Anti-bullying intervention: implementation and outcome.

BACKGROUND The participant role approach represents a view of bullying as a group process in which bystanders often encourage the bullying or silently witness it, while little support is given to the victim (e.g. Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). There is a discrepancy between students' attitudes (which are often against bullying) and their actual behaviour in bullying situations, and this may be an important factor contributing to the persistence of the problem. AIM The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of an anti-bullying intervention programme targeting the group as a whole. Class teachers who attended a 1-year training course carried out the interventions in school classes. The present evaluation of the project is based on multi-level modelling, assessing the programme effects after 12 months of intervention, utilizing a cohort longitudinal design with adjacent cohorts (Olweus & Alsaker, 1991) also taking into account the degree of implementation of the programme. SAMPLE The intervention was implemented in 48 school classes (Grades 4, 5, and 6) from 16 Finnish schools, involving 1,220 children (600 girls and 620 boys). METHOD The present report is based on questionnaire data collected at two assessment points during the project, assessing the frequencies of bullies and victims, the extent of observed and experienced bullying, students' attitudes and efficacy beliefs related to bullying, and their participant role behaviours (self- and peer-reported). Reports were collected from teachers about the concrete actions taken in order to compare the actual content of the intervention to what had been planned. RESULTS A positive impact of the intervention programme was found on several outcome variables (e.g. frequencies of bullies and victims, observed and experienced bullying, attitudes and efficacy beliefs, and to some extent, participant role behaviours). The intervention effects were found more often in Grade 4 than in Grade 5, and often only in schools with a high degree of implementation of the programme.

[1]  C. Salmivalli,et al.  Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations , 2004 .

[2]  C. Salmivalli,et al.  Targeting the group as a whole: The Finnish anti-bullying intervention , 2004 .

[3]  K. Rigby,et al.  Bullying in Schools: Looking back and looking forward: implications for making interventions work effectively , 2004 .

[4]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Interventions to Reduce School Bullying , 2003, Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie.

[5]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  the Sheffield Project: methodology and findings , 2002 .

[6]  A. Pikas.  New Developments of the Shared Concern Method , 2002 .

[7]  Xin Ma.  Bullying in Middle School: Individual and School Characteristics of Victims and Offenders , 2002 .

[8]  Ian Plewis.  Modelling impact heterogeneity , 2002 .

[9]  C. Salmivalli.  Is there an age decline in victimization by peers at school? , 2002 .

[10]  Dorothy Andrews,et al.  The experience of a professional community: teachers developing a new image of themselves and their workplace , 2002 .

[11]  I. Bourdeaudhuij,et al.  Implementation Process of the Flemish Antibullying Intervention and Relation with Program Effectiveness , 2001 .

[12]  Xin Ma,et al.  Bullying and Being Bullied: To What Extent Are Bullies Also Victims? , 2001 .

[13]  G. Parcel,et al.  Multilevel Models and Unbiased Tests for Group Based Interventions: Examples from the Safer Choices Study , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.

[14]  C. Salmivalli.  Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: who considered it useful, who benefited? , 2001 .

[15]  C. Salmivalli.  Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implications. , 2001 .

[16]  Sandra Graham,et al.  Peer harassment in school : the plight of the vulnerable and victimized , 2001 .

[17]  S. Graham,et al.  Self-views versus peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. , 2001 .

[18]  P. Van Oost,et al.  Bullying in Flemish schools: an evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. , 2000, The British journal of educational psychology.

[19]  M. Boulton,et al.  Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. , 2000, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[20]  Ilse de Bourdeaudhuij,et al.  The effects of an anti-bullying intervention programme on peers' attitudes and behaviour. , 2000, Journal of adolescence.

[21]  R. Ortega,et al.  The Seville Anti-Bullying in School Project , 2000 .

[22]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research , 2000 .

[23]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied , 1999 .

[24]  Ton Mooij.  Promoting prosocial pupil behaviour: 1‐A multilevel theoretical model , 1999 .

[25]  M. Boulton,et al.  Swedish and English secondary school pupils' attitudes towards, and conceptions of, bullying: concurrent links with bully/victim involvement. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[26]  T Mooij.  Promoting prosocial pupil behaviour: 2-secondary school intervention and pupil effects. , 1999, The British journal of educational psychology.

[27]  C. Salmivalli,et al.  Participant role approach to school bullying: implications for interventions. , 1999, Journal of adolescence.

[28]  Peter K. Smith.  The nature of school bullying : a cross-national perspective , 1999 .

[29]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach , 1999 .

[30]  Roel Bosker,et al.  Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling , 1999 .

[31]  C. Salmivalli,et al.  Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group , 1998 .

[32]  T. Mooij.  Pupil-class determinants of aggressive and victim behaviour in pupils. , 1998, The British journal of educational psychology.

[33]  C. Salmivalli.  Intelligent, Attractive, Well-Behaving, Unhappy: The Structure of Adolescents' Self-Concept and Its Relations to Their Social Behavior. , 1998 .

[34]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  The long‐term effectiveness of anti‐bullying work in primary schools , 1998 .

[35]  E. Lemerise,et al.  The Transition from Kindergarten to Ungraded Primary: Longitudinal Predictors of Popularity and Social Reputation , 1998 .

[36]  I. Plewis,et al.  A Multilevel Perspective on the Design and Analysis of Intervention Studies , 1998 .

[37]  Philip Smith,et al.  Cross-national comparison of children's attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school , 1997 .

[38]  B. Maines,et al.  The No Blame Approach to Bullying. , 1994 .

[39]  D. Pepler,et al.  An Evaluation of An Anti-Bullying Intervention in Toronto Schools , 1994 .

[40]  R. Holt,et al.  Preschoolers' likability as cause or consequence of their social behavior. , 1993 .

[41]  K Rigby,et al.  Bullying among Australian school children: reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. , 1991, The Journal of social psychology.

[42]  D. Olweus.  Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. , 1991 .

[43]  F. Alsaker,et al.  Problems and methods in longitudinal research: Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study with hierarchical data , 1991 .

[44]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .