant, because assessment of physiological arousal was central to the first goal of the study (identifica tion of groups differing in reactions to bullying videos). Thus, the final laboratory sample included 79 participants (40 girls).

Families were recruited through telephone con tacts in which the purpose and procedures of the study were explained in full detail. At the begin ning of the laboratory visit, the parent completed a permission form, which included demographic information such as age, race/ethnicity, and income. The child completed an assent form.

The laboratory sample did not differ significantly from the classroom sample on any demographic or assessed variable. Age ranged from 9.88 to 12.19 years (M = 10.80). Parents or guardians iden tified 54 children (67.5%) as European American, 11 (13.75%) as African American, 8 (10%) as being of mixed race/ethnicity, 5 (5.25%) as Latino American, and 1 (1.23%) as Asian American. One parent or guardian (1.25%) declined to report the child's race/ethnicity. Income ranged widely, from $0 (unemployed) to $400,000 (Mdn = $70,000).

Classroom Data Collection Procedures, Questionnaires, and Data Reduction

An experimenter and approximately four under graduate assistants conducted 1-hr visits to each of the 43 classrooms to collect self- and peer-report data. The experimenter group-administered paper and-pencil measures to participating children. Chil dren received a manila folder to stand upright on their desk as a "privacy shield." Undergraduate assistants circulated throughout the room to ensure that children stayed on track, answer children's questions, and maintain privacy. In addition, other assistants worked individually and privately with any children who required reading assistance to complete the measures validly, as determined

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

380 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

beforehand through consultation with the teacher or as needed. Classrooms were compensated with $100 to be used for classroom supplies.

Bystander intervention. Bystander intervention in bullying was assessed through peer report during classroom data collection. Children were first pro vided with the following definition of bullying: "Bullying is when a kid does something on pur pose to hurt or threaten another kid. It could involve hurting the kid's body, like hitting or kick ing. It also could involve hurting the kid's feelings, like mean teasing or name calling." Children then completed the peer nomination "When other kids are being bullied, who tries to stop the bullying?" Children nominated an unlimited number of class

mates who fit this description by circling their names on a roster. The variable Stop the Bully was computed by standardizing the number of nomina tions received within classroom.

Peer victimization. Peer victimization was assessed

through self report during classroom data collec tion. Children completed the six-item Peer Victimization Scale by Neary and Joseph (1994). For each item, participants first selected which of two statements (one indicative of peer victimization and the other not) was more like them. Next, they indi cated if that statement was "really like me" or "sort of like me" (1 = really like me for phrase describing lack of victimization to 4 = really like me for phrase describing victimization).

To determine whether these data collected from

this classroom sample formed a unidimensional scale, we conducted a principal components analy sis (PCA) with a varimax rotation. Items were

removed from the scale if the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was less than .50 for that item or if the communality value for that item was less than .50. Iterations of the PCA proce dure were repeated until all remaining items met these two criteria. On the final iteration, we checked to ensure that the overall Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling was at least .50, that the ρ value for the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant, that one and only one component with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 emerged, and that the proportion of variance accounted for by that component was at least 60%.

This PCA procedure resulted in three items being retained: "Some kids are often teased by other kids; other kids are not teased by other chil dren," "Some kids are often bullied by other chil dren; other kids are not bullied by other children," and "Some kids are often picked on by other children; other kids are not picked on by other

children." Internal consistency for this three-item scale for this sample was α = .77. We averaged the three items to compute the variable Peer Victimiza tion.

Efficacy in confronting peers. Efficacy in confront ing peers was assessed through self report during classroom data collection. Children completed three items from the Social Self Efficacy Scale by Pastorel li, Caprara, and Bandura (1998; 1 = not at all to 5 = very) that best described the ability to confront peers in difficult situations. The scale was pub lished by Pastorelli et al. (1998) in Italian; for the present study, the English translation published in Pastorelli et al. (2001) was used. After performing the PCA procedure described earlier, two items were retained: "Stand up for yourself when you feel you are being treated unfairly" and "Deal with situations where others are annoying you or hurt ing your feelings." The correlation between these two items for this sample was .62, ρ < .0001. We averaged the two items to create the variable Effi cacy in Confronting Peers.

Emotional expressiveness. Emotional expressive ness was assessed through self report during classroom data collection. Children completed the five-item Unemotional subscale from the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits Youth Version

(Kimonis et al., 2008; 1 = not at all true to 4 = com pletely true). After performing the PCA procedure described earlier, two items were retained: "It is easy for others to tell how I am feeling" and "I am emotional and show my feelings." The correlation between these two items for this sample was .53, ρ < .0001. We averaged the two items to create the variable Emotional Expressiveness.

Affective empathy. Affective empathy was assessed through self report during classroom data collection. Children completed the 11-item affective empathy subscale of Jolliffe and Farrington's (2006) Basic Empathy Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). As the measure was developed in England, we made a small number of minor changes in item wording to reflect vocabulary that would be more familiar to our American sample. After performing the PCA procedure described ear lier, five items were retained: "I get frightened when I watch characters in a good scary movie," "Other people's feelings do not bother me at all" (reverse scored), "I often become sad when watch ing sad things on TV or in movies," "I tend to feel scared when I am with friends who are afraid," and "My friend's unhappiness does not make me feel anything" (reverse scored). Internal consistency for this five-item scale for this sample was α = .57.

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 381

We reverse scored items as necessary and averaged the five items to compute the variable Affective Empathy.

Laboratory Data Collection Procedures and Measures

An experimenter and an undergraduate assistant conducted a 1-hr laboratory visit for each parent and child. Parents and children were each compen sated with $20. After the parent consent form and child assent form were completed, the experimenter placed the physiological equipment on the partici pant, with the parent observing. Next, the experi menter and child played games or completed an arts-and-crafts project, while the child habituated to wearing the equipment.

The experimenter then asked the participant to remain seated, still, quiet, and with his or her atten tion on a computer monitor while he or she watched a series of eight focal videos. The first and last videos depicted neutral interactions between children, whereas the other six videos depicted epi sodes of bullying. Videos were quite brief, lasting between 10 and 21 s. These videos were excerpts from an educational film and a commercial film on

bullying designed for this age group (Adelson, Braunstein, Jaffe, & McLoughlin, 2005; Faull, 2007).

Bullying videos were selected to represent differ ent types of bullying, with three videos depicting physical bullying and the other three showing verbal bullying. In each video, the bully(ies) and victim were of the same gender; three videos were of boys and the other three were of girls. Videos also depicted bullies and victims of different races or ethnicities.

Examples of bullying videos include one in which two boys push a third boy in a locker room and another in which one girl verbally insults another girl in the cafeteria while her friends watch and laugh.

After watching each of the eight focal videos and answering questions (described in the following sections), the child saw a 20-s nature video depict ing a flowing creek before the next focal video was presented. This nature video has been empirically demonstrated to be relaxing and soothing (Ulrich et al., 1991). Its purpose was to allow the child's physiological arousal to return to baseline before the introduction of the next focal video.

After giving instructions, the experimenter left the room while the child watched the videos and

answered the questions. The experimenter and par ent monitored the child for signs of distress via video camera from an adjacent room; none of the participants became overtly distressed. Children were informed during the child assent process that

they were free to terminate participation at any time; however, no child did so. Thus, all children completed the entire session.

Self report of emotion following videos. After each focal video, the child was asked to rate on a 5-point scale how much he or she felt each of three nega tive emotions (sad, scared, and mad). Questions appeared on the computer monitor, and the child responded using a keypad. This approach yielded three variables indexing negative emotional re actions to the bullying videos (Sad Bullying, Scared Bullying, and Mad Bullying). These variables resulted from averaging children's self reports across the six bullying videos. Internal consistency was .90 for Sad Bullying, .84 for Scared Bullying, and .90 for Mad Bullying. Similar scores were calculated for children's self reports of emotion fol lowing the two neutral videos (Sad Neutral, Scared Neutral, and Mad Neutral).

Physiological reactions to videos. Physiological responding was measured through HR or electro cardiogram (ECG). The ECG was recorded from three Ag-AgCl disposable electrodes, with two active electrodes on the ribs and one reference elec trode on the collarbone. Wires from these electrodes

were connected to a computer in the adjacent room through a small opening in the wall, and this com puter was synchronized with the computer on which the participant viewed videos. LabVIEW software (National Instruments, Austin, TX) col lected, synchronized, and time-stamped physiologi cal signals with an average accuracy of 5 ms or less.

Software designed by BioAssessments was used to clean and process HR data. Processing began with the identification of artifacts. IBI (interbeat

interval, a measure of HR describing the time in milliseconds between consecutive R-waves in the

ECG) artifacts were defined as excessively long or short intervals relative to a moving 30-s average. Short IBIs were combined and long IBIs were seg mented as appropriate.

If more than 10% of HR data for any of the 15 videos (6 bullying videos, 2 neutral videos, 7 nature videos) for any child required more than minimal editing, we made the conservative decision to exclude data from the entire video. Using this rule, we excluded HR data for 2.7% of videos (32 of

1,185 videos). For the remaining videos, approxi mately 70% required no IBI editing, and the other 30% required three or fewer edits.

We generated average IBI scores for each child for each 2-s interval of each bullying video. Next, we calculated the slope of each child's IBIs over each bullying video. Then, we averaged across the

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

382 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

six bullying videos to compute a final slope score for each child. Averaging across videos resulted in a more robust index of participants' physiological reaction to the videos, because HR is sensitive not only to the bullying content of the videos, but also to factors such as movement, noise, and lighting that differed across videos. Internal consistency across the six videos was .50. Although this esti mate of internal consistency is somewhat low, we considered it acceptable, given the sensitivity of HR to extraneous qualities of the videos.

In this initial format, positive slopes indicated that IBIs increased in length over the duration of the video, or that HR decreased. In contrast, negative slopes indicated that IBIs decreased, or that HR increased. For ease of interpretation, we calculated the inverse of IBI slope by multiplying the values by -I. This yielded a final HR Slope Bullying score for each child, in which positive values indicate increas ing HR, and negative values indicate decreasing HR over the videos. Similar scores were calculated for

HR slope during the two videos depicting neutral interactions and during the seven nature videos (HR Slope Neutral, HR Slope Nature).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The steps described earlier yielded the final 14 variables listed in Table 1. This table includes

descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, range, and skewness) for each variable. For all vari ables, higher scores represent increased levels of the construct of interest.

We identified skewed variables using a cutoff of ±0.5 (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). We corrected them by performing log, square root, and inverse trans formations; we reflected negatively skewed vari ables prior to transformation. For each construct, the transformed variable that reduced skewness the

most was retained for all subsequent analyses. Then, we examined bivariate correlations among

nine of the final variables (see columns 2-10 of

Table 2). Variables representing children's reactions to the neutral or nature videos were not included

(HR Slope Neutral, HR Slope Nature, Mad Neutral, Sad Neutral, and Scared Neutral). These variables were not of primary interest but were used simply as a baseline or manipulation check. Within variables representing children's reactions to the bullying videos: (a) the correlations between Mad Bullying, Sad Bullying, and Scared Bullying were all positive and significant, and (b) HR Slope Bullying and Sad

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics

Variable Rater M SD Min. Max. Skew.

Physiological reaction HR Slope Bullying — .63 4.24 -11.86 10.41 -.19

HR Slope Neutral — -1.49 5.05 -12.27 14.07 .18

HR Slope Nature — -2.02 4.48 -10.79 9.30 .14

Emotional reaction

Mad Bullying — 3.05 1.13 1.00 5.00 -.20

Sad Bullying — 2.67 1.01 1.00 5.00 .30

Scared Bullying — 1.86 .78 1.00 4.33 .86

Mad Neutral — 1.54 .71 1.00 4.50 1.67

Sad Neutral — 1.61 .66 1.00 4.00 1.21

Scared Neutral — 1.23 .49 1.00 3.50 2.63

Bystander behavior Stop the Bully Peer -.09 .96 -2.17 1.95 .04

Child characteristics

Peer Victimization Self 2.16 .85 1.00 4.00 .41

Efficacy in Self 3.89 1.07 1.00 5.00 -.94

Confronting Peers Emotional Self 1.33 .82 1.00 4.00 .14

Expressiveness Affective Empathy Self 3.00 .69 1.33 5.00 .31

Note. Statistics provided are for raw variables before transformation.

Bullying were positively correlated. Between the reaction variables and child characteristics, Scared Bullying was negatively correlated with Efficacy in Confronting Peers and positively correlated with Emotional Expressiveness. No significant correla tions emerged among the four child characteristics or between the child characteristics and Stop the Bully.

Table 2 also includes correlations between the

demographic variables of age and income and each of these final nine variables (columns 10-11). The

only significant correlation was a positive relation between age and Stop the Bully.

Next, we examined gender differences and race/ethnicity differences in these final nine vari ables. In terms of gender: (a) girls (M = 2.94, SD = 1.07) reported higher levels of Sad Bullying than boys (M = 2.40, SD = 0.89), F(1, 77) = 6.08, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .55; (b) girls (M = 0.28, SD = 0.18) reported higher levels of Scared Bullying than boys (M = 0.19, SD = 0.16), HI, 77) = 4.57, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .47; and (c) girls (M = 1.62, SD = .82) reported higher levels of Emotional Expressiveness than boys (M = 1.06, SD = .74), F( 1, 77) = 9.88, ρ < .01, Cohen's d = .72. For race/ethnic ity, there was a significant effect for Peer Victimiza tion, F(3, 73) = 4.31, ρ < .01. Post hoc Bonferroni comparisons indicated that African American chil

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 383

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. HR Slope Bullying .14 .32** ,20f -.07 .13 -.03 -,20+ -.01 -.06 -.01

2. Mad Bullying — .43*** .41*** .08 .06 .03 .01 -.16 .05 -.11

3. Sad Bullying — — 72*** .16 .14 -.12 -.14 -.10 -.02 -.08

4. Scared Bullying — — — .18 .15 -.24* -.33** -.20f -.11 -.09

5. Stop the Bully — — — — -.13 .10 -.17 .08 .34** -.12

6. Peer Victimization — — — — — -.10 -.10 -21f .00 .02

7. Efficacy in Confronting Peers — — — — — — .13 .12 .07 -.10

8. Affective Empathy — — — — — — — .10 .02 -.07

9. Emotional Expressiveness — — — — — — — — -,23+ -.20+

10. Age — — — — — — — — — .00

11. Income — — — — — — — — —

ν < .10. *ρ < .05. **ρ < .01. ***ρ < .0001.

dren (M = 2.70, SD = .98) self-reported more Peer Victimization than Latino American children

(M = 1.53, SD = .38), ρ < .05, Cohen's d = 1.57, or than children of mixed race/ethnicity (M = 1.58, SD = .43), ρ < .05, Cohen's d = 1.48.

In addition, we examined children's overall reac tivity to the bullying videos. For physiological reac tivity, we compared HR slopes during the bullying videos to HR slopes during the neutral or nature videos. HR Slope Bullying differed significantly from HR Slope Neutral, F(l, 77) = 11.94, ρ < .001, Cohen's d = .45, and HR Slope Nature, F( 1, 77) = 15.41, ρ < .0001, Cohen's d = .61. As can be seen in Table 1, during the bullying videos, the average HR slope across all children was positive, suggesting physiological reactivity. However, during the neu tral and nature videos, the average HR slope was negative. Basic psychophysiological research has repeatedly shown that individuals exhibit decreas ing HR when orienting to a novel stimulus (e.g., Ohman, Hamm, & Hugdahl, 2000). Thus, these data suggest that children were attending to the neutral and nature videos, but did not exhibit physiological signs of emotional arousal.

For emotional reactivity, we compared children's self report of emotion following the bullying videos (Mad Bullying, Sad Bullying, and Scared Bullying) with their self report of emotion following the neu tral videos (Mad Neutral, Sad Neutral, and Scared Neutral). Children reported feeling angrier, χ2(1) = 70.05, ρ < .0001; sadder, χ2(1) = 55.35, ρ < .0001; and more scared, χ2(1) = 56.53, ρ < .0001, following the bullying videos than the neutral vid eos. The nonparametric test Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks was used for these analyses, because the variables were

skewed and we could not assume normality or equality of variance.

Finally, within the larger classroom sample, we explored the percentage of children who were con sistently nominated by their peers as someone who tries to stop bullying. We found that many children were nominated by at least a few peers, a pattern that is common when using peer nominations for positive behaviors. However, a much smaller per centage of children were nominated by a majority of their peers. In fact, only 20% of children were nominated by more than 50% of their peers as someone who intervenes in bullying episodes.

First Goal: Categorizing Children Based on Reactions to Witnessing Bullying

We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to examine whether children in our sample clustered into groups based upon their physiological and emo tional reactions to the bullying videos. Analyses were conducted using Mplus 5.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007). LPA is a person-centered approach that groups individuals into latent categories, or classes, on the basis of their scores on two or more

observed continuous variables (McCutcheon, 1987; Walrath et al., 2004). In our LPA, we included observed continuous variables to index physiologi cal reactions (HR Slope Bullying) and emotional reactions (Sad Bullying, Scared Bullying, and Mad Bullying) to the bullying videos.

In LPA, the optimal number of groups is deter mined through fit statistics and tests of significance, whereas this determination is more subjective in traditional cluster analysis (McLachlan & Peel, 2000; Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007;

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

384 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

Vermunt & Magidson, 2002). We used a combina tion of fit statistics to determine the number of

groups that best fit the data. The Bayesian informa tion criterion (BIC; Kass & Wasserman, 1995) was used to estimate model fit; lower numbers repre sent better fitting models. The Vuong-Lo-Men dell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLMR) and the

adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (adjusted LMR) were used to compare models; for these tests, significant γ values suggest that the esti mated model fits the data better than a model with

one fewer group (e.g., Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001; McLachlan & Peel, 2000; Vuong, 1989). Finally, the normalized entropy criterion (NEC), proposed by Celeux and Soromenho (1996), was used to indicate how well the model classified individuals into

groups. NEC values range from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 suggesting better classification of indi viduals to groups and less overlap between groups.

The data were fit to models with four indicators

(HR Slope Bullying, Mad Bullying, Sad Bullying, and Scared Bullying) and increasing numbers of groups. An a priori decision was made to continue testing models with additional groups until none of the fit statistics suggested better fit of the model in question (N groups) compared to a model with N-l groups. In addition, we decided in advance that should there be discrepancies among the fit statis tics, we would choose the model supported by the largest number of fit statistics, while also consider ing parsimony. Using these rules, models with one to five groups were fit to the data.

The two-group model emerged as the one that fit best, with three of the four fit statistics supporting this model (see Table 3). The VLMR and adjusted LMR were only significant for the two-group model. In addition, entropy was higher for the two group model than for any other model. Although the remaining fit statistic (BIC) supported the three group model, the BIC value decreased negligibly by 1.23 from the two-group to the three-group model, suggesting that the three-group model was only very slightly better than the two-group model. A final consideration in choosing the two-group model over the three-group model was parsimony; models with fewer groups are more parsimonious.

Within Mplus, the two latent Groups were com pared on the four indicators (see Table 4). Signifi cant differences between groups emerged for all four indicators. Group 1 (57% of children) dis played a decreasing HR and reported low levels of all three negative emotions in response to the bully ing videos. In contrast, Group 2 (43% of children) displayed an increasing HR and reported signifi

Table 3

Fit Statistics for LP A Models

VLMR Adjusted LMR Groups BIC p value p value Entropy

1 894.87 n/a n/a n/a

2 827.26 .0001 .0001 .92

3 826.03 .31 .32 .91

4 828.73 .17 .18 .89

5 836.36 .70 .71 .87

Note. BIC = Bayesian information criterion; VLMR = Vuong Lo-Mendell-Rubin; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin; LPA = latent profile analysis.

Table 4

Indicator Variable Means and Standard Deviations for Groups Pro vided by the Two-Group LP A Model

LPA group HR slope* Mad*** Sad*** Scared***

1 (N

2 (N

= 45)

= 34)

-0.28 (4.34)

1.81 (3.85)

2.69 (1.16)

3.52 (.89)

1.94 (.55)

3.63 (.59)

.11 (.10)

.40 (.10)

Note. LPA = latent profile analysis; HR = heart rate. 'Contrast between groups significant at ρ < .05. '"'Contrast between groups significant at ρ < .0001.

cantly higher levels of anger, fear, and sadness. Based on these data, we labeled Group 1 the Unemotional group and Group 2 the Emotional group.

For the Emotional group, each of the four indica tors significantly predicted group membership (HR Slope Bullying: estimate and SE = 2.62, ρ < .01; Mad Bullying: estimate and SE = 22.78, ρ < .0001; Sad Bul lying: estimate and SE = 30.94, ρ < .0001; Scared Bullying: estimate and SE = 20.78, ρ < .0001). For the Unemotional group, three of the four indicators pre dicted group membership (Mad Bullying: estimate and SE = 15.48, ρ < .0001; Sad Bullying: estimate and SE = 21.58, ρ < .0001; Scared Bullying: estimate and SE = 6.51, ρ < .0001).

The Mplus output includes scores for the condi tional probability that each child is a member of each group. Children were assigned to the group for which they had the highest conditional proba bility. These scores were quite high, with an aver age highest conditional probability score of .98. Fifty-nine children had a highest conditional proba bility score of 1.00, 14 children had a score of .95 .99, 2 children had a score of .90-94, 2 children had a score of .80-89, 1 child had a score of .70- 79, and 1 child had a score below .70.

Analyses were run to examine whether the Emo tional and Unemotional groups differed in terms of

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 385

gender, race/ethnicity, age, or income. The groups differed marginally by gender, χ2(1) = 3.67, ρ < .06, but not by race/ethnicity, χ2(3) = .95, ns; age, F( 1, 77) = 1.43, ns; or income, F(l, 77) = .00, us. The Emotional group included more girls (62%) than boys (38%), whereas the Unemotional group included more boys (60%) than girls (40%).

We also examined whether the Emotional and

Unemotional groups differed on bystander inter vention or the four child characteristics. Two signif icant effects emerged. The Emotional group (M = 2.38, SD = .93) self-reported more Peer Vic timization than the Unemotional group (M = 1.99, SD = .75), F(1, 77), 4.24, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .46. In addition, and not surprisingly, the Emotional group (M = 1.55, SD = .70) self-reported more Emotional Expressiveness than the Unemotional group (M = 1.18, SD = .88), F(l, 77) = 3.93, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .47. A slight marginal trend also emerged for bystander intervention in bullying episodes. Peers reported that the Emotional group (M – .09, SD = .91) was more likely to Stop the Bully than the Unemotional group (M = -.23, SD = .98), F(l, 77) = 2.21, ρ = .14, Cohen's d = .34.

Since one of the fit statistics (BIC) supported a three-group model, we did explore the three groups that emerged from this LP A analysis. They included a group with decreasing HR and low reported negative emotion, a group with increasing HR and high reported negative emotion, and a group with even more quickly increasing HR and even more reported negative emotion. Thus, the three-group model was essentially a more detailed version of the more strongly supported two-group model discussed earlier.

Second Goal: Predicting Bystander Intervention in Bullying Episodes

We conducted a linear regression to predict chil dren's bystander intervention in bullying episodes at school. Stop the Bully served as the dependent variable. Predictors included: (a) the demographic variables of gender and age; (b) the child character istics of Peer Victimization, Efficacy in Confronting Peers, Emotional Expressiveness, and Affective Empathy; and (c) group membership (Emotional or Unemotional). In combination, these variables sig nificantly predicted bystander intervention in bully ing, F(7, 69) = 3.46, ρ < .01, R2 = .26. Age was a significant predictor, with older children being more likely to intervene than younger children. Peer Victimization and Emotional Expressiveness were marginal predictors, with children who

reported higher levels of Peer Victimization and lower levels of Emotional Expressiveness being less likely to try to stop bullying. Most importantly, group membership significantly predicted bystan der intervention, after taking other predictors into account, with children being more likely to inter vene if they were in the Emotional group than the Unemotional group (see Table 5).

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to investigate children's physiological and emotional reactions to bullying videos and to relate these reactions to chil dren's tendency to intervene in bullying episodes at school. Participants watched bullying videos in the laboratory while we assessed their HR, and they self-reported levels of negative emotions after each video. To determine if children clustered into

groups based upon these reactions, four variables (the physiological variable of HR slope and three self-reported emotion variables for anger, sadness, and fear) were examined using LPA. Two groups of children emerged based upon their reactions to the bullying videos, an Emotional group and an Unemotional group. The two groups can be sum marized as follows: The Emotional group (43% of children) displayed HR acceleration, whereas the Unemotional group (57% of children) showed HR deceleration. The Emotional group also reported higher levels of fear, sadness, and anger to the bul lying videos than the Unemotional group.

Membership in the Emotional or Unemotional group predicted peer ratings of children's likeli hood of intervening in bullying episodes at school. This prediction held even when other demographic factors (gender, age) and child characteristics (peer

Table 5

Summary of Regression Coefficients for Variables Predicting Bystander

Intervention in Bullying

Variable B S E B (5 f

Gender -.08 .22 -.04 -0.38

Age .53 .14 .41 379***

Peer Victimization -.21 .12 -.18 -1.71f

Efficacy in Confronting Peers .11 .10 .12 1.11

Emotional Expressiveness .25 -.13 .21 1.83+

Affective Empathy -.09 .15 -.07 -0.60

Group Membership .43 .22 .22 2.00*

Note. R2 = .26.

fp < .10. *p < .05. ***p < .0001.

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

386 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

victimization, efficacy in confronting peers, emo tional expressiveness, and affective empathy) were considered. It should be remembered that physio logical and emotional reactions to bullying and the tendency to intervene in bullying episodes were assessed in the different contexts of laboratory and school. Thus, we cannot conclude from this study that children's physiological or emotional reaction in the moment of a bullying episode would trans late to action in that same episode. At the same time, it is important to note that children who were more physiologically and emotionally reactive to bullying in the laboratory were more likely to inter vene in bullying at school, even though the labora tory procedure only involved watching short videos of unfamiliar children being bullied. How ever, a notable limitation of this finding is that while group membership emerged as a significant predictor of bystander intervention in the context of the larger regression model, the effect was only a slight marginal trend when group membership alone was used to predict intervention behavior in an ANOVA analysis.

These findings suggest that children in the Emo tional group were "upset" by seeing bullying. As described in the Introduction, previous work has suggested that individuals who are emotionally aroused may be less likely to respond prosocially, if their main goal is to reduce personal distress (Bat son et al., 1994). However, in our study, emotional upset in response to the bullying videos was associ ated with intervening when bullying happens at school. These findings lend support to the theory of emotion utilization (e.g., Izard et al., 2008), which suggests that both positive and negative emotions can lead to adaptive action. Arousal may a critical factor in predicting which children will have the motivation and determination to confront a bully ing peer.

Importantly, though, more children in our sam ple clustered into the Unemotional group than the Emotional group (although both groups were sizable at 57% and 43% of children, respectively). The size of the Unemotional group suggests that lack of a physiological or emotional response to the bullying videos was common and not indicative of pathological levels of callousness or insensitivity. Rather, several alternative interpretations are possible. First, Unemotional children exhibited HR deceleration. Basic psychophysiological research suggests that HR decreases when individuals orient to a new stimulus (e.g., Ôhman et al., 2000). Thus, children in the Unemotional group may have sim ply been attending to the bullying videos, but not

particularly physiologically or emotionally aroused. Second, the videos may not have been sufficiently evocative for many children. More children may become physiologically or emotionally aroused when witnessing real-life bullying episodes involv ing familiar peers. Third, these children may wit ness bullying events so frequently that they have become desensitized to them or have found it adap tive to keep their emotional response to a minimum.

These possible explanations notwithstanding, the children who did not react physiologically and emotionally to the bullying videos were in fact rated by their peers as less likely to intervene when a classmate is bullied than those children who

reacted more strongly. Membership in the Emo tional and Unemotional groups, however, predicted only a portion of the variance in bullying interven tion behavior, even in combination with other demographic factors and child characteristics. Additional factors that may be important to exam ine in the future include fear of the bully, dislike or blame of the victim, and diffusion of responsibility.

Despite these limitations, the current study explored the association between children's reac tions to bullying and bystander intervention in a methodologically sophisticated study. When chil dren are simply asked how they feel about bullying and whether they would intervene, they tend to provide socially desirable answers. In contrast, in the current study, children's reactions to bullying were assessed in the laboratory through both physi ological and self-reported emotional measures, and their tendency to intervene in bullying episodes in the classroom were indexed through peer report. This approach gave us a more nuanced and robust understanding of the association between these constructs.

Our findings suggest that it was important to combine both physiological and emotional variables in the assessment of children's reactions to bully ing. Furthermore, our results indicate that chil dren's reactions were better represented by a latent variable that grouped children into Emotional and Unemotional groups than by a continuous range of responses. Specifically, although the group mem bership predicted bystander intervention in the context of the regression, bivariate correlations between the four individual reaction variables used

to form the latent groups and bystander interven tion were nonsignificant. This finding, combined with the clarity and consistency of the results of the LP A, suggests that the combination of children's physiological and emotions to the bullying videos divided them fairly cleanly into two groups.

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 387

If replicated in future studies, these findings may help guide interventionists as they work to improve the bystander component of bullying intervention programs. Our results suggest that one target of intervention should be bystanders' reactions to bul lying. A substantial group of children in the sample were not particularly aroused by witnessing bully ing, and this same group was considered by peers to be less likely to intervene in bullying episodes. Thus, intervention programs may need to increase children's awareness of the seriousness of bullying and help children to take the perspective of and recognize the suffering of victims. If children become more engaged, concerned, and upset by bullying episodes, they may be more likely to intervene.

Beyond group membership, two other predictors of bystander intervention trended in the hypothe sized direction (peer victimization, emotional expressiveness). However, both effects were only marginal, and they only emerged in the context of the regression model and not in bivariate correla tions; thus, they should not be overinterpreted. Furthermore, findings for gender, efficacy in con fronting peers, and affective empathy as predictors of bystander intervention failed to emerge as hypothesized, either within the regression model or at the level of bivariate correlations or ANOVA

analyses. With a sample size of only 79, low power may explain these null findings. In addition, dis crepancies from previous studies in which signifi cant effects for these relations emerged may be explained by differences the age and country of origin of the sample studied, the source and mea sure of bystander behavior used, or the way in which the child characteristic was assessed. For

example, in a previous investigation in which peer victimization negatively predicted intervention in bullying (Rigby & Johnson, 2006), bystander behav ior was assessed through self report rather than the peer report used in the current study. Another example concerns the two studies by Gini et al. (2007, 2008), in which affective empathy and social self-efficacy predicted bystander intervention; these studies used somewhat older Italian samples, a dif ferent peer-report measure of bystander interven tion, and broader self-report measures of social self-efficacy or affective empathy. In any case, more work is clearly needed to gain a fuller understand ing of the demographic factors or child characteris tics that drive children's behavior when they are bystanders to bullying episodes. This work is an important goal for future research; such knowledge will be critical as we work to improve the bystan der component of bullying prevention programs.

Finally, one demographic variable emerged as a strong predictor of bystander intervention in bully ing episodes. However, in contrast to previous work, age was a strong positive predictor of bystan der intervention, both at the level of bivariate corre lation and in the context of the regression model. This finding runs counter to a previous study sug gesting that younger children are more likely to intervene (Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Importantly, in the current study, we assessed bystander interven tion through peer report, whereas the previous study used self report. Perhaps younger children are more likely to report that they would try to stop a bully, but older children are actually more likely to do so, at least in the eyes of their peers.

An additional issue addressed in the current pro ject concerns the percentage of children who tend to intervene in bullying episodes. As discussed ear lier, although about half of students report that they would try to help a victim of bullying (Whit ney & Smith, 1993), observational (O'Connell et al., 1999) and peer-report (Salmivalli et al., 1996) data suggest that much smaller percentages of children actually do so (25% and 17%, respectively). The classroom-based data set (Ν = 771) used here pro vides another source of peer-report data on the per centage of children who try to stop bullies. These data suggest that only 20% of children were nomi nated by at least half of their classmates as inter vening in bullying episodes, a percentage that is in line with the previous peer-report and observa tional data. Given the tendency for most children in a classroom to receive at least a few peer nomina tions for positive behaviors, the use of this conser vative criteria (nomination by at least half of peers) seems appropriate as a means of identifying those children who consistently work to help others who are the victims of bullying.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study has a number of limitations and suggests several directions for future research. First, in future studies, researchers should use mul tiple measures of physiological arousal to more completely assess children's reactions to bullying. Cardiac response can be difficult to interpret, as it is affected by both the sympathetic and parasympa thetic branches of the autonomic nervous system. Pairing electrodermal measurement with cardiac measurement often helps in this interpretation, since skin conductance is accepted as a purely sym pathetic autonomic response (Dawson, Schell, & Filion, 2000).

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

388 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

Second, observational coding of children's facial expressions during the bullying videos would have allowed for more comprehensive assessment of participants' emotional response. Recent articles (e.g., Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004) have called for multimethod assessment of emotional arousal (e.g., physiological, self report, and observational) as these components do not typically correlate highly. Adding observation to future studies will allow for more thorough examination of children's emotional reactions to bullying.

Third, future researchers may wish to provide children with a more expansive definition of bul lying when they complete the peer nominations of bystander intervention. The definition used in the current study was limited to physical and ver bal bullying and did not specifically mention rela tional bullying. More children may have been nominated as intervening in bullying episodes if relational bullying were explicitly included in the definition.

Fourth, it will be important for future researchers to explore connections between the constructs that were the focus of the current study (reactions to bullying, bystander intervention behavior) and chil dren's own bullying behavior and victimization experiences. Such work will greatly enhance our understanding of the complex interplay of these constructs and may prove crucial to the improve ment of bullying prevention programs.

Fifth, in future studies, researchers should explore associations between reactions to bullying and bystander intervention in different develop mental periods. The findings of the current study cannot be generalized beyond the fourth- and fifth grade age group. Changes across development in children's perspective-taking abilities, social skills, and the nature of bullying may make our findings particularly age specific.

Finally, we would call for greater collaboration among developmental and social psychologists in the investigation of bystander behavior in children. The adult social psychology literature has a rich tradition of studying bystander intervention (e.g., Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981; van den Bos, Miiller, & van Bussel, 2009). Unfortu nately, there are few data on children's bystander behavior, even beyond the specific context of bully ing. Basic research in this area will increase our understanding of the various cognitive, emotional, and physiological factors that contribute to chil dren's bystander behavior. With greater under standing of why children do or do not intervene in bullying situations, we will be able to do more to

prevent the serious problem that bullying currently represents in our schools.

References

Adelson, Ov Braunstein, Η., & Jaffe, M. (Producers), & McLoughlin, T. (Director). (2005). Odd girl out [Motion picture]. USA: Jaffe/Braunstein Films, Lifetime Tele vision, and Orly Adelson Productions.

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bully ing in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597580

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 183-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15564880701263155

Barker, E. D., Arseneault, L., Brendgen, M., Fontaine, N., & Maughan, B. (2008). Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: Relations to delin

quency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1030-1038. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1097/ CHI.0b013e31817eec98

Batson, C. D., Fultz, ]., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1994). Dis tress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. In B. Puka (Ed.), Reaching out: Caring, altruism, and proso cial behavior (pp. 57-75). New York: Garland.

Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13, 195-212. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01246098

Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317-333. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111 / j.l467-8624.2004.00673.x

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2000). The electrodermal system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassi nary, & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of human psy chophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 200-223). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Evers, K. E., Prochaska, J. O., Van Marter, D. F., Johnson, J. L., & Prochaska, J. M. (2007). Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 49, 397-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188070 1717271

Faull, C. (Producer & Director). (2007). Stories of us [Motion picture]. (Available from Stories of US). 1215 Wellesley Road, Madison, WI 53705.

Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204

Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Deter minants of adolescents' active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence,

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 389

31, 93-105. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2007.05.002

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, Κ. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer vic timization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402001049

Irving, Β. Α., & Parker-Jenkins, M. (1995). Tracking tru ancy: An examination of persistent non-attendance amongst disaffected school pupils and positive support strategies. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 225-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764950250209

Izard, C., Stark, K., Trentacosta, C., & Schultz, D. (2008). Beyond emotion regulation: Emotion utilization and adaptive functioning. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 156-163. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.1750-8606.2008. 00058.x

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adoles cence, 29, 589-611. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.adoles· cence.2005.08.010

Kama, Α., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljo nen, Α., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evalua tion of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311-330. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.111 l/j.l467-8624.2010.01557.x

Kass, R. E., & Wasserman, L. (1995). A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the Schwartz criterion. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 928-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2291327

Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Marsee, Μ. Α., Cruise, K., Munoz, L. C., et al. (2008). Assessing cal lous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Valida

tion of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 241-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.04.002

Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. (2008). Peer victimization, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Suicide and Life-Threaten ing Behavior, 38, 166-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/ suli.2008.38.2.166

Latané, Β., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystan der: Why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Latané, Β., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308 324. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308

Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767-778. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1093/biomet/88.3. 767

McCutcheon, A. (1987). Latent class analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998-2007). Mplus user's guide (5th éd.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Natvig, G. K., Albrektsen, G., & Qvarnstrom, U. (2001). Psychosomatic symptoms among victims of school bul lying. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 365-377. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600401

Neary, Α., & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its relationship to self-concept and depression among school-girls. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94) 90122-8

Nylund, K., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, Β. (2007). Decid ing on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simula tion study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

O'Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0238

Ohman, Α., Hamm, Α., & Hugdahl, K. (2000). Cognition and the autonomic nervous system: Orienting, anticipa tion, and conditioning. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassi nary, & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of human psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 533-575). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., Crocker Flerx, V. C., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007). Olweus Bullying Pre vention Program teacher guide. Center City, MN: Hazel den.

Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Bandura, A. (1998). The measurement of self-efficacy in school-age children: A preliminary contribution. Età Evolutiva, 61, 28-40.

Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001). The structure of chil dren's perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 87-97. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.2.87

Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observations of aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental Psy chology, 31, 548-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012 1649.31.4.548

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., O'Connell, P., Atlas, R., & Charach, A. (2004). Making a difference in bullying: Evaluation of a systemic school-based programme in Canada. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 125-139). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511584466.008

Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators can reduce bullying at school. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in sup port of children who are being bullied. Educational Psy

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

390 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

chology, 26, 425-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410500342047

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, Kv & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group pro cess: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:l<l::AID AB1>3.0.CO;2-T

Srabstein, J., & Piazza, T. (2008). Public health, safety and educational risks associated with bullying behaviors in American adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 223-233. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1515/IJAMH.2008.20.2.223

Stevens, V., Van Oost, P., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2004). Interventions against bullying in Flemish schools: Pro gramme development and evaluation. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How effective can interventions be? (pp. 141-165). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/ CB09780511584466.009

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, Μ. Α., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0272-4944(05)80184-7

van den Bos, K., Muller, P. Α., & van Bussel, A. A. (2009). Helping to overcome intervention inertia in bystander's dilemmas: Behavioral disinhibition can improve the greater good. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 873-878. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.014

Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. Hagenaars & A. McCutcheon (Eds.),

Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/CB09780511499531.004

Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. Α., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Mod zeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education.

Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-tested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57, 307-333. http: / /dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912557

Walrath, C. M., Petras, H., Mandell, D. S., Stephens, R. L., Holden, E. W., & Leaf, P. J. (2004). Gender differences in patterns of risk factors among children receiving mental health services: Latent class analyses. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 31, 297-311.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physi cal, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jado health.2009.03.021

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25. http:/ / dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188930350101

Wilson, A. C., Lengua, L. J., Tininenko, J., Taylor, Α., & Trancik, A. (2009). Physiological profiles during delay of gratification: Associations with emotionality, self regulation, and adjustment problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 780-790. http:/ / dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.002

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Role of Elementary School Counselors in Reducing School Bullying

Author(s): Sheri Bauman

Source: The Elementary School Journal , Vol. 108, No. 5 (May 2008), pp. 362-375

Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589467

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Elementary School Journal

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Role of Elementary School Counselors in Reducing School Bullying

Sheri Bauman University of Arizona

Abstract

In this article, I review the literature on school bullying with an emphasis on elementary schools. Bullying is defined and described, 3 types of bullying are discussed, and the importance of relational bullying is emphasized. I review ex- isting programs to reduce bullying with atten- tion to empirical studies. Barriers to implemen- tation of effective programs are acknowledged. Given the expertise and role of elementary school counselors, they are in a unique position to be leaders in reducing school bullying, a view that is consistent with the American School Counseling Association national model for pro- fessional school counseling. I suggest ways in which school counselors can have a significant influence on school bullying, outline implica- tions of research for best practice, and discuss the need for future research.

Although scholarly interest in school bully- ing in the United States has lagged behind that of other countries such as Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, public concern and research attention have in- creased in recent years, in part due to highly publicized incidents of school vio- lence. Investigations by the Secret Service revealed that in two-thirds of the high- profile cases of school shootings, the perpe- trators had been chronic victims of bullying, and revenge was a prominent motivation (Dedman, 2000). Dan Olweus’s seminal re- search on school bullying in Norway in the early 1980s was prompted by several suicides that were attributed to despair caused by chronic victimization by bullies.

Such incidents may be rare, but bullying is not. The largest national study in the United States to date found that that 29.9% of students in grades 6 through 10 reported

The Elementary School Journal Volume 108, Number 5 © 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2008/10805-0002$10.00

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

“moderate or frequent” involvement in bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). The number of victims in elementary grades has been estimated at twice that of secondary stu- dents (Ross, 1996), which means that bully- ing affects a very large number of students in U.S. elementary schools. Bullying “may be the most prevalent form of violence in the schools and the form that is likely to affect the greatest number of students” (Batsche, 2002, p. 171). Most bullying oc- curs in school rather than on the journey to and from school and is particularly preva- lent in areas with minimal adult supervision. Playgrounds, hallways, and restrooms are common locations for incidents of bullying, although classrooms are not immune (Payne & Gottfredson, 2004).

Defining Bullying The generally accepted definition describes bullying as a subset of aggression with three components: (a) intent to harm, (b) repetition, and (c) a power imbalance be- tween the bully and the target or victim. Bullying is distinguished from conflict by unequal power between the persons in- volved. Although this definition, originally proposed by Olweus (1993), provides a common basis for communicating about the topic, it is not without limitations for schools. First, intent is difficult to detect, and the perpetrator can dismiss the charge of bullying by claiming, “It was an acci- dent. I didn’t mean it.” The repetitive na- ture of bullying is undoubtedly a contribu- tor to the harmful effects, but an action toward a victim cannot be dismissed be- cause it is a single (or initial) occurrence. The key component of the definition is the power imbalance. The bully uses his or her power (which may be due to physical at- tributes or social standing) against a weaker student who is unable to defend him/herself. Thus, Smith and Sharp (1994) suggested a more concise definition: “a sys- tematic abuse of power” (p. 2).

This common definition also creates the

impression that bullying is a dyadic en- counter, involving two parties. However, recognizing the important role played by bystanders, Twemlow, Fonagy, and Sacco (2004) proposed an alternate definition: “bullying is the repeated exposure of an individual to negative interactions directly or indirectly inflicted by one or more dom- inant persons. The harm may be caused through direct physical or psychological means and/or indirectly through encour- agement of the process or avoidance by the bystander” (p. 221).

Types of Bullying In addition to a common definition, it is now widely accepted that there are several different types of bullying. Overt bullying includes both physical and verbal bullying. Examples are pushing, hitting, shoving, name-calling, threatening, and malicious teasing. Indirect bullying involves rela- tional aggression, in which the harm is in- flicted by damaging the target’s relation- ships. For example, relational bullying involves social exclusion, spreading ru- mors, and demanding compliance as a con- dition of friendship.

Relational bullying has been perceived erroneously as less harmful than overt forms of bullying and may be discounted as normative female behavior (Harachi, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999). Relational bul- lying is more strongly related to emotional distress than is physical bullying (Hawker, 1998) and has been found to be uniquely predictive of current (Casey-Cannon, Hay- ward, & Gowen, 2001; Crick, 1996; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) and future (Crick, 1996; Espelage, Mebane, & Swearer, 2004) social and psychological maladjustment, as well as depression in adulthood (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Olweus, 1993). Victims of bullying indicated that so- cial exclusion was the worst form of bully- ing (Sharp, 1995), although teachers tend to treat this as the least serious (Birkinshaw & Eslea, 1998).

BULLYING 363

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Although physical bullying tends to de- crease with age, relational bullying does not (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002). Moreover, relational bullying has been found to increase in schools when direct bullying decreases (Woods & Wolke, 2003). Vail (2002) concluded that schools focus on physical aggression and lack policies to deal with relational aggression. For both males and females, relational bullying has a stronger link to depression than does direct bullying; relational bullying and indirect forms of bullying likely “cause the greatest amount of suffering, while they have a greater chance of going unnoticed by teach- ers” (van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003, p. 1312). Elementary school counselors have a particular interest in enhancing stu- dents’ interpersonal skills and helping stu- dents develop positive friendship skills. Counselors can apply their knowledge and skills to reduce relational bullying and as- sist victims.

My research has confirmed the relation between victimization by relational bully- ing and depressive symptoms in elemen- tary students in a small Southwestern com- munity. In a study of 116 Mexican American students in grades 3 through 5, the only sig- nificant predictor of depression was victim- ization by relational bullying. Gender, grade level, overt bullying, and acculturation status had no effect (Bauman, 2006). I obtained sim- ilar outcomes with middle school students in an ethnically diverse school in a midsized Southwestern city (Bauman, in press).

Yoon and Kerber (2003) found that 94 elementary teachers rated vignettes of physical bullying as the most serious type of bullying event, followed by scenarios of verbal and relational bullying, in that or- der. Participants rated each of six vignettes (two each of physical, verbal, and relational bullying) on a five-point scale for serious- ness (not at all serious to very serious), the degree of empathy for the victim (not at all sympathetic to very sympathetic), and the likelihood of intervening in the situation (not at all likely to very likely). Note that

the authors used the term “empathy” for this subscale, although the wording of the item uses the term “sympathy.” Teachers also had the least empathy for victims of relational bullying and were least likely to intervene in relational bullying incidents. Jacobsen and Bauman (2007) used the same questionnaire with a sample of 183 school counselors in one state, with similar results. School counselors rated the relational bul- lying incidents as less serious than physical or verbal bullying and had the least empa- thy for victims of relational bullying. They were more likely to intervene in verbal bul- lying than in relational bullying and pro- posed less serious consequences for bullies using this tactic. However, counselors with antibullying training rated relational bully- ing as more serious than those without such training, and female counselors rated relational bullying as more serious than did male counselors. Counselors who worked in schools with antibullying programs in place were more likely to intervene in ver- bal and relational bullying incidents than those who worked in schools without such programs. When the results were com- pared to those of the teachers in the Yoon and Kerber sample, counselors obtained higher scores on all variables (seriousness, empathy for victim, willingness to inter- vene) than teachers. School counselors are likely to have training and skills to inter- vene in incidents of school bullying.

Consequences of Bullying The literature has consistently reported negative consequences associated with bul- lying. Both bullies and victims are more likely to evidence social, emotional, behav- ioral, and academic problems (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005) than their uninvolved peers. Victims exhibit higher rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and low self-esteem, and these effects persist into adulthood (Leff, Power, & Goldstein, 2004). Peer rejection, delinquent behavior, criminality, violence, and suicidal ideation

364 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

have also been identified as outcomes of bullying involvement (Marsh, Parada, Cra- ven, & Finger, 2004). There is no question that the problem is serious and worthy of attention.

Cyberbullying The proliferation of technology has pro- vided students with new methods of bul- lying. The term cyberbullying (coined by Ca- nadian Bill Belsey) refers to this recent development. “Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging, de- famatory personal Web sites, and defama- tory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others” (Belsey, n.d.). The scant research on this form of bullying suggests that it is at least as prevalent as more established methods. Kowalski et al. (2005) reported that 25% of middle school girls and 11% of boys had been cyberbul- lied within the previous 2 months, and 13% of girls and 9% of boys admitted cyberbul- lying someone else. Of the bullied students, 63% were bullied by a schoolmate.

Dealing with Bullying There is considerable evidence that schools are not effective at combating bullying. For example, Craig and Pepler (1997) found that playground supervisors intervened in only 4% of bullying incidents. Doll, Song, and Siemers (2004) reported that students do not tell teachers about bullying inci- dents because they perceive teachers as “in- ept, uncaring, or unable to protect them” (p. 169). Atlas and Pepler (1998) observed that teachers intervened in only 18% of bul- lying incidents that occurred in their ele- mentary and middle school classes, and 40% of elementary students and 60% of jun- ior high students reported that teachers do nothing when victims tell them about bul- lying incidents (Hoover & Hazler, 1991).

Furthermore, 70% of teachers in one study (Charach, Pepler, & Ziegler, 1995) believed that teachers intervene “almost always” in bullying situations, whereas only 25% of the students agreed with their assessment.

Of interest is a current study (Bauman & Rigby, 2006) in which both teachers and school counselors were surveyed using the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ; Rigby, 2006) about their methods for han- dling an incident of school bullying. The HBQ contains 22 items in which respon- dents indicate the likelihood of taking a given action in response to the scenario provided on a five-point scale (from “I def- initely would” to “I definitely would not”). Five subscales were identified using princi- pal components analysis. The sample con- sisted of 601 educators, 66% of whom were school counselors. Of the 385 counselors, 48% worked in elementary or K–8 schools. Statistically significant differences between teachers and school counselors were de- tected on four of the five subscales. Coun- selors were more likely to say they would work with the victim and would enlist other adults (including parents) in the so- lution. They were less likely than teachers to ignore or dismiss the incident and less likely to use punitive disciplinary strate- gies. The only subscale on which there was no difference was the Work with Bully sub- scale. Teachers and counselors both indi- cated they would work with (as opposed to punish) the bully in order to resolve the problem. These results point to the elemen- tary school counselor as the logical person in the school to take a leadership role in efforts to reduce bullying.

Teachers and other school personnel tend to overestimate their effectiveness in bullying intervention (Holt & Keyes, 2004). One noted U.S. researcher commented, “Unfortunately, adults within the school environment dramatically overestimate their effectiveness in identifying and inter- vening in bullying situations” (Susan Lim- ber, quoted in Crawford, 2002, p. 65). Teachers’ lack of intervention “plays a crit-

BULLYING 365

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ical role in sanctioning the bullying behav- ior that occurs in schools, either intention- ally or unintentionally” (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004, p. 260).

Effectiveness of Antibullying Programs Smith and Ananiadou (2003) reviewed the evaluation research on antibullying pro- grams. Olweus conducted the largest project in Bergen, Norway, in the early 1980s. His comprehensive school-wide pro- gram addressed bullying at multiple lev- els—the entire school, the classroom, and the individual. At the school level, the Ol- weus program called for a questionnaire to be administered to students to determine the prevalence of bullying, a school confer- ence day on bullying, increased supervi- sion on playgrounds, meetings with staff and parents, and the formation of teachers’ groups to focus on improving overall school climate (Olweus, 1993). At the class- room level, student involvement in devel- oping classroom rules against bullying was followed by regular classroom meetings to discuss bullying problems, role-playing ac- tivities and the use of literature related to bullying, and the use of cooperative learn- ing strategies. When bullying did occur, Ol- weus’s model called for “serious talks” (p. 64) with involved students and their par- ents, help from “neutral” students, help and support for parents, and, if none of those actions was successful, changing the class or school of involved students. In fact, the program was part of a national antibul- lying campaign, which may have also af- fected outcomes. Results of the program revealed a 50% decrease in student self- reported bullying.

However, shortly thereafter, another Norwegian researcher (Roland, 1989) eval- uated a similar program in another part of the country, with very different outcomes. He found increased bullying among boys during the years of program implementa- tion. One explanation of the marked differ-

ence in results is that Olweus and his team were directly involved in the program, whereas Roland provided materials but no other support. A large-scale study con- ducted in Sheffield, England, with many similarities to the Olweus program, had positive results: an average of 17% more students reported not being bullied, and 7% fewer students reported bullying others after the 2-year program. One finding from this research is particularly noteworthy: the best outcomes were obtained in schools with the strongest commitment to the pro- gram, which typically had a designated staff member coordinating the program, and strong administrative support. Ele- mentary school counselors are ideally suited to be that designated staff member and to enlist administrative support.

Other programs, in England, Canada, Germany, and Belgium reported mixed re- sults, with only modest effects after the ini- tial successful intervention in Bergen. One large-scale study was conducted in the United States in rural South Carolina schools. The Olweus model was used, with additional materials and community in- volvement. Again, results were mixed; 25% fewer students in the experimental schools reported bullying other children after the 2-year intervention, whereas those in con- trol schools reported increased bullying. However, there was no significant differ- ence between experimental and control schools in the number of students being bullied, measured by student self-report (Smith & Ananiadou, 2003).

Twemlow and his colleagues tested a violence-prevention program directed at reducing bullying and other forms of vio- lence in two inner-city elementary schools in the Midwest (Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, Evans, et al., 2001). The program is based on a model of bullying as a triadic interaction of bully, victim, and bystander. School staff is usually in the bystander role in this model. The intervention included four elements: zero tolerance for bullying and other violence, a specific discipline

366 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

plan based on modeling of appropriate be- haviors, a specialized physical education curriculum to teach self-regulation, and a mentoring program using older children and adults. Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, Evans, et al. (2001) proclaimed a “dramatic reduction in disciplinary referrals” in the experimental school, with no change in the control school. Suspension rates in the ex- perimental school also declined signifi- cantly in contrast to the control school, where no change was detected. It is impor- tant to note that there was a significant increase in academic performance in the experimental school, as measured by scores on an achievement test, whereas scores in the control school did not change. School counselors who are seeking a rationale for implementing an antibullying program might note that academic performance im- proved when bullying decreased.

The Expect Respect program was devel- oped with support from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia (Mer- aviglia, Becker, Rosenbluth, Sanchez, & Robertson, 2003). The project was based on Olweus’s model and included classroom curriculum, staff training, policy develop- ment, parent education, and support ser- vices. School counselors received addi- tional training in order to provide responsive services to students involved in bullying. Initial evaluation, based on sur- veys of students and staff, yielded disap- pointing results. Only 19% of students in the intervention group were able to identify bullying behaviors at posttest. An increase in student reports of bullying behaviors was attributed to heightened awareness as a result of the program. Despite these lim- ited results, researchers learned that stu- dents expected the adults at school to tell them to ignore bullying behaviors, and the proportion of students who endorsed that response increased postintervention. Only 7% of staff indicated that they would re- spond by telling students to ignore the in- cident. School counselors must remember this finding: one element of a successful

program is convincing students that the adults are committed to action and trained to help.

A more recently developed program, Steps to Respect, reported more encourag- ing results. In the second year of implemen- tation, data revealed reductions in bullying, victimization, and destructive bystander behaviors (Frey, Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005). This program is another school-wide intervention that focuses on clear antibul- lying policies and procedures, training for adults, and the support of socially respon- sible behavior. The program includes class- room curricula and coaching for children involved in bullying.

Vreeman and Carroll (2007) reviewed research on school-based interventions to reduce bullying and found 26 studies that used control and intervention groups and an evaluation of measured outcomes that had been published in English. Of 10 stud- ies evaluating curricular interventions, six showed no decline in bullying. The other four, although finding a decrease in bully- ing overall, detected increased bullying in certain populations or when using specific measures. The only study that showed clear improvement did not measure inci- dents of bullying; children’s responses to a hypothetical bullying situation was the out- come measure. Of the 10 studies evaluating whole-school or systemic interventions, seven reported positive outcomes. The dis- crepant results of Olweus and Roland de- scribed above were included in this group of studies. Four studies examined the ef- fects of interventions with targeted groups of children (two for aggressive children and two for victims of bullying). Only one study of third-grade children showed pos- itive outcomes. Participants in the other studies were older (sixth through eighth grade). Finally, a study of a single program placing social workers in high-risk schools in England found decreased bullying at the elementary level only, and an intervention using mentors with 28 fourth-grade stu- dents reported less bullying and aggression

BULLYING 367

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

postintervention for program students than a control group who did not have mentors. The implications for elementary school counselors from this review are that curric- ulum alone is unlikely to reduce bullying, that whole-school approaches addressing the problem at a systemic level are most likely to have positive outcomes when the staff is committed and involved, and that interventions targeted at specific groups of children are most likely to reduce bullying with younger children.

An excellent summary of research on school-based bullying prevention pro- grams can be found in Samples (2004). I encourage elementary counselors to be in- formed about research results, because schools often select a program based on name recognition, cost, or other factors without regard for effectiveness research. As Juvonen and Graham (2004) observed, prevention programs are frequently cre- ated by professional curriculum developers rather than by experts in bullying preven- tion and intervention research. A school counselor can assist decision makers in tak- ing into account all relevant variables, in- cluding research results and the local com- munity context, to make an informed selection of a program with a high likeli- hood of success.

Barriers to Effective Antibullying Interventions By 2005, 18 states had adopted formal bul- lying legislation (Greene & Ross, 2005). Al- though 13 of those include a definition of bullying, none includes all three elements I discussed (intent, repetition, and power im- balance). In fact, none of the laws mentions the power imbalance, considered by ex- perts to be a defining characteristic of bul- lying. Only eight states require school em- ployees to report acts of bullying. Most states require or recommend that school employees receive training about district bullying policies, or bullying prevention, but only Georgia penalizes schools for non-

compliance with its antibullying law. The most common component of state legisla- tion is that districts are to establish antibul- lying policies. Thus, state legislation is not likely to produce major changes in schools’ efforts to reduce bullying, but it does per- haps raise awareness and signal educators that expectations exist for increased atten- tion to bullying in schools.

Despite public proclamations by most constituencies (e.g., community and na- tional leaders, administrators, teachers, parents, school counselors, and students) that bullying is not acceptable and that chil- dren have the right to be safe (both physi- cally and psychologically) at school, there are many ways in which cultural practices contradict that belief. As one anonymous teacher responding to the Bauman and Rigby (2006) survey stated, “we are not ad- dressing the whole problem. Children re- flect the values and behavior they see in their homes, on television, in video games, and in the behaviors of famous personali- ties and world leaders.” Social learning is a powerful process, and when children see role models (e.g., parents and other adults, including teachers) use bullying and intim- idation tactics, they use these approaches to getting their own needs met and solving problems. Another respondent to the ques- tionnaire observed, “As long as teachers model bullying and encourage bullying as an accepted mode of discipline through peer pressure, it will continue.”

Racism and discrimination toward many oppressed groups (sexual minorities, homeless, etc.) are other pervasive exam- ples that model elements of bullying. There are also attitudes that are still widely (al- though perhaps more privately) held that bullying is a normative experience and that victims somehow deserve the treatment they receive (Vernberg & Gamm, 2003). Within schools and school districts, there may be a lack of administrative support for antibullying measures. Some comments from participants in the survey of teachers

368 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and counselors (Bauman & Rigby, 2006) are illustrative:

• I have found administrators who are responsible for working with bullies feel the behavior is “not that bad” or a “right [sic] of passage” and therefore they do not take reports of bullying seriously.

• Our school refuses to participate in [state’s] Safe2Tell program. I think the principal is afraid of the number of calls that will be made. The problem is that the administration only believes that the target needs to write a state- ment about the incident. This robs the target of his or her confidentiality.

• I do the best I can, but I have no ad- ministration support. Bullies are left to roam free, as are their parents. The principal is afraid of bullies and can- not stand up to them.

• I took [program] training. My district did not pay for me to attend, nor do they support my actions in trying to stop bullying. It’s very frustrating.

As schools take steps to address the problem of bullying, disagreements about appropriate strategies to take are likely. In addition, teachers and other staff (includ- ing lunchroom and playground monitors) may lack training. Time and money must be devoted to antibullying efforts if they are to succeed, but those are in short sup- ply. And, in an educational environment so heavily influenced by the No Child Left Behind Act, educators may view antibully- ing efforts as distractions from academic pursuits. In the next section, I discuss the critical role of school counselors in over- coming these obstacles.

Implications for Practice Many experts advise that antibullying pro- grams are more likely to show positive ef- fects when there is an identified person in the school to take a leadership role. Clarke and Kiselica (1997) urged “school counsel- ors to become effective catalysts and advo- cates for systemic change” (p. 322). The counselor becomes a change agent in anti-

violence and antibullying programs (Twem- low, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, & Hess, 2001). Her- nández and Seem (2004) also commented on the leadership role in advocacy and imple- mentation efforts. School counselors have unique skills that make them particularly well suited to a leadership role. Contempo- rary school counselors already are school leaders, consultants to other staff and to the larger community, classroom educators, par- ent educators, and individual and group counselors. They can collect and use data and are instrumental in establishing and main- taining a positive school climate. They are consensus builders and facilitators of task groups. Who better to assume responsibility and leadership in bullying reduction?

As a catalyst for change, the school counselor must obtain administrative sup- port for antibullying efforts. Hopefully, the principal or superintendent will already be aware of the need to take action, and the counselor can provide the leadership nec- essary for designing and implementing in- terventions at the school or district level. School counselors must be armed with per- suasive information, noting that bullying at school decreases academic success by dis- tracting students and/or increasing school absenteeism and dropout rates (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997). A sizable majority of stu- dents who Hazler, Hoover, and Oliver (1992) surveyed experienced academic dif- ficulties as a result of bullying. Buhs, Ladd, and Herald (2006) found that children who are victimized by social exclusion have re- duced academic achievement. Such evi- dence is important when academic perfor- mance of students is the yardstick for accountability. School counselors also must be familiar with the literature on antibully- ing programs in order to assemble an effec- tive case for their choices. For example, Smith and Ananiadou (2003) cited persua- sive evidence that the optimal age for in- tervention is between 5 to 6 and 8 to 9, which suggests that kindergarten and the early elementary grades are logical places to focus. Elementary school counselors’

BULLYING 369

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

knowledge of child development allows them to tailor interventions to these grades.

An important initial step in establishing an effective program is the formation of a steering committee that works as a team to develop the program. The school counselor is familiar with all constituencies (students, teachers, other staff, parents, administra- tors, and community members) and has es- tablished relationships with key individu- als in those groups. Facilitating and coordinating the work of such a group uses the school counselor’s expertise. Many school counselors already have formed ad- visory committees and thus have experi- ence assembling and leading a team dedi- cated to program improvement.

Counselors are able to provide training for staff, students, and parents about bul- lying. O’Moore (2000) proposed the essen- tial content of teacher training: an under- standing of what constitutes bullying, the extent of bullying, signs of victimization and bullying, the effects of bullying, causes of bullying behavior, and preventive strat- egies as well as strategies to deal with bul- lying incidents. She also described the neces- sary components of an effective antibullying policy. School counselors who can give teach- ers and other staff specific suggestions will establish credibility and earn respect from these colleagues.

Another key training need is for adult monitors/supervisors of unstructured time, such as lunch and recess. These personnel must have training in order to implement programs and policies, although it is some- times assumed that their mere presence de- ters bullying. Data clearly show otherwise, and the school counselor can empower these individuals with not just antibullying train- ing but skills to provide organized activities (such as noncompetitive games) for children to engage in, reducing the time and opportu- nities for bullying.

As noted above, teachers often lack in- formation and hold attitudes and beliefs that are contrary to those of antibullying programs. With their excellent communica-

tion skills, counselors can design teacher training to address faculty concerns, and counselors know which staff members may need additional encouragement to partici- pate. They can also work with teachers who need additional assistance. Many models include a classroom meeting component, and some teachers might feel uncomfort- able or unequipped to manage open discus- sions of bullying. If the school counselor cofacilitates these meetings with the teacher until the teacher feels confident about conducting the meetings alone, the teacher has the support and modeling to become effective in this role.

The elementary school counselor needs to help others understand that some widely used strategies are not recommended for bullying situations. For example, peer me- diation and other conflict-resolution pro- grams are intended to assist peers in con- flict to resolve a dispute. Because of the power imbalance in bullying, this can be terrifying and/or harmful to the victim, who is unlikely to have the confidence to confront the bully with his or her concerns and may fear retaliation. Although peer mediation programs are useful in resolving conflicts, bullying is different from conflict between peers, and the school counselor must emphasize this. Another approach that is often suggested but that is ill- advised is to form self-esteem-building groups for bullies. First, the evidence is strong that most bullies do not lack self- esteem, so the efforts are misplaced. More important, bringing together like-minded students who bully others can have the un- intended effect of reinforcing their negative behaviors (see Dishion, McCord, and Pou- lin [1999] and Poulin, Dishion, and Burras- ton [2001] for research on the iatrogenic effects of group counseling with youth with negative behaviors).

School counselors also should be knowledgeable about the types of bullying and insist that policies, programs, and in- terventions target more than physical bul- lying. Because verbal and relational bully-

370 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ing are often more difficult to detect, counselors must develop a reputation for both trustworthiness and effectiveness so that students will report incidents of such bullying to them. Research has been un- equivocal in finding low rates of reporting to adults at school (e.g., Doll et al., 2004), and the counselor should be one person in the school to whom students can report safely. The increase in cyberbullying neces- sitates that the school counselor educate everyone, including students and parents, about how to deal with this form of bully- ing, which is unlikely to diminish without strong intervention.

School counselors have training in as- sessment and know how to use data to make decisions. It is imperative that data regarding prevalence, types, and location of bullying are collected prior to implemen- tation to guide program design. Then, sim- ilar data can be collected and analyzed after implementation to monitor effectiveness of interventions. This evaluation step cannot be overemphasized, because schools can use the data both to demonstrate program effectiveness (if the data warrant) or to make programmatic adjustments to align the program more closely to school circum- stances. Skeptical staff and administrators who see data that demonstrate how the program is making a difference, and for whom, are more likely to support the pro- gram.

In addition, elementary school counsel- ors are already delivering guidance curric- ulum in classrooms, and working with stu- dents to teach skills and behaviors to combat bullying is a natural extension of this role. Addressing the role of the by- stander and promoting altruism among students who witness bullying should be a part of classroom lessons. Most incidents of bullying are witnessed by others, whose behavior can encourage or discourage the bully. Hopefully, teachers will work with the counselor to reinforce skills and maxi- mize teachable moments. The counselor might also wish to assemble a library of

children’s books dealing with bullying. These can be provided to teachers who are seeking stories to read to classes and to individual children for whom identifying with characters in books can be helpful.

Most antibullying programs include components of individual and/or group counseling for bullies and victims. The school counselor already provides these services. Counselors may wish to investi- gate strategies, such as the No Blame ap- proach (Robinson & Maines, 1997) and the Method of Shared Concern (Pikas, 2002), to engage students in generating and imple- menting solutions (Cowie, 2004). The work of Evelyn Field in Australia provides a model for working with victims to develop necessary social skills (Field, 2003). Young (2002) described a program of bullying pre- vention and intervention using the brief solution-focused counseling model, which many school counselors use. This approach is another that counselors can employ in their work with individuals and groups.

Working to reduce bullying is consis- tent with the American School Counselor Association national model (2003), which promotes classroom guidance, individual planning, responsive services, and system support. Classroom guidance is an impor- tant component of antibullying efforts, and working with children individually and in small groups is a responsive service. Edu- cating staff, collecting data, and consulting with teachers and parents are all services that fall under system support. By leading school antibullying efforts, counselors will not only use their leadership and skills to reduce this serious problem, but they will enhance their professional status by em- ploying a nationally recognized model of school counseling services.

To summarize, the school counselor is ideally suited for a central role in a school’s antibullying efforts. To ensure that counsel- ors are prepared for such roles, Fernandez (2000) urges counselor education programs to provide more than generic training in program development and planning and to

BULLYING 371

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

offer training that prepares counselors to address the pervasive and damaging prob- lem of school bullying.

Suggestions for Future Research Data on effectiveness of antibullying pro- grams are mixed and difficult to interpret. There is a need for standard measures of prevalence rates, common definitions, and rigorous research designs. Leff et al. (2004) provide an excellent review of outcome measures that will assist researchers in se- lecting appropriate instruments. School counselors can collaborate with university scholars to design their evaluations to in- clude a comparison or control group and valid and reliable measures. Particularly in the United States, where bullying research is relatively recent, many more studies are needed to determine what works and for whom and under what conditions.

In addition to program evaluation stud- ies, the next step in research will be to de- termine which program elements are re- sponsible for positive outcomes. With overall program evaluation, it is impossible to know which components are effective and which are not. For example, the Ol- weus study in Bergen included a variety of program interventions. A single interven- tion might have produced rates similar to the whole program; although that is un- likely, the results do not show which inter- ventions are essential and which are extrane- ous. Some schools may choose to implement interventions successively and evaluate the effects of each. One clear target of a single intervention would be training playground and cafeteria monitors in what bullying is, how to detect it, and how to respond. Coun- selors can also train monitors to organize and encourage noncompetitive games to reduce the number of children who are not engaged in any structured activity. The school coun- selor can collect data before such training is provided (disciplinary incidents, suspen- sions, injuries taken to the school nurse, at- tendance, etc.) and again when the trained

monitors have been employed for a reason- able period of time to detect any significant changes.

Additional research should be con- ducted at counselor education programs that provide antibullying training as part of the curriculum. Graduates can be surveyed and/or observed to evaluate the effect of such training.

Summary School bullying is a significant and wide- spread problem with harmful conse- quences for all students. There is consensus on the definition of bullying and the vari- ous types of bullying, and many programs have been developed to prevent and reduce its occurrence in schools. The evidence of program effectiveness is far from conclu- sive, and is even disappointing, although whole-school approaches seem to have the best prognosis. School counselors are the staff members who are best equipped to advocate for concerted efforts to address the problem and to be leaders in program design, implementation, delivery, and eval- uation. In short, counselors can contribute to the academic success of all students by taking a central role in school and district antibullying efforts.

Note

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to the author at the De- partment of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0069; phone: 520-626-7308; e-mail: [email protected].

References

American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (2d ed.). Alexan- dria, VA: Author.

Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. American Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99.

372 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Batsche, G. M. (2002). Bullying. In G. G. Bear, K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems, and alterna- tives (pp. 171–180). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Bauman, S. (2006). Victimization and depression in Mexican American middle school students: Ef- fects of gender, age, and acculturation. Manu- script under review.

Bauman, S. (in press). Effects of gender, grade, and acculturation on overt and relational victimization and depression in Mexican American elementary school students. Jour- nal of Early Adolescence, 28.

Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2006, July 6). Educator responses to student bullying. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the Interna- tional Society for Social and Behavioral De- velopment, Melbourne, Australia.

Belsey, B. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from http://www.cyberbullying.ca

Birkinshaw, S., & Eslea, M. (1998, September). Teachers’ attitudes and actions toward boy v. girl and girl v. boy bullying. Paper presented at the annual conference of the developmental section of the British Psychological Society, Lancaster University [On-line]. Available: http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psy- chol/bully/files/birkin.htm

Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom en- gagement and achievement? Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 98, 1–13.

Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, C. (2001). Middle-school girls’ reports of peer victimization: Concerns, consequences, and implications. Professional School Counseling, 5, 138–148.

Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995). Bullying at school: A Canadian perspective. Education Canada, 35(1), 12–18.

Clarke, E. A., & Kiselica, M. (1997). A systemic counseling approach to the problem of bul- lying. Elementary School Guidance and Coun- seling, 31, 310–326.

Cowie, H. (2004). Peer influences. In C. E. Sand- ers & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 137–158). London: Elsevier.

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observa- tions of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psy- chology, 13, 14–59.

Crawford, N. (2002). New ways to stop bullying. APA Monitor on Psychology, 33(9), 64–67.

Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behav- ior in the prediction of children’s future so- cial adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317– 2327.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consult- ing and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopa- thology, 8, 367–380.

Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggres- sive children’s intent attributions and feel- ings of distress for relational and instrumen- tal peer provocations. Child Development, 73, 1134–1142.

Dedman, B. (2000, October 15). School shooters: Secret service findings. Chicago Sun Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.secretser- vice.gov/ntac/chicago_sun/find15.htm

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.

Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Class- room ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on prevention and inter- vention (pp. 161–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- baum.

Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Mov- ing beyond mean level differences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fernandez, M. S. (2000). School violence: Impli- cations for school counselor training pro- grams. In D. S. Sandhu & C. B. Aspy (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A practical guide for counselors (pp. 371–392). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Field, E. M. (2003). Bully busting: How to help children deal with teasing and bullying. Lane Cove, NSW, Australia: Finch.

Frey, K., Edstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M. (2005). The Steps to Respect program uses a multilevel approach to reduce playground bullying and destructive bystander behav- iors. In D. L. White, M. K. Faber, & B. C. Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of persistently safe schools 2005 (pp. 47–56). Washington, DC:

BULLYING 373

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

George Washington University, Hamilton Fish Institute.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.

Greene, M. B., & Ross, R. (2005, September). The nature, scope, and utility of formal laws and regulations that prohibit school-based bully- ing and harassment. In D. L. White, M. K. Faber, & B. C. Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of persistently safe schools 2005 (pp. 91–100). Washington, DC: George Washington Uni- versity, Hamilton Fish Institute.

Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999). United States. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Cata- lano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 279– 295). London: Routledge.

Hawker, D. (1998, September). Bullying and vic- tims’ distress: Psychological bullying hurts most. Paper presented at the annual confer- ence of the Developmental Section of the British Psychological Society, University of Lancaster, England [On-line]. Available: http://www.eclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psy- chol/bully/files/hawker.htm

Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1992). What do kids say about bullying? Executive Educator, 14, 20–22.

Hernández, T. J., & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe school climate: A systemic approach and the school counselor. Professional School Counsel- ing, 7, 256–262.

Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on pre- vention and intervention (pp. 121–140). Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoover, J., & Hazler, R. J. (1991). Bullies and victims. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25, 212–220.

Jacobsen, K., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses to three types of bullying incidents. Professional School Counseling, 11, 1–9.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2004). Research-based interventions on bullying. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 229–255). London: Elsevier.

Kowalski, R., Limber, S., Keith, M., Kerr, S., Singer, L., Spearman, J., Tripp, L., & Vernon, L. (2005, August). Electronic bullying among school-aged children and youth. Poster pre- sented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-

can Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., & Goldstein, A. B. (2004). Outcome measures to assess the effective- ness of bullying-prevention programs in the schools. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on prevention and inter- vention (pp. 269–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- baum.

Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A re- ciprocal effect model elucidating the com- plex nature of bullying, psychological deter- minants, and the central role of self-concept. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bully- ing: Implications for the classroom (pp. 63–109). London: Elsevier.

Meraviglia, M. G., Becker, H., Rosenbluth, B., Sanchez, E., & Robertson, T. (2003). The Ex- pect Respect project: Creating a positive el- ementary school climate. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence, 18, 1347–1360.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth. Journal of the American Medical Associ- ation, 285, 2094–2100.

Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. (2004). Bully Busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling and De- velopment, 82, 259–267.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teaching training to counter bullying and victimisa- tion in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 99– 111.

Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2004). Schools and bullying: School factors related to bullying and school-based bullying inter- ventions. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 159–176). London: Elsevier.

Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the shared concern method. School Psychology In- ternational, 23, 307–326.

Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Burraston, B. (2001). 3-year iatrogenic effects associated with ag- gregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive- behavioral prevention interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 214–224.

Rigby, K. (2006). Educators’ response to bullying scale. Unpublished questionnaire. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

374 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Crying for help: The No Blame approach to bullying. Bris- tol: Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.

Roland, E. (1989). A system-oriented strategy against bullying. In E. Roland & E. Munthe (Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective (pp. 143–151). London: Professional Devel- opment Foundation.

Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: What school personnel, other professionals, and parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Samples, F. L. (2004). Evaluating curriculum- based intervention programs: An examina- tion of preschool, primary, and elementary school intervention programs. In C. E. Sand- ers & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 203–227). London: Elsevier.

Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal well- being and educational progress of secondary school students. Educational and Child Psy- chology, 12(2), 81–88.

Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of school-based interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189–209.

Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1036, 215–232.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., Evans, R., & Ewbank, R. (2001). Cre-

ating a peaceful school learning environ- ment: A controlled study of an elementary school intervention to reduce violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 808 – 810.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., & Hess, D. (2001). Improving the so- cial and intellectual climate in elementary schools by addressing bully-victim-bystander power struggles. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Caring class- rooms, intelligent schools: The social emotional ed- ucation of young children (pp. 162–181). New York: Teachers College Press.

Vail, K. (2002). How girls hurt. American School Board Journal, 189, 14–18.

Van der Wal, M. F., de Wit, C. A. M., & Hirasing, R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312–1317.

Vernberg, E. M., & Gamm, B. K. (2003). Resis- tance to violence prevention interventions in schools: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Ap- plied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 125–138.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A sys- tematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us about the prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools? Educational Psychology, 23, 381–401.

Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Ele- mentary teachers’ attitudes and intervention strategies. Research in Education, 69, 27–34.

Young, S. (2002). Solutions to bullying. Stoke-on- Kent: Nasen.

BULLYING 375

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bullying in Middle Schools: Prevention and Intervention

Author(s): Amy Milsom and Laura L. Gallo

Source: Middle School Journal , January 2006, Vol. 37, No. 3 (January 2006), pp. 12-19

Published by: Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23044293

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Middle School Journal

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This We Believe in Action

Bullying in Middle Schools: Prevention and Intervention This We Believe Characteristics

• An inviting, supportive, and safe environment

• Curriculum that is relevant, challenging, integrative, and exploratory

• Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity

By Amy Milsom & Laura L. Gallo

fared hides behind the school building for an hour, hoping Tom has forgotten about him and walked home already. Maybe this will be the first night he will make it home without being pushed or taunted, fared slowly leaves his hiding spot, gripping his backpack as tight as he can. As he gets farther away from school, his stomach begins to unknot. He is relieved that he will make it home tonight without incident. Just then, Tom appears around the corner with a smirk on his face, ready to fight.

A main characteristic of a bully is his or her need to gain control over another (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003). Bullies can gain control over others through physical force or threats, verbal teasing, and exclusion from peers (Beale & Scott, 2001). Argenbright and Edgell (as cited in Beale & Scott) described four specific types of bullies. Physical bullies often hit, kick, or shove others. Verbal bullies use words to harm others through name-calling, insulting, making racist comments, or harsh teasing. Relational bullies often focus on excluding one person from their peer group and usually do so through verbal threats and spreading rumors. Finally, reactive bullies are individuals who are often both bully and victim. Typically victims first, they respond to victimization with bullying behavior. While both boys and girls engage in and are victims of bullying, research has shown differences in their bullying behaviors. For example, boys engage in

bullying more frequently than girls (Nansel et al., 2001; Seals & Young, 2003). Also, boys are more likely to engage in physical or verbal bullying, while girls often revert to relational bullying (Nansel et al., 2001).

Bullying in United States Middle Schools Bullying among students in other countries (particularly Norway, Australia, and England) has been studied extensively for the past 30 years, but recently researchers in the United States have also begun to examine bullying and victimization in schools. Studies show that bullying tends to peak in late childhood/early adolescence, making prevention and intervention efforts in middle school crucial.

All students have a right to physically and psychologically safe classrooms and hallways.

Amy Milsom is an assistant professor of counseling and educational development at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. E-mail: [email protected]

Laura L. Callo is a school counselor at Linn Mar High School in Marion, Iowa.

This We Believe in Action

Bullying in Middle Schools: Prevention and Intervention

Amy Miisom & Laura L. Gallo

All students have a right to physically and psychologically safe classrooms and hallways.

PHOTO BY DOUG MARTIN

12 Middle School Journal · January 2006

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Before designing effective prevention and inter vention programs, however, school personnel must understand the scope of bullying in the United States as well as characteristics of bullies and victims.

Oliver, Hoover, and Hazier (1994) examined bullying by administering surveys to students in grades 7 through 12 from schools in three Midwestern states. Overwhelmingly, participants reported they felt victims of bullying actually brought on the bullying. Less than half believed bullying was done in an attempt to teach a lesson. Students also believed bullies to be more popular than victims. Interestingly, Oliver, Hoover, and Hazier (1994) found students believed most teasing they witnessed had been done with no malicious intent, but that victims perceived the teasing as bullying.

In their national study of 15,686 students in grades 6 through 10, Nansel and associates (2001) reported nearly 30% of students indicated more than occasional involvement as a bully and/or victim of bullying. Males were more frequently involved as both bullies and victims, as were students in grades six through eight (compared to those in grades nine and ten). In addition, Hispanic students reported slightly higher involvement as bullies than White or African American students, while African American students reported being bullied less frequently than both White and Hispanic students. Finally, more students from rural areas reported bullying than did individuals from suburban and urban areas.

Nansel and associates (2001) also examined the frequency of various types of bullying as well as psychosocial adjustment of students who bully or who are bullied. Verbal bullying was most prominent for both males and females, with students being recipients of negative comments about their appearance in addition to being recipients of sexual comments and being targets of rumors. Interestingly, negative comments about race or religion were rarely reported. More males than females reported being victims of physical bullying, indicating they had been hit, slapped, and pushed. With regard to psychosocial adjustment, Nansel and associates (2001) found positive correlations between bullying behavior and fighting, alcohol use, smoking, and ability to make friends. Poor academic achievement and poorer perceived school climate were also associated with being a bully. For middle school males, loneliness was also positively correlated with being a bully. Negative correlations were found

between victims and both alcohol use and the

ability to make friends. Also, being a victim was positively correlated with fighting.

As part of a larger study, Casey-Cannon, Hayward, and Gowen (2001) conducted a qualitative investiga tion of the experiences and perceptions of relational bullying among middle school girls (ages 13 and 14) from Northern California. The majority of partici pants reported experiencing either overt (i.e., physical or verbal) or relational bullying. Participants also reported emotional reactions including sadness, anger, and rejection. Behavioral responses included ignoring the bully, approaching an adult for help, being assertive, and bullying back (i.e., reactive bullying). Other consequences included losing friends, negative thinking, and changing schools. [Editor's Note: To read a related article dealing with relational and verbal bullying, see Lane, 2005.]

Before designing effective prevention and inter vention programs, however, school personnel must understand the scope of bullying in the United States as well as characteristics of bullies and victims.

Oliver, Hoover, and Hazier (1994) examined bullying by administering surveys to students in grades 7 through 12 from schools in three Midwestern states. Overwhelmingly, participants reported they felt victims of bullying actually brought on the bullying. Less than half believed bullying was done in an attempt to teach a lesson. Students also believed bullies to be more popular than victims. Interestingly, Oliver, Hoover, and Hazier (1994) found students believed most teasing they witnessed had been done with no malicious intent, but that victims perceived the teasing as bullying.

In their national study of 15,686 students in grades 6 through 10, Nansel and associates (2001) reported nearly 30% of students indicated more than occasional involvement as a bully and/or victim of bullying. Males were more frequently involved as both bullies and victims, as were students in grades six through eight (compared to those in grades nine and ten). In addition, Hispanic students reported slightly higher involvement as bullies than White or African American students, while African American students reported being bullied less frequently than both White and Hispanic students. Finally, more students from rural areas reported bullying than did individuals from suburban and urban areas.

Nansel and associates (2001) also examined the frequency of various types of bullying as well as psychosocial adjustment of students who bully or who are bullied. Verbal bullying was most prominent for both males and females, with students being recipients of negative comments about their appearance in addition to being recipients of sexual comments and being targets of rumors. Interestingly, negative comments about race or religion were rarely reported. More males than females reported being victims of physical bullying, indicating they had been hit, slapped, and pushed. With regard to psychosocial adjustment, Nansel and associates (2001) found positive correlations between bullying behavior and fighting, alcohol use, smoking, and ability to make friends. Poor academic achievement and poorer perceived school climate were also associated with being a bully. For middle school males, loneliness was also positively correlated with being a bully. Negative correlations were found

between victims and both alcohol use and the

ability to make friends. Also, being a victim was positively correlated with fighting.

As part of a larger study, Casey-Cannon, Hayward, and Gowen (2001) conducted a qualitative investiga tion of the experiences and perceptions of relational bullying among middle school girls (ages 13 and 14) from Northern California. The majority of partici pants reported experiencing either overt (i.e., physical or verbal) or relational bullying. Participants also reported emotional reactions including sadness, anger, and rejection. Behavioral responses included ignoring the bully, approaching an adult for help, being assertive, and bullying back (i.e., reactive bullying). Other consequences included losing friends, negative thinking, and changing schools. [Editor's Note: To read a related article dealing with relational and verbal bullying, see Lane, 2005.]

Poor academic achievement and poorer perceived school climate were also associated with being a bully.

Most recently, Seals and Young (2003) gathered data addressing the prevalence of bullying among students in grades seven and eight. The 454 participating students represented urban, suburban, and rural school districts, and most were African American and White. Twenty-four percent of students reported either bullying or being bullied. Males were involved in bullying (as bullies and victims) significantly more often than females, and significantly more seventh grade students than eighth grade students were involved as well. Nearly 14% of students reported being called mean names, and others reported being hit or kicked, being teased, or being threatened. Most incidents of bullying occurred at lunch or recess, but many occurred on the way to or from school as well as in class.

Consequences for Bullies and Victims Bullies and victims are both at risk for negative future outcomes. Kaiser and Rasminsky (2003) reported that as bullies go through adolescence they are more at risk for severe problems such as delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, and dropping out of school. In addition, both bullies and victims have been found to be more depressed than students

Most recently, Seals and Young (2003) gathered data addressing the prevalence of bullying among students in grades seven and eight. The 454 participating students represented urban, suburban, and rural school districts, and most were African American and White. Twenty-four percent of students reported either bullying or being bullied. Males were involved in bullying (as bullies and victims) significantly more often than females, and significantly more seventh grade students than eighth grade students were involved as well. Nearly 14% of students reported being called mean names, and others reported being hit or kicked, being teased, or being threatened. Most incidents of bullying occurred at lunch or recess, but many occurred on the way to or from school as well as in class.

Consequences for Bullies and Victims Bullies and victims are both at risk for negative future outcomes. Kaiser and Rasminsky (2003) reported that as bullies go through adolescence they are more at risk for severe problems such as delinquency alcohol and drug abuse, and dropping out of school. In addition, both bullies and victims have been found to be more depressed than students

Middle School Journal · January 2006 1 3

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

who are not involved in bullying (Seals & Young, 2003). Depression associated with bullying and victimization can lead to academic problems, self defeating behaviors, and interpersonal problems (Seals & Young, 2003). Finally, victims are particularly at risk if there is no emotional support provided or if the bullying behavior is severe and prolonged. These victims are more likely to suffer from academic problems, absenteeism, loneliness, and loss of friends (Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Given schools' increasing concern about helping students succeed academically (i.e., No Child Left Behind), and given connections between bullying and potential for low academic performance or dropping out of school, addressing the problem of bullying is essential.

who are not involved in bullying (Seals & Young, 2003). Depression associated with bullying and victimization can lead to academic problems, self defeating behaviors, and interpersonal problems (Seals & Young, 2003). Finally, victims are particularly at risk if there is no emotional support provided or if the bullying behavior is severe and prolonged. These victims are more likely to suffer from academic problems, absenteeism, loneliness, and loss of friends (Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Given schools' increasing concern about helping students succeed academically (i.e., No Child Left Behind), and given connections between bullying and potential for low academic performance or dropping out of school, addressing the problem of bullying is essential.

Attending to the needs of victims is as important as intervening with bullies and assessing school climate.

Prevention and Intervention Strategies for Bullying Many recommendations have been made with regard to how to approach the problem of bullying, and most researchers agree that effective programs are comprehensive (Espelage & Swearer, 2003), targeting students, schools, families, and the community. Attending to the needs of victims (Roberts & Coursol, 1996) is as important as inter vening with bullies and assessing school climate (Hanish & Guerra, 2000). Clarke and Kiselica (1997) indicated that "bullying will continue to be tolerated in schools until there is a philosophical shift among school personnel in how they view and respond to coercive behavior" (p. 319). Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) found that many schools try to prevent bullying by using packaged programs that lack support from teachers and do not meet the specific needs of the school. They recommended securing cooperation from key personnel as an important first step in successful intervention. Many researchers have provided suggestions for important components of bully prevention and intervention programs, but few have actually collected data with regard to program effectiveness. The following is a discussion of two successful bully prevention programs.

Bullybusters—A Drama Beale and Scott (2001) presented an anti-bullying program initiated by the counseling and drama staff in a middle school. They initially conducted surveys concerning student and teacher perceptions regarding bullying and found that teachers were generally unaware of bullying behaviors whereas students believed bullying to be a significant concern. The drama teacher wrote a play, Bullybusters, to educate students about how to deal with bullies. The authors

believed psychoeducational drama allowed students to learn vicariously through the actors and allowed for modeling positive attitudes and behaviors.

Beale and Scott (2001) indicated the Bullybusters program was first presented to sixth graders and then later implemented in elementary schools. The drama helped clarify the universality of student experiences. The actors (students) performed realistic and common bullying situations with which other students could identify. An important part of the program was the discussion that followed; students were able to process their own feelings and discuss alternative ways of handling bullying situations.

Every attempt was made to involve important stakeholders in the Bullybusters program (Beale & Scott, 2001). The school principal reinforced concepts by speaking to students upon completion of the program and explaining the school's zero tolerance policy. In an effort to secure a long-term commitment to bully prevention, supporting materials (e.g., information about types of bullying, strategies for dealing with bullies) were provided to teachers so they could reinforce concepts throughout the school year. Teachers were also encouraged to explore student reactions to the drama through class discussions. In the hope that students would actively participate in the school's efforts to decrease bullying, teachers involved students in the creation of

classroom anti-bullying rules and asked them to sign an anti-bullying pledge (by signing the pledge students agreed not to bully, to look out for bullying behavior, and to report bullying behavior). Finally, administrators and teachers made efforts to involve

parents, providing information through newsletters and outlining steps they could take to help their child deal with bullying. Students also performed the Bullybusters program at Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) meetings.

Beale and Scott (2001) reported positive results, including a 20% reduction in the number of bullying incidents at the middle school level. Teachers reported

Prevention and Intervention Strategies for Bullying Many recommendations have been made with regard to how to approach the problem of bullying, and most researchers agree that effective programs are comprehensive (Espelage & Swearer, 2003), targeting students, schools, families, and the community. Attending to the needs of victims (Roberts & Coursol, 1996) is as important as inter vening with bullies and assessing school climate (Hanish & Guerra, 2000). Clarke and Kiselica (1997) indicated that "bullying will continue to be tolerated in schools until there is a philosophical shift among school personnel in how they view and respond to coercive behavior" (p. 319). Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) found that many schools try to prevent bullying by using packaged programs that lack support from teachers and do not meet the specific needs of the school. They recommended securing cooperation from key personnel as an important first step in successful intervention. Many researchers have provided suggestions for important components of bully prevention and intervention programs, but few have actually collected data with regard to program effectiveness. The following is a discussion of two successful bully prevention programs.

Bullybusters—A Drama Beale and Scott (2001) presented an anti-bullying program initiated by the counseling and drama staff in a middle school. They initially conducted surveys concerning student and teacher perceptions regarding bullying and found that teachers were generally unaware of bullying behaviors whereas students believed bullying to be a significant concern. The drama teacher wrote a play, Bullybusters, to educate students about how to deal with bullies. The authors

believed psychoeducational drama allowed students to learn vicariously through the actors and allowed for modeling positive attitudes and behaviors.

Beale and Scott (2001) indicated the Bullybusters program was first presented to sixth graders and then later implemented in elementary schools. The drama helped clarify the universality of student experiences. The actors (students) performed realistic and common bullying situations with which other students could identify. An important part of the program was the discussion that followed; students were able to process their own feelings and discuss alternative ways of handling bullying situations.

Every attempt was made to involve important stakeholders in the Bullybusters program (Beale & Scott, 2001). The school principal reinforced concepts by speaking to students upon completion of the program and explaining the school's zero tolerance policy. In an effort to secure a long-term commitment to bully prevention, supporting materials (e.g., information about types of bullying, strategies for dealing with bullies) were provided to teachers so they could reinforce concepts throughout the school year. Teachers were also encouraged to explore student reactions to the drama through class discussions. In the hope that students would actively participate in the school's efforts to decrease bullying, teachers involved students in the creation of

classroom anti-bullying rules and asked them to sign an anti-bullying pledge (by signing the pledge students agreed not to bully, to look out for bullying behavior, and to report bullying behavior). Finally, administrators and teachers made efforts to involve

parents, providing information through newsletters and outlining steps they could take to help their child deal with bullying. Students also performed the Bullybusters program at Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) meetings.

Beale and Scott (2001) reported positive results, including a 20% reduction in the number of bullying incidents at the middle school level. Teachers reported

14 Middle School Journal · January 2006

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

being more aware of bullying and having more students reporting incidents of bullying to them. They attributed success of the program to a variety of components, including initial data collection, a school-wide approach involving all personnel and including the adoption of consistent policies, increased supervision, the use of the Bullybusters play, and the follow-up classroom discussions.

Elementary school model Because Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) believed effective programs must be school-specific, they conducted a study in an elementary school using a program developed collaboratively by school personnel rather than using a pre-packaged model. The goal of this program was to provide information about bullying to students, develop awareness and skills in teachers, and promote a safe school climate. The program began with a committee comprised of teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, school counselors, and principals.

To explore the problem of bullying, Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) indicated the committee conducted needs assessments and held

focus groups with students. Results of these efforts were presented to teachers at the beginning of the next school year, and a joint effort was made to develop a comprehensive plan to address main areas of concern (student behavior and school climate in general). Teachers generated five core values (respect, responsibility, honesty, readiness to learn, and personal best) to target through a character education program. A focus on decreasing verbal bullying became their main goal, and target areas for change included educating students, preparing teachers, and modifying school climate.

School staff used a variety of activities to address the target areas. They first worked on creating positive environments in their buildings through the development of new values and norms with matching rules and consequences. For example, during guidance lessons the school counselor provided opportunities for students to practice complimenting each other. Also, teachers intentionally reinforced positive behavior, taught students conflict resolution skills, and established a rule whereby students were required to offer two positive comments for every negative comment directed at another individual. Teachers also participated in a 20-hour training program on bullying and aggression prevention, then educated students about bullying through a cooperative learning curriculum.

Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) reported positive results and identified "strong commitment of teachers" (p. 438) as critical to the success of the program. The results of the study showed a significant reduction in self-reported aggression for younger children and an overall reduction in victimization

for students in all grades (K-5). Overall, the program was successful in achieving the goal of reducing verbal bullying (name-calling and teasing). While Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) clearly indicated the program was developed to meet the needs of one particular school, they believed the process used to develop the program could be beneficial to other schools.

being more aware of bullying and having more students reporting incidents of bullying to them. They attributed success of the program to a variety of components, including initial data collection, a school-wide approach involving all personnel and including the adoption of consistent policies, increased supervision, the use of the Bullybusters play, and the follow-up classroom discussions.

Elementary school model Because Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) believed effective programs must be school-specific, they conducted a study in an elementary school using a program developed collaboratively by school personnel rather than using a pre-packaged model. The goal of this program was to provide information about bullying to students, develop awareness and skills in teachers, and promote a safe school climate. The program began with a committee comprised of teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, school counselors, and principals.

To explore the problem of bullying, Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) indicated the committee conducted needs assessments and held

focus groups with students. Results of these efforts were presented to teachers at the beginning of the next school year, and a joint effort was made to develop a comprehensive plan to address main areas of concern (student behavior and school climate in general). Teachers generated five core values (respect, responsibility, honesty, readiness to learn, and personal best) to target through a character education program. A focus on decreasing verbal bullying became their main goal, and target areas for change included educating students, preparing teachers, and modifying school climate.

School staff used a variety of activities to address the target areas. They first worked on creating positive environments in their buildings through the development of new values and norms with matching rules and consequences. For example, during guidance lessons the school counselor provided opportunities for students to practice complimenting each other. Also, teachers intentionally reinforced positive behavior, taught students conflict resolution skills, and established a rule whereby students were required to offer two positive comments for every negative comment directed at another individual. Teachers also participated in a 20-hour training program on bullying and aggression prevention, then educated students about bullying through a cooperative learning curriculum.

Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) reported positive results and identified "strong commitment of teachers" (p. 438) as critical to the success of the program. The results of the study showed a significant reduction in self-reported aggression for younger children and an overall reduction in victimization

for students in all grades (K-5). Overall, the program was successful in achieving the goal of reducing verbal bullying (name-calling and teasing). While Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) clearly indicated the program was developed to meet the needs of one particular school, they believed the process used to develop the program could be beneficial to other schools.

They attributed success of the program to a variety of components including initial data collection, a school-wide approach, increased supervision, the use of the Bullybusters play, and the follow-up classroom discussions.

Recommendations for Middle School Personnel

Middle school personnel can learn from the success of these programs. What stands out about both programs is how the schools approached bully prevention comprehensively based on their unique needs. Others have supported similar concepts, with the idea that effective bullying prevention and intervention programs target not only the classroom, but also the school environment, students, parents, and the community (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Newman-Carlson and Home (2004), however, reported finding a decrease in bullying with teacher training alone (training content focused on recog nizing bullying, intervening, assisting victims, and prevention). Teachers who voluntarily participated in the bullying training program filed significantly fewer bullying-related disciplinary reports upon completion of the training program and also reported feeling more confident in their abilities to intervene with bullies than did teachers who did not participate in the training. It is unclear if the school might have found even greater decreases in bullying had they implemented a more comprehensive program involving school support staff, parents, and students.

Recommendations for Middle School Personnel

Middle school personnel can learn from the success of these programs. What stands out about both programs is how the schools approached bully prevention comprehensively based on their unique needs. Others have supported similar concepts, with the idea that effective bullying prevention and intervention programs target not only the classroom, but also the school environment, students, parents, and the community (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Newman-Carlson and Home (2004), however, reported finding a decrease in bullying with teacher training alone (training content focused on recog nizing bullying, intervening, assisting victims, and prevention). Teachers who voluntarily participated in the bullying training program filed significantly fewer bullying-related disciplinary reports upon completion of the training program and also reported feeling more confident in their abilities to intervene with bullies than did teachers who did not participate in the training. It is unclear if the school might have found even greater decreases in bullying had they implemented a more comprehensive program involving school support staff, parents, and students.

Middle School Journal · January 2006 15

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Nevertheless, more research needs to be conducted to more clearly identify bullying intervention components that have the greatest impact on decreasing bullying among school-age students. In the meantime, however, middle school personnel should consider approaches that have proven effective and work to implement programs that will best meet their school's unique needs.

School-wide considerations

Bully prevention/intervention programs work when schools have clear and consistent policies and rules (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Hazier, 1996; Olweus, 1991, 1999; Rigby, 2002; Sullivan, 2000). Indicating that "a widespread perception among students that bullying can take place without intervention or interruption has serious consequences for the bully, bystander, and victim" (p. 19). Unnever and Cornell (2003) believed bullies are more likely to continue engaging in bullying behavior when they feel no one will intervene and there will be no consequences for them. Acknowledging that bullying occurs and that it will not be tolerated (as communicated by allowing students to act out the Bullybusters drama) is an important start in helping students to recognize a school's commitment to protecting them from bullies. After communicating this awareness, school personnel are encouraged to develop policies that include clear definitions of bullying, outline policies for reporting inappropriate behavior, and list possible ramifications of bullying (Sullivan, 2000). School personnel must then follow through by enforcing the policies fairly and consistently. Examples of clear policies are evident in the two programs discussed previously. After the Bullybusters drama, the school principal met with students during an assembly to review the school's zero-tolerance policy. Teachers also talked with students during classes, clarifying the behaviors the school considered as bullying and discussing acceptable student behavior in response to bullying (e.g., telling a teacher as opposed to hitting back). In the elementary model, students were provided with a conduct code that included specific school expectations and consequences for breaking rules. This code was reviewed with students and parents each year. Additionally, incentives (such as a special lunch) were provided for students demonstrating positive behaviors.

Sullivan (2000) suggested bullying policies be developed with input from administrators, teachers, student representatives, parents, and community members. As a way of encouraging continued

attention devoted to bullying concerns, Olweus (1999) recommended schools consider establishing a formal committee comprised of representatives from these stakeholder groups to work on writing the policies and coordinating any related activities throughout the school year. One consideration might be to include a teacher representative from each grade level team. By conducting a needs assessment during the spring, schools can identify both the scope of their bullying problem and target areas for intervention as well as provide information to assist in the revision of policies for the following school year (Olweus, 1999). Input from students, teachers, and parents addressing the frequency and location of bullying as well as the type of bullying experienced would be important to gather (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Sullivan, 2000). Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) did just this, and upon realizing that student fights often resulted from name-calling, they decided to work towards decreasing the amount of verbal bullying among students. Finally, an evaluation of the prevention/intervention activities should be conducted each year to provide feedback to the committee for policy revision (Rigby, 2002; Sullivan, 2000)

School-wide policies will not be effective if staff members are not made aware of the problem or are unfamiliar with anti-bullying policies and their responsibilities in enforcing the policies (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Rigby, 2002). By increasing teacher knowledge of bullying and helping them recognize how they can intervene, Newman-Carlson and Home (2004) were able to decrease bullying in a middle school. Olweus (1999) recommended using an inservice day at the beginning of each year to review relevant policies. They stressed, however, that follow-up support for teachers throughout the school year is also important. Because many instances of bullying occur out of classrooms (e.g., playground, cafeteria), Olweus emphasized the importance of including all school staff (i.e., bus drivers, cafeteria staff, paraprofessionals) in this training. Similarly, schools are encouraged to consider providing increased supervision during non-class times (Beale & Scott, 2001; Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Olweus, 1991, 1999; Sullivan, 2000).

Classroom considerations

Because teachers spend the greatest amount of time with students during the day, Hazier (1996) believed them to be vital to the success of any bullying prevention/intervention program.

16 Middle School Journal • January 2006

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The establishment of classroom-specific rules (consistent with school policy) for bullying has been supported as an effective component of a school wide program (Olweus, 1991, 1999). Effective classroom management and modeling of desirable behaviors can provide a basis for enforcing these rules. Teachers must not ignore or dismiss student reports of bullying if their goal is to prevent or decrease bullying behavior. They must take every report seriously.

Holding regular discussions with students to review and/or revise classroom rules as well as to discuss the classroom climate is also recommended

as an effective method for helping students take ownership in bullying prevention and intervention (Olweus, 1999; Sullivan, 2000). For example, class room teachers can build in a weekly class meeting during which they allow students to discuss what is and is not working in their class (e.g., too many students interrupting others). After this discussion, the teacher and students might jointly modify classroom rules as necessary. Weekly classroom meetings might also reveal school-wide areas for revision. For example, if during the weekly class meeting students report lots of name-calling in the hallways, teachers would want to monitor hallways to determine whether or not more supervision is needed in that area.

Students must develop an awareness of bullying, or more specifically, an awareness of which behaviors the school classifies as bullying, if they are to effectively help enforce school and classroom rules. Instructional methods and activities can be used to

help increase students' understanding of bullying in addition to providing opportunities for them to expand their social circles and practice new behaviors. For example, information about bullying can be taught through cooperative learning methods (e.g., small group projects), which can also facilitate students' successful interactions with others (Hazier, 1996; Olweus, 1991). Additionally, teachers can utilize literature addressing bullying in an effort to expose students to the various types of bullying as well as consequences for both bullies and victims (Olweus, 1991). Upon hearing stories about bullying, students might recognize they are not alone, might learn new coping mechanisms, or might realize how harmful their behaviors are to others. Finally, students can learn alternatives to bullying by participating in role-play opportunities designed to provide them practice for new behaviors (Olweus, 1991).

Student considerations

Both victims and bullies can benefit from developing skills and receiving support both prior to and after incidents of bullying (Olweus, 1999; Rigby, 2002). Teachers may consider collaborating with school counselors to develop classroom guidance or small group units addressing the skill areas described below. Following are recommended intervention areas for victims and bullies.

Victims. School personnel and other adults must clearly communicate to victims of bullying that they are not at fault and do not deserve the bullying they experience. Victims can often benefit from interven tions designed to increase their self-esteem (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Roberts & Coursol, 1996; Rigby 2002). Interventions in this area can help students identify personal strengths and accomplishments, thereby instilling feelings of pride and confidence. By building self-esteem, victims are better able to shield themselves from future bullying.

Furthermore, researchers have found that victims of bullying who developed assertiveness skills experienced reductions in bullying (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). When victims respond assertively, bullies will be more likely to stop bullying or find another, less assertive victim. Victims can practice assertiveness skills through role play activities to develop confidence in their abilities to respond assertively to a variety of situations. Victims can also benefit from these types of role-play activities because they provide opportunities for generating a variety of reactions or responses for potential future encounters with bullies (Hazier, 1996; Sullivan, 2000).

The establishment of classroom-specific rules (consistent with school policy) for bullying has been supported as an effective component of a school wide program (Olweus, 1991, 1999). Effective classroom management and modeling of desirable behaviors can provide a basis for enforcing these rules. Teachers must not ignore or dismiss student reports of bullying if their goal is to prevent or decrease bullying behavior. They must take every report seriously.

Holding regular discussions with students to review and/or revise classroom rules as well as to discuss the classroom climate is also recommended

as an effective method for helping students take ownership in bullying prevention and intervention (Olweus, 1999; Sullivan, 2000). For example, class room teachers can build in a weekly class meeting during which they allow students to discuss what is and is not working in their class (e.g., too many students interrupting others). After this discussion, the teacher and students might jointly modify classroom rules as necessary. Weekly classroom meetings might also reveal school-wide areas for revision. For example, if during the weekly class meeting students report lots of name-calling in the hallways, teachers would want to monitor hallways to determine whether or not more supervision is needed in that area.

Students must develop an awareness of bullying, or more specifically, an awareness of which behaviors the school classifies as bullying, if they are to effectively help enforce school and classroom rules. Instructional methods and activities can be used to

help increase students' understanding of bullying in addition to providing opportunities for them to expand their social circles and practice new behaviors. For example, information about bullying can be taught through cooperative learning methods (e.g., small group projects), which can also facilitate students' successful interactions with others (Hazier, 1996; Olweus, 1991). Additionally, teachers can utilize literature addressing bullying in an effort to expose students to the various types of bullying as well as consequences for both bullies and victims (Olweus, 1991). Upon hearing stories about bullying, students might recognize they are not alone, might learn new coping mechanisms, or might realize how harmful their behaviors are to others. Finally, students can learn alternatives to bullying by participating in role-play opportunities designed to provide them practice for new behaviors (Olweus, 1991).

Student considerations

Both victims and bullies can benefit from developing skills and receiving support both prior to and after incidents of bullying (Olweus, 1999; Rigby, 2002). Teachers may consider collaborating with school counselors to develop classroom guidance or small group units addressing the skill areas described below. Following are recommended intervention areas for victims and bullies.

Victims. School personnel and other adults must clearly communicate to victims of bullying that they are not at fault and do not deserve the bullying they experience. Victims can often benefit from interven tions designed to increase their self-esteem (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Roberts & Coursol, 1996; Rigby, 2002). Interventions in this area can help students identify personal strengths and accomplishments, thereby instilling feelings of pride and confidence. By building self-esteem, victims are better able to shield themselves from future bullying.

Furthermore, researchers have found that victims of bullying who developed assertiveness skills experienced reductions in bullying (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). When victims respond assertively, bullies will be more likely to stop bullying or find another, less assertive victim. Victims can practice assertiveness skills through role play activities to develop confidence in their abilities to respond assertively to a variety of situations. Victims can also benefit from these types of role-play activities because they provide opportunities for generating a variety of reactions or responses for potential future encounters with bullies (Hazier, 1996; Sullivan, 2000).

The establishment of classroom-specific rules for bullying has been supported as an effective component of a school-wide program.

Improving social skills can decrease a victim's chances of being bullied (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Effective social skills training can help students develop relationships with peers, which may decrease the likelihood of them being targeted in the future. Kaiser and Rasminsky (2003) recommend that social skills interventions include activities that address

Improving social skills can decrease a victim's chances of being bullied (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Effective social skills training can help students develop relationships with peers, which may decrease the likelihood of them being targeted in the future. Kaiser and Rasminsky (2003) recommend that social skills interventions include activities that address

Middle School Journal · January 2006 1 7

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

friendship skills, such as how to approach a group of people and how to develop empathy.

In addition to teaching students skills in an attempt to help them be less easily targeted for bullying, school personnel must provide support to victims of bullying. Teachers and other school personnel should strive to prevent bullying, but in the event bullying does occur, they must prepare victims with coping skills (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Rigby, 2001). School personnel might also want to consider implementing support groups for bullying victims (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Lane, 2005; Macklem, 2003; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Groups can provide victims with opportunities to develop many of the skills addressed above while, at the same time, communicating to these students that others in the school are there to help them.

friendship skills, such as how to approach a group of people and how to develop empathy.

In addition to teaching students skills in an attempt to help them be less easily targeted for bullying, school personnel must provide support to victims of bullying. Teachers and other school personnel should strive to prevent bullying, but in the event bullying does occur, they must prepare victims with coping skills (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Rigby, 2001). School personnel might also want to consider implementing support groups for bullying victims (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Lane, 2005; Macklem, 2003; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Groups can provide victims with opportunities to develop many of the skills addressed above while, at the same time, communicating to these students that others in the school are there to help them.

Rather than assume a student is intentionally being cruel, school personnel can approach intervention from a developmental perspective by providing education.

Bullies. A variety of skills are recommended for bullies to help them learn new ways of interacting with others. Teaching empathy to bullies has been recommended as an important component of any anti-bullying effort (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Sullivan, 2000,). Empathy training should include interventions designed to generate awareness of perspective taking. Additionally, Macklem (2003) recommended specifically helping bullies learn to label emotions in themselves and others and to become more aware of

others' points of view. Promoting self-control is another important

component of bully prevention. Skills in self regulation, anger management, and conflict resolution (Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2001, 2002; Sullivan, 2000) have been identified as important in helping bullies learn both to think before they act and to change their behaviors. Ideally, students must learn to calm themselves down to generate alternatives to their gut reaction to hit or insult another student. Behavioral rehearsal (e.g., role-play) can provide students opportunities for practice and feedback.

Similar to victims, bullies can also benefit from social skills training (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003;

Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002). Rigby (2002) believed bullies do not know how to behave in ways that elicit positive reactions from other students. Essentially, bullies often lack the social skills to get what they want in acceptable ways. Helping bullies develop friendship-making skills may serve to eliminate their aggressive behavior toward others (Macklem, 2003).

Finally, just as victims need adult support, bullies can also benefit from it. Hazier (1996) suggested that rather than immediately discipline bullies, school personnel talk with them to explore their reasons for acting as they did. For example, punishing a student for insulting another student about his ethnicity when that student has observed all adults in his life

doing the same thing is less effective than talking with the student, explaining what is and is not acceptable at school, and providing alternatives. In other words, rather than immediately assume a student is intentionally being cruel (although that may sometimes be the case), school personnel can approach intervention from a developmental perspective by providing education.

Parent considerations

Parents can provide schools with much support during the development and implementation of bullying prevention/intervention programs. Providing information to all parents about school policies is critical to gaining parental support. Many researchers have recommended schools seek parental input during the development of school policies (Olweus, 1991, 1999; Sullivan, 2000), and communicate with parents when their child has either engaged in bullying or been a victim of bullying (Olweus, 1991). Finally, Olweus (1999) recommended developing a pamphlet with information about bullying, related school policies, and available interventions that could be sent home to parents each year.

Conclusion

Understanding the scope of bullying and character istics of bullies and victims is helpful for middle school personnel in learning how to develop effective interventions for bullying in schools. Comprehensive bully prevention programs have proven to be successful in helping reduce the aggressive behaviors of children, and teacher training appears to be an important component of those programs. Overall goals of bullying

Bullies. A variety of skills are recommended for bullies to help them learn new ways of interacting with others. Teaching empathy to bullies has been recommended as an important component of any anti-bullying effort (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Sullivan, 2000,). Empathy training should include interventions designed to generate awareness of perspective taking. Additionally, Macklem (2003) recommended specifically helping bullies learn to label emotions in themselves and others and to become more aware of

others' points of view. Promoting self-control is another important

component of bully prevention. Skills in self regulation, anger management, and conflict resolution (Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2001, 2002; Sullivan, 2000) have been identified as important in helping bullies learn both to think before they act and to change their behaviors. Ideally, students must learn to calm themselves down to generate alternatives to their gut reaction to hit or insult another student. Behavioral rehearsal (e.g., role-play) can provide students opportunities for practice and feedback.

Similar to victims, bullies can also benefit from social skills training (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003;

Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002). Rigby (2002) believed bullies do not know how to behave in ways that elicit positive reactions from other students. Essentially, bullies often lack the social skills to get what they want in acceptable ways. Helping bullies develop friendship-making skills may serve to eliminate their aggressive behavior toward others (Macklem, 2003).

Finally, just as victims need adult support, bullies can also benefit from it. Hazier (1996) suggested that rather than immediately discipline bullies, school personnel talk with them to explore their reasons for acting as they did. For example, punishing a student for insulting another student about his ethnicity when that student has observed all adults in his life

doing the same thing is less effective than talking with the student, explaining what is and is not acceptable at school, and providing alternatives. In other words, rather than immediately assume a student is intentionally being cruel (although that may sometimes be the case), school personnel can approach intervention from a developmental perspective by providing education.

Parent considerations

Parents can provide schools with much support during the development and implementation of bullying prevention/intervention programs. Providing information to all parents about school policies is critical to gaining parental support. Many researchers have recommended schools seek parental input during the development of school policies (Olweus, 1991, 1999; Sullivan, 2000), and communicate with parents when their child has either engaged in bullying or been a victim of bullying (Olweus, 1991). Finally, Olweus (1999) recommended developing a pamphlet with information about bullying, related school policies, and available interventions that could be sent home to parents each year.

Conclusion

Understanding the scope of bullying and character istics of bullies and victims is helpful for middle school personnel in learning how to develop effective interventions for bullying in schools. Comprehensive bully prevention programs have proven to be successful in helping reduce the aggressive behaviors of children, and teacher training appears to be an important component of those programs. Overall goals of bullying

18 Middle School Journal · January 2006

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

prevention/intervention programs should be to increase teacher awareness of bullying, develop clear policies that outline consequences for bullying, and provide skill training and support to both bullies and victims. Middle school personnel are encouraged to assess the unique needs of their schools and work collaboratively to design and implement programs that will help create and reinforce safe environments for all students.

References

Beale, Α. V., & Scott, P. C. (2001). Bullybusters: Using drama to empower students to take a stand against bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 4, 300-306.

Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, K. (2001). Middle-school girls' reports of peer victimization: Concerns, consequences, and implications. Professional School Counseling, 5, 138-147.

Clarke, Ε. Α., & Kiselica, M. S. (1997). A systemic counsel ing approach to the problem of bullying. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 310-326.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365-384.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, Ν. G. (2000). Children who get victimized at school: What is known? What can be

done? Professional School Counseling, 4, 113-119. Hazier, R. J. (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence:

Interventions for bullying and victimization. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. S. (2003). Challenging behavior in young children: Understanding, preventing, and responding effectively. Boston: Pearson.

Lane, B. (2005). Dealing with rumors, secrets, and lies: Tools of aggression for middle school girls. Middle School Journal, 36(3), 41-47.

Macklem, G. L. (2003). Bullying and teasing: Social power in children's groups. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and associa tion with psychosocial adjustment, fournal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1094-2100.

Newman-Carlson, D., & Home, A. M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 259-267.

Oliver, R., Hoover, J. H., & Hazier, R. (1994). The perceived role of bullying in small town Midwestern schools. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 416-420.

Orpinas, P., Home, A. M., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School bullying: Changing the problem by changing the school. School Psychology Review, 32, 431-444.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school based inter

vention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp, 411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olweus, D. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Rigby, K. (2001). Stop the bullying: A handbook for teachers. Markham: Pembroke.

Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Roberts, W. B. Jr., & Coursol, D. H. (1996). Strategies for intervention with childhood and adolescent victims of

bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 30, 204-213.

Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.

Sullivan, K. (2000). The anti-bullying handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.

Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). The culture of bullying in middle school. Journal of School Violence, 2(2), 5-27.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Preventing bullying: A marmai for schools and communities. Washington, DC: Author.

Using Middle School Journal fot Professional Development

To get great ideas for using this article for staff

development visit www.nmsa.org and click on "Professional Development" then "Using MSI for Professional Development," January 2006 issue.

Middle School Journal · January 2006 19

This content downloaded from �������������67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms