• No results found

An investigation of a bullying prevention program in school settings

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "An investigation of a bullying prevention program in school settings"

Copied!
114
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

AN INVESTIGATION OF A BULLYING PREVENTION PROGRAM IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

A Proposal Presented to the Faculty of

California State University, Stanislaus

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Psychology

By

Scott Michael Charlton February 2015

(2)

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

AN INVESTIGATION OF A BULLYING PREVENTION PROGRAM IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

by

Scott Michael Charlton

Dr. Victor Luevano

Associate Professor of Psychology

Dr. Annie Guichard

Associate Professor of Psychology

Dr. Rosanne Roy

Associate Professor of Psychology

Dr. Emily Branscum-Higuera Lecturer of Psychology Date Date Date Date

Signed Certification of Approval Page is

(3)

© 2015

Scott Michael Charlton ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

(4)

iv DEDICATION

This work is for the victim. Though the bent scales of injustice may not be equalized today, we will work for remedy. You are not alone. This work is dedicated to the bully. The fear and anger that lead to such hurtful actions must be tormenting. May you that harms others heal and find peace with our help. This work is dedicated to the bully-victim. With calm perseverance there will be genuine connections with others. Most of all, this work is dedicated to the defender. It takes courage and strength to swim against the stream. May we find the defender within and protect each other with zeal.

(5)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for a small portion of this work was provided through a California State University grant. This work is possible because of the participation of the schools sites and administrators, especially Karen Vail and Kevin Triance. Over thirty students from CSU, Stanislaus supported this work through the assessment, kick-off event, classroom meetings, and data entry. One source of significant support was Adelin Ansari, who continued assessment and feedback for a year following the current work. Dr. Branscum’s guidance throughout the intervention was most

helpful, but her inspiration has expanded my willingness to engage the juicy stuff that life has to offer. Dr. Luevano has been continually supportive, collaborative, and patient throughout the journey. Finally, I would like to thank Bruce and Colleen, amazing parents, who have championed my efforts and moral philosophy.

(6)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Dedication ... iv

Acknowledgements ... v

List of Tables ... viii

List of Figures ... ix

Abstract ... x

Literature Review... 1

Bullying Roles ... 1

Bullying Defined ... 8

Types of Bullying Behavior ... 10

Gender Differences ... 15

Negative Effects of Bullying ... 16

Bullying Prevention ... 18

Purpose and Hypothesis ... 22

Method ... 24

Participants ... 24

Materials and Variables ... 26

Procedure ... 27 Data Analysis ... 29 Results ... 30 Discussion ... 35 Intervention ... 35 Interpretation ... 36

Limitations and Future Directions ... 38

(7)

vii

References ... 41

Appendices A. Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire ... 62

B. Consent Letter ... 75

C. Parent Information Pamphlet ... 76

D. Kickoff Event Script ... 84

(8)

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Participants Assessed with BVQ by School Site and Year... 24

2. Gender of Participants Assessed with BVQ by Year... 25

3. A Comparison of the Likelihood of Reported Bullying Roles Before and After Intervention... 31

4. A Comparison of Pre and Post Intervention Victimization Severity ... 32

5. A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 1 ... 33

(9)

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Bullying Circle ... 2 2. Program Implementation ... 28

(10)

x ABSTRACT

Bullying is pervasive across schools in the United States. The bullying circle

describes the roles of bully, bystanders, defender, and victim. Bully-victims, students who are both victims and bullies, are of special concern. Bullying consists of direct and indirect behaviors that are mean and hurtful. Many problems are associated with bullying and can be reduced with intervention. Two elementary school sites

instituted the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program which intervenes at individual, classroom, school-wide, and community levels. Intervention consisted of an initial assessment, kickoff event, classroom meetings, feedback sessions, and subsequent assessment. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire was used to assess 496 participants pre-intervention and 483 participants post-intervention in grades 3 through 8. Participants in all grades received the kickoff event and classroom meetings. Participants were less likely to be a victim (RR = 0.92), bully (0.97), or bully-victim (0.97) after program implementation. Victimization severity was lower after intervention (d = 0.09). Risk ratios further showed that participants were less likely to join a bullying situation underway (0.97) and more likely to defend a student being bullied (1.15). There was minimal support for gender differences pre

intervention, wherein girls were at more likely to have indirect victim roles (1.10), while less likely to have direct victim roles (0.93). Additionally, boys were more likely to be a joiner in a bullying situation (1.11). These gender differences diminished post intervention.

(11)

1

LITERATURE REVIEW

The American public has become more concerned about bullying of school children over the past decade (Dervin, 2011). Part of this increase in concern is due to high profile media coverage of school bullying cases (Noronha, 2012). These anecdotal cases begin to capture the seriousness of bullying in America. As a result, there has been increased awareness and surveillance of bullying behavior in schools; that is capturing the pervasiveness of bullying. Peleg-Oren, Cardenas, Comerford, and Galea (2012) examined data from 45,000 students in the United States and discovered that more than half of students reported being either a victim or bully in the previous 30 days.

Research on childhood aggression increased in the late 1960’s. This research was generally conducted in natural environments, such as schools and child care settings. Dan Olweus, a pioneering bullying researcher described the nature of bullying and how to intervene. Olweus identified types of bullying behavior and the roles of children in bullying situations. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) was developed using evidence-based practices (Olweus, 1997). OBPP has been manualized for use in the United States (Olweus et al., 2007). The main goals of OBPP are to establish contingencies that address bullying behavior and structure an environment that enables students to pursue prosocial roles.

Bullying Roles

Bullying occurs as a group process and often involves several children who assume specific roles within a given bullying situation. Olweus illustrates these roles

(12)

2 with the “bullying circle” (Juvonen & Graham, 2001). The bullying circle describes the roles that children and adolescents have within a given bullying situation. The major roles within the bullying circle are the bully, active and passive supporters, disengaged onlookers, victim, and defenders (see Figure 1). The OBPP defines the bullying roles with behaviorally descriptive terms, such as students who bully or

target.

Figure 1. Roles of students involved in bullying situations. Adapted with

permission from “Olweus Bullying Prevention Program Schoolwide Guide,” by Dan

Olweus, Copyright 2007 by the Hazeldon Foundation.

Group bullying strategies coexist with one-on-one bullying. However, in group bullying situations, the roles can influence power differentials. For instance, when a bully recruits friends or acquaintances to assist bullying, that bully has more

(13)

3 social leverage and physical power over the victim. Empirical support for these roles has been demonstrated by researchers (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). The bullying roles are not fixed and can be utilized in

intervention and prevention programs (Sutton & Smith, 1999).

Bullying status is used to identify those who have been bullied, bullied others, or participated in both over a period of time. Self-reported information is used to identify bullying status and is a fair representation of the real experiences those students (Theriot, Dulmus, Sowers, & Johnson, 2005). Status labels the patterns of individuals’ role in the bullying circle.

Victim

The person who is the target of the aggression is the victim. The victim experiences the direct and subsequent negative consequences of the bullying event. These negative consequences stem from the aversive nature of aggression, which includes physical harm and/or social consequences. Emotional responses that the victims experience include fear, guilt, and shame (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005). The victim, by definition, has less power than the bully. Individual social factors are recognized by their peers. Victims are viewed by peers as unhappier and deficient in social skills (Fox & Boulton, 2005). A wide range of socially

dysfunctional traits are also associated with those who experience victimization, such as increased self-isolation and emotional volatility (Frizzo, Bisol, & Lara, 2012). Victims may not utilize skills or elicit the aid of others to defend themselves because of differences in social ability or standing.

(14)

4 Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, and Unger (2004) found that students with high friendship nominations are not victims, but low peer nominations is not a reliable predictor of victim status. The number of friendships may not predict victimization, but quality friendships play an important role in helping students to recover from the negative effects of bullying (Kendrick, Jutengren, & Stattin, 2012). Bullied students without quality friendships and poor social abilities are of significant concern, due to poorer outcomes (Glick & Rose, 2011).

Bully

The main, initial source of aggressive behavior is the bully. The bully can either engage in the aggressive behavior themselves or choreograph assistants. These assistants are also likely to be bullies (Farmer et al., 2010). The bully often has an immediate peer group who serve as assistants. Students who bully also tend to associate with controversial or deviant peers (Farmer et al., 2010). The bully’s immediate friendship group includes those who also participate in aggressive behavior (Mouttapa et al., 2004).

Caravita, Gini, and Pozzoli (2012) found that bullies are often strong leaders and are well liked by teachers. Fellow students rate bullies high in popularity, even though they do not want to associate with the bully themselves. This means that the bully is often capable of gathering support from bystanders.

There are a host of problems faced by those who bully others. For example, students who bully have an increased likelihood of future conduct problems and alcohol use (Peleg-Oren et al., 2012). Adolescent students who have a history of

(15)

5 bullying others are also at far greater risk of school delinquency. Students who bully others had higher levels of violence and other anti-social behavior ten years later (Bender & Lösel, 2011). Additional conduct related problems, such asdrug use and rule violations, are higher for students who bully than non-involved peers (Radliff, Wheaton, Robinson, & Morris, 2012).

The psychiatric diagnosis of Conduct Disorder has features associated with bullying, namely the violation of others’ rights (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Caravita et al. (2012) showed that students with the bully role have higher acceptance of moral transgression and higher emotional disengagement than their peers. These moral belief systems make it more acceptable for the bully to continue aggression and cause further victimization.

Bully-Victims

Students who have been bullied by others and have bullied others themselves are considered bully-victims. Pellegrini, Bartini, and Brooks (1999) and Schwartz (2000) termed these students “aggressive victims.” These aggressive victims will often retaliate against the aggressor after the fact or aggress against a student

unrelated to their prior victimization (Swearer, Wang, Maag, Siebecker, & Frerichs, 2012). The connection between bullying and victimization events is not always clear and may not have any reciprocal basis. However, learned aggression is typically assumed in child samples and being bullied has been identified as a risk to being a perpetrator (Berthhold & Hoover, 2000). Bully-victims often cite their own victimization as part of the reasoning for their aggression (Schwartz, 2000).

(16)

6 Wienke Totura, Green, Karver, and Gesten (2009) demonstrated that bully-victims tend have high rates of internalizing problems, like anxiety and depression. Teachers rate these bully-victims as moody, having poor relationships, and more learning difficulties than other students. Radliff et al. (2012) found that drug use and delinquency are highest in bully-victims compared to bullies, victims, and those described as noninvolved. The authors also found that bully-victims receive large amounts of discipline at school and lack the quality of friendships of those in other statuses. Unnever (2005) found that bully-victims are a distinct group from either bullies or victims. Bully-victims have different early socialization experiences and often experience more physical bullying. Disadvantageous psychological factors, such as low self-control, are highest in children who have the status of bully-victim.

Camodeca, Goossens, Meerum Terwogt, and Schuengel (2002) argued that a bullied student may react to their lack of control by bullying others. Bully-victims rate higher in proactive and reactive aggression than victimized only peers. The bully-victim is uneasy and unable to genuinely connect with others. Perren, Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, Malti, and Hymel (2012) found that bully-victims find bullying an acceptable tactic for peer negotiation. The bully-victim approves of the violation of moral rules more than other students. These researchers suggest social skills training to promote empathy and cooperation.

Bystanders

Peer approval is highly regarded by students and is therefore highly influential (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Peer support can offer a strong

(17)

7 rewarding mechanism for a variety of behaviors, including bullying. This support comes from being accepted by specific peers and is demonstrated by continued friendships and enhanced popularity (Olthof & Goossens, 2008).

There are two distinct categories of bystanders defined by the functional relationship to bullying behavior; students who actively support or passively support the bullying situation. The active supporters cheer on the bullying and encourage aggression. Fanger, Frankel, and Hazen (2012) found that active supporters often command the bully to use specific insults, reward the bully with praise, or mirror the bully’s aggression. Bystanders in the passive support role do not support bullying the victim nor do they intervene on the victim’s behalf. Salmivalli, Voeten, and

Poskiparta, (2011) found that active support in the presence of passive support is the largest maintenance contingency of bullying behavior. These authors suggest that passive support of bullying increases bullying behavior because of the seemingly accepting attitude of bystanders.

Many students report no bullying perpetration or victimization. These non-involved students have less problems in school than bullies or victims (Bender & Lösel, 2011). The non-involved student can fulfill several roles in the bulling circle, but most predominately serve as bystanders. These students’ attitudes and reactions to bullying or defending in the classroom play a pivotal role in affecting the

likelihood of future bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011). The majority of the non-involved students report wanting to help victims and are responsive to prosocial change (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

(18)

8

Defenders

The most altruistic bystander behavior is to defend against bullying using positive and non-aggressive actions. The presence of defenders in classrooms is associated with less bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011). Defending behavior occurs, but is much less common than non-participation in bullying events. A defending student makes a choice to defend that may include risk. The adoption of additional risk, whether physical or social, for another student’s benefit exemplifies a fairly advanced level of personal development and social responsibility (Shakoor et al., 2012).

Defenders have high class ranking in terms of popularity and friendship, ranking high with peers and adults (Caravita et al., 2012). Identifying defenders and rewarding their actions are useful tactics to reduce bullying and increase peer support for victims (Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vanderzee, Sink, & Birchmeier, 2009). Peer support is necessary because students without other defenders in their friendship circle are less likely to continue to intervene on the behalf of victims (Farmer et al., 2010).

Bullying Defined

A student is being bullied when another student, or several other students, repeatedly says or does mean and hurtful things to him or her on purpose (Black, Washington, Trent, Harner, & Pollock, 2010; Olweus, 1997). The characteristics that define bullying are recurrent, hurtful actions and an imbalance of power between

(19)

9 victim and bully. This definition is useful to researchers to better identify the

behavior, but also to teach children and adults as part of bullying prevention efforts. Bullying consists of behaviors that have harmful effects on those involved. These effects include physical, social, and emotional consequences to the victims of aggression (Turner, Exum, Brame, & Holt, 2013) and perpetrators (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005). School avoidance and excessive absences are seen in students who experience bullying victimization (Bender & Lösel, 2011). Bullying causes

additional harm to students not directly involved by negatively affecting the learning environment (Skapinakis et al., 2011).

The repetitiousness of bullying is one factor that separates bullying from isolated aggressive violence or other forms peer conflict. The experience of bullying is not only an isolated event, but an ongoing situation. The duration of bullying is critical to the deleterious aftereffects, typically the longer the duration the more severe the effects. For example, being bullied weekly is associated with severe outcomes, suicidal ideation, and attempts (Skapinakis et al., 2011).

The imbalance of power involved in bullying can come in many forms. Physical power imbalances can be seen as differences in size or strength. Social status, like popularity, can also determine power imbalance. Individual differences in intelligence, ethnicity, and social skills can work to increase or decrease the power differential between peers (Bettencourt & Farrell, 2013). Developmental or psychological difficulties can also present an imbalance of power and increase the risk of being bullied. For example, students with Autism Spectrum Disorders have

(20)

10 been shown to be bullied more than typically developing students (Chen & Schwartz, 2012).

Hanish and Guerra (2004) suggest that the ability to navigate potentially dangerous situations and to defend oneself from aggressors is part of normal child and adolescent development. However, some students have a reduced ability to defend themselves from aggression, making them more vulnerable. Minority groups and other special populations are of particular concern, as they have higher rates of victimization and more severe effects than those in the majority (Fedewa & Ahn, 2012; Peskin, Tortolero, & Markham, 2006). Sexual minority students, such as homosexual or transgendered students, are bullied with particularly severe effects (Hightow-Weidman et al., 2011).

Group dynamics are another factor related with power imbalance, wherein the size of the group or groups alone can create an imbalance of power. Forber-Pratt, Aragon, and Espelage (2013) demonstrated that large groups engaged in bullying in may be difficult to distinguish from gang activity in large schools. These schools with known gang problems have higher rates of bullying separate from gang violence in general. Gang violence may represent a different type of aggression than bullying, but gang members are more likely to be bullies or bully-victims than students without gang membership (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Goldweber, & Johnson, 2013).

Types of bullying behavior

There are a variety of ways school-age children are bullied. The aggressive behaviors that bullies us varies in intensity, focus, and type. The description of

(21)

11 current and recent bullying behavior is of clinical importance to schools. School-wide interventions and individual treatment can be more effective and efficient with a good understanding of the types of bullying occurring in a given population (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006).

Two broad categories of bullying, direct and indirect, are useful to delineate bullying and describe bullying behavior. Direct and indirect bullying are

differentiated by the time and proximal relationship between the aggressor and victim. In direct bullying there is an immediate exchange between bully and victim. Indirect bullying tends to be more prolonged and often involves a social group.

Direct and indirect bullying and victimization are moderately correlated and often used together (Marini et al., 2006). Victims of bullying face a variety of types of bullying behavior and are bullied with combinations of bullying type. Wang et al. (2010) found that adolescent students who endure several types of bullying were at the greatest risk of negative physical and psychological outcomes. Additionally, students who report long-term bullying or multiple bullying types need the most attention and resources.

Direct bullying

One of the most overt negative behaviors seen within school bullying is aggressive violence. The use of physical contact, either to injure or coerce, is the most easily identifiable type of bullying behaviors by teachers and students (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). A single episode of aggressive violence is not considered bullying, nor is a mutual affray. However, these single episodes can be part of a pattern that is

(22)

12 bullying and represent risk for future violence (Nansel, Overpeck, Haynie, Ruan, & Scheidt, 2003).

Bullying that is overtly displayed by the aggressor toward the intended victim is direct bullying. Direct bullying manifests as physical assaults, verbal threats or insults with the victim present. Although direct bullying is typically overt, it is not always observed by individuals other than the bully and victim (Barnes et al., 2012). Students will often attempt to hide aggression from teachers and other adults at school to avoid negative consequences.

Physical assault is typically against school rules. Physical aggression represents serious risk of injury. Interestingly, the students who are most likely to report injury are relational bullies, not physical victims (Dukes, Stein, & Zane, 2010). These victims are intimidated by aggression and property violations. Serious

aggressive bullying behaviors are also possible and include physical violence and sexual aggression. Sexual assaults are a form of direct bullying and represent a significantly high level of conduct severity. Negative mental and physical effects are often experienced long after childhood sexual assaults (Ullman & Brecklin, 2003).

Direct bullying does not require physical contact to be harmful. Yelling, name calling, and threats are overt and occur directly from bully to victim.

Repetitious and negative name calling deeply impact some victims (Vicars, 2006). Nishina, Juvonen, and Witkow (2005) demonstrated that verbal bullying resulted in social difficulties and physical symptoms similar to bulling with physical violence. Despite the saying that starts sticks and stones, words can hurt.

(23)

13

Indirect bullying

Bullying is not always immediate or overt. Indirect bullying uses an

intermediary, often social pressure, to cause harm to the victim (Huitsing & Veenstra, 2012). Spreading false rumors and excluding victims from play are common forms of indirect bullying. Indirect bullying utilizes the complexity of interpersonal

relationships and social interaction, which is why indirect bullying is also referred to as relational bullying (Elsaesser, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2013). Students who use relational bullying, will often use tactics such as shaming, excluding, and rumors (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).

Indirect bullying is not always easy to observe and often takes place far from adults who would intervene (Kahn, Jones, & Wieland, 2012). Indirect bullying is difficult to measure by observation or teacher nomination because it is covert. However, even when seen, teachers and administrators are less likely to intervene with indirect bullying than direct bullying (Barnes et al., 2012).

Bullies and bully-victims who use relational bullying have greater internalized problems (Hoglund, 2007) and beliefs that normalize bullying behavior than their peers (Marini et al., 2006). These students are also likely to use direct bullying. This is especially concerning because students who bully with relational strategies are more likely to report carrying a weapon (Dukes et al., 2010).

Social exclusion is a method of indirect bullying that has an adverse effect on psychological characteristics including social avoidance, emotion tolerance, and empathy (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Even simple exclusions from games can

(24)

14 reduce self-esteem, belonging, and cause hurt feelings. Exclusion causes an

experience of suffering that closely relates with physical pain (Nordgren, Banas, & MacDonald, 2011) and has long term health implications (Knack, Gomez, & Jensen-Campbell, 2011). Bernstein and Claypool (2012) demonstrated that even simulated exclusion affects physical pain sensitivity. Research participants who were excluded from games were more sensitive to experimentally induced pain, whereas exclusion from future life events led to numbing.

Peer rejection and exclusion impact the classroom experience and attendance. Buhs, Ladd, and Herald (2006) found that students who report peer rejection are not as engaged in classroom activities and are less likely to attend school when compared with their non-rejected peers. Additionally, classrooms with high rates of exclusion have adversely affected attendance and student participation.

Students who are excluded from cooperative activities or have few friends may be missing an important protective factor. Holt and Espelage (2007) showed that social support from peers helps students overcome difficulties and ameliorate

psychological symptoms. Even moderate peer support appears to improve the resulting problems faced by those students who have been bullied.

Cyberbullying

A modern method of bullying behavior that takes advantage of electronic networking and social media is cyberbullying. Several highly publicized cases of cyberbullying that resulted in the suicide of the victim provide case evidence and

(25)

15 highlight the need for community response (Fagan & Huet, 2007). Cyberbullying appears later in childhood than traditional forms of bullying, peaking in adolescence.

Cyberbullying has an important relationship to the bullying that is happening in school or the community (Erentaitė, Bergman, & Žukauskienė, 2012). There is often a continuation of the coercive bullying relationship that began at school

involved in the later cyberbullying. Kowalski, Morgan, and Limber (2012) found that students who were bullied by traditional methods are more likely to be also

victimized by cyberbullying than non-involved peers.

Cyberbullying occurs online, but this does not equate to a lack of oversight by parents or school officials. Many schools have a mandate to follow up on aggressive behavior that is initiated within the school or is affecting students (Willard, 2011). School social workers, resource officers, and local police often have the tools to intervene with cyberbullying bullies and victims (Slovak & Singer, 2014). Common interventions include actions against bullies and emotional support for victims.

Gender Differences

Putallaz et al. (2007) found that gender is one of several demographic factors related to types of bullying behavior. Self and teacher reports of bullying behavior documented that boys are more likely to engage in direct bullying than girls. Girls appear to use indirect bullying about the same as boys. Similarly, Smith, Rose, and Schwartz-Mette (2010) found equivalent levels of self-reported indirect bullying between genders. Despite similar experiences, these students were more accepting of indirect bullying by girls than boys, whereas direct bullying had low acceptance by

(26)

16 both genders. Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie (2007) reported that students, school personnel, and family members typically held a stereotypical perspective that girls are more likely to use indirect bullying than boys. This nation-wide sample of 11,033 students supports that indirect bullying for boys and girls is similar, while physical aggression and direct bullying may be slightly higher in boys.

Gender differences also occur in the role of defender. Girls are more likely to defend others experiencing bullying victimization (Crapanzano, Frick, Childs, & Terranova, 2011). This is especially true for younger girls (Caravita et al., 2012). Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, and Salmivalli (2011) found that the defender-victim dyad are typically same gender pairs, but girls were more frequent and likely defenders.

Idsoe et al. (2012)identified gender differences related to bullying victimization frequency and severity of psychiatric symptoms related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Despite boys being twice as likely to be

victimized daily, girls tend to have more avoidant and intrusive symptoms related to PTSD. While not highly researched or easy to detect, gender nonconformists seem to have the worst reports of bullying victimization outcomes, depressive symptoms, and diagnoses (Roberts, Rosario, Slopen, Calzo, & Austin, 2013).

Negative Effects of Bullying

Bullying is hurtful; the resulting negative effects from bullying can last into adulthood (Allison, Roeger, & Reinfeld-Kirkman, 2009). Storch, Brassard, and Masia-Warner (2003) identified how early victimization produces patterns of fear and avoidance, resulting in higher rates of future mental health and academic problems.

(27)

17 Poor school performance, as demonstrated by achievement tests and grade point average, is evidenced in children who are bullied (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005). These deficits can be exacerbated and further compounded by added stressors in the child’s life (Schwartz, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2013).

Cornell, Gregory, Huang, and Fan (2013) demonstrated that students not involved in bullying are affected when bullying is perceived as common or not responded to by adults. Schools with more negative perceptions about bullying on campus had worse school attendance and academic performance.

Bender and Lösel (2011) demonstrated that students who bully others are more likely to have higher school delinquency, more violent behavior, and higher levels of antisocial traits. Many of these behaviors at school and antisocial traits in bullies are associated with conduct problems that continue into adulthood (Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004). Idsoe, Dyregrov, and Idsoe (2012) found that victims and students who bully others daily are each more likely to have avoidant symptoms within the clinical range than non-involved peers. Students who identified as both victim and bully had more severe symptoms.

One of the most negative effects related to bullying is suicidal ideation and attempts in children. Dickerson Mayes et al. (2014) found that bullying victimization was a common element in the relatively few cases of suicidal ideation in children without psychiatric disorders. Meltzer, Vostanis, Ford, Bebbington, and Dennis (2011) found that adults who were bullied as children were twice as likely to attempt suicide compared with those not bullied. This experience of bullying was more

(28)

18 impactful than other suicide related factors, such as depression and other mental illnesses.

Kaminski and Fang (2009) found an association between peer victimization and suicide in United States samples. The presence of victimization within the last year predicted suicidal ideation and behavior beyond other variables related with suicide. History of frequent bullying victimization is related to suicide attempts in adult females and suicide completions in adult males (Klomek et al., 2009). Bully-victims have worse outcomes of those in any status; their rate of suicidal ideation is three to four times more likely than the non-involved (Heikkilä et al., 2013).

Bullying Prevention

Teachers, administrators, and other professionals often have an ambiguous definition of bullying (Arora, 1996). Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007) demonstrated that untrained school staff are often hesitant to intervene and seldom intervene with both the victim and bully. Additionally, students and teachers likely underreport bullying when unware and untrained. Successful child and adolescent prevention programs overcome hesitancy and inefficacy with training, repeated assessments, and clear behavioral contingencies (Durlak & Wells, 1997).

Bullying prevention programs have shown the largest effect in reducing direct bullying (Brown, Low, Smith, & Haggerty, 2011). The effects of bullying prevention programs on indirect and overall bullying are typically small (Black et al., 2010). One potential reason for this small effect on overall bullying is an initial increased reporting of bullying behavior and a reduction of actual bullying. Amundsen and

(29)

19 Ravndal (2010) found fewer student problems, such as substance abuse and school delinquency, among late adolescent students who participated in a bullying

prevention program in elementary school compared to students without early bullying prevention.

A widely utilized bullying prevention program is the Olweus Bullying

Prevention Program (OBPP). Olweus found that reducing the complex and pervasive problem of bullying in school-age children had to encompass and integrate multiple intervention domains. The OBPP uses four domains to reach students and reduce bullying: individual, classrooms, school wide, and community. Intervention in the individual domain consists of the contingencies of speaking with staff, negative consequences for bullies, positive consequences for defenders, and phone calls to parents/guardians. Classroom meetings and the kickoff event are key components of the classroom and school wide domains, respectively. The community domain is inclusive to the other domains. Families, guardians, and other community members are encouraged to be involved at every level.

Assessment

Accurate assessment is a crucial aspect of intervention. The standard behavioral measurement technique in studies that involve children is observation. Observation can account for detailed descriptions of environmental and contextual variables (Atlas & Pepler, 1998). However, observational assessment has limitations with large population sizes and has high costs for use in school-wide assessments. Peer nominations are often used to asses power imbalances between students, but are

(30)

20 also time and resource intensive (Green, Felix, Sharkey, Furlong, & Kras, 2012). Bullying assessments that utilize self-report questioners are more practical for use in school-wide assessments.

The Bully Victim Questionnaire (BVQ) developed by Olweus is one of the standards in bullying assessment and has demonstrated internal reliability and validity (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006). The BVQ offers a practical method for obtaining a descriptive bullying data, including bullying type and frequency in school settings. Additionally, the BVQ assesses location of bullying victimization. The frequent bullying locations are important for school staff to know because these areas are ripe for intervention. Bullying hotspots are most likely to be in the hallways, lunchrooms, and playground areas (Vaillancourt et al., 2010). School administrators and teachers can make adjustments to the positioning of supervisors or staff around these hot spots.

School-wide Implementation

A committee of caring individuals directs and manages OBPP

implementation. Ideally, the committee is a blended mix of teachers, administrators, parents, and community members. Regular committee meetings are used to plan, schedule, and even modify implementation to fit the needs of the students. One of the most important goals of the committee is to adapt bullying consequence

contingencies to preexisting conduct codes. Ttofi and Farrington (2012) found that the best consequences for bullying are consistent applied with corrective instruction, but are not harsh or zero tolerance.

(31)

21 A kickoff event is held after the initial assessment to educate students about the bullying prevention program. The kickoff event is a large assembly, held to signal to students that the school is actively working to counteract bullying. During this assembly the students are taught what bullying is and is not. The school rules about bullying are taught and rehearsed. Additionally, the contingencies and consequences for both bullies and victims are explained. This information can be conveyed in a fun and interactive manner with the aid of college students, civic groups, or other community members.

Classroom Meetings

Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) found that student attitudes about bullying and classroom norms are strong predictors of bullying behavior. Student and teacher attitudes that were accepting of bullying reinforced aggression, while prosocial

attitudes reinforced defending behavior. Successful classroom interventions will need to take advantage of pre-existing behaviors that support prosocial behavior, while working to extinguish bullying and peer aggression.

Weekly class meetings are included to encourage dialogue with students and teach prosocial skills. One of the goals of class meetings is to model and develop conflict resolution strategies. Class meetings can be challenging to implement, but have been shown to reduce bullying in the classroom and improve students’ self-concept (Edwards & Mullis, 2003; Sorsdahl & Sanche, 1985). Student and teacher relationships can also be improved through class meetings resulting in increased trust, better communication, and improved cooperation (Emmett, Monsour, Lundeberg, &

(32)

22 Russo, 1996). There can be wide applicability to class meeting including crisis

support. Bullock and Foegen (2002) showed how teachers successfully utilized class meetings to provide emotional stability and reassurance to students after tragedies.

Class meetings can also involve language arts learning to address bullying. Narrative strategies that address bullying have been developed (Teglasi, Rahill, & Rothman, 2007). Incorporating stories and class discussion with concepts about bullying can be useful, especially for younger children.

The classroom meeting leader, typically the teacher, educates students and encourages positive student interaction. Concepts such as the bullying circle or how to disagree without being disagreeable are taught in early meetings. Specific

information from the school-wide assessments allows leaders to establish goals for class meetings. Students are encouraged to be active participants and are involved in identifying problems or defining discussion topics over the course of OBPP.

Purpose and Hypotheses

The implementation of the OBPP has the expressed goal of reducing bullying behavior on campus. One way to conceptualize this change is to have prosocial movement around the bullying circle, bullies become bystanders, bystanders become defenders, and so on. As a result of OBPP implementation there will be fewer bullies and victims. This effect will be evidenced by a reduced risk for participants to have the role of victim, bully, and bully-victim. Additionally, victims will be bullied with less severity after OBPP implementation. Furthermore, participants will be at less

(33)

23 risk of having a joiner role, while more likely to have the role of defender after OBPP implementation.

Gender differences in bullying type and bullying role will be also be explored. Males will be at higher risk for having a direct victim role than females. Females will be at higher risk of having indirect victim role. Girls will be at greater odds to be a defender and at less odds to be a joiner than boys.

(34)

24 METHOD

Participants

Two schools participated in implementing the OBPP. One elementary school (K-6) and one combined elementary and middle school (K-8). Both schools are in the same school district in northern California. Participants in grades three through eight were assessed as part of a bullying prevention program. Kindergartners, first and second graders were not assessed, but received classroom meetings and attended kickoff events. All students at school on the day of the event or assessment participated as no parents opted out and all participants assented. Age, name, individual identifiers, and other demographics were not collected to provide anonymity to students and comply with school practices. Grade and gender of the students were collected with the BVQ (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1

Participants Assessed with BVQ by School Site and Year

Grades Year 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Site 1 2011 28 34 41 32 135 2012 0 28 35 36 99 Site 2 2011 42 51 41 56 100 72 362 2012 43 47 49 54 88 103 384

Note: Third graders at site 1 were not assessed post-intervention due to errors in printing.

(35)

25 Table 2

Gender of Participants Assessed with BVQ by Year

School Year Boys Girls Total

2011-2012 243 253 496

(36)

26

Materials and Variables

The Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire (BVQ) is a 39 item measure used to collect self-reported information about bullying and victimization occurrences (see Appendix A). Early questions include grade, gender, and number of good friends. Bullying victimization (questions 4 – 13) and perpetration (questions 24 – 33) are rated on a five point frequency scale, from no bullying in the past several months to several times per week. A sample of indirect bullying is “Other students left me out of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends, or completely ignored me” (question 6). A sample of direct bullying is “I was threatened or forced to do things I didn’t want to do” (question 10). Other questions identify location of bullying, student attitudes about bullying, and the schools response to bullying.

Inclusion criteria for having a role of bully or victim required a response of greater than only once or twice. Participants that indicated victimization at rates equal or greater than 2 to 3 times per month in questions 4 – 13 were classified as a victim for any bullying; questions 6 and 8 for indirect bullying; and questions 5, 7, and 9 – 12 for direct bullying. Participants that indicated perpetration at rates equal or greater that 2 to 3 times per month in questions 24 – 33 were classified as a bully for any bullying; questions 26 and 28 for indirect bullying; and questions 25, 27, and 29 – 32 for direct bullying. The role of bully-victim required an indication of both victimization and perpetration equal or greater than 2 to 3 times per month for questions 4 – 13 and 24 – 33. Joiners are participants who indicated they could join bullying a student they didn’t like (yes or yes maybe on question 36). Defenders are

(37)

27 participants that indicated they usually react to someone being bullied by trying to help the bullied student (question 37).

Victimization severity scales were constructed by averaging responses from victims on three scales. The total bullying scale is the mean of victimization items (questions 4 – 12), except for the write in question (question 13). The indirect bullying scale is the mean score of items associated with indirect bullying (questions 6 and 8). The direct bullying scale consist of the mean score of items associated with direct bullying (questions 5, 7, and 9 – 12). Unanswered questions were excluded from the averaging.

Procedure

Program implementation followed a general pattern of assessment, initial and ongoing intervention, and reassessment (see figure 2). Participants’ parents/guardians were sent a passive consent letter (see appendix B) and information pamphlet (see appendix C) that describes the OBBP, including assessment, events, and classroom meetings. No parents opted out of the assessment, events, or classroom meetings. Participants in grades three through eight were assessed with the BVQ two to three months after the school year began. Proctors for the assessments were trained students from California State University, Stanislaus (CSUS). Participants were assessed in their classrooms, during the course of a normal school day. Participants were informed of the purpose of the assessment and that participation was voluntary. Participants were also informed there was no penalty or reward for completing the assessment. Assent was confirmed verbally, by asking participants if they are willing

(38)

28 to begin. Any protests were to be treated as dissension, in which participants were to be instructed to continue to sit at their desks and engage in non-participatory tasks like reading or drawing. However, no protests occurred.

Figure 2. Flow chart representing the steps of the procedure. Program implementation incorporated assessment, feedback, intervention, and ongoing classroom meetings.

Descriptive information about bullying behavior as reported in the BVQ was given to each school site in the form of summary reports. Summary reports include location, type, and frequency of victimization. Overall trends or high percentages of bullying were flagged to signal school intervention. The school administrators used these reports at their discretion.

A kickoff event was held at both schools in February of 2012. The kickoff event was coordinated with each school’s principal. Students from CSUS performed

Parent Information Assessment 1

(2011) Summary Reports

Kick-off Event Classroom

Meetings

Assessment 2 (2012)

Summary Reports Classroom Meetings

(39)

29 skits that incorporated core concepts of the OBPP, including bullying roles, the

school rules about bullying, and the consequences for bullying (see Appendix D). Skits were made grade-appropriate and relevant by grouping them as follows: kindergarten through third grades, fourth through sixth grades, and seventh through eighth grades. At the end of the event, the students were given pencils and wrist bands that were imprinted with “Be a Buddy Not a Bully.”

CSUS students initialized classroom meetings for teachers and students by leading the first meeting (see Appendix E). Teachers were given an outline of rules and rationale of the classroom meetings. CSUS students discussed the purpose of class meetings, established meeting norms, and provided information about bullying. Additional topics of negotiation, defending, and class meeting goals were introduced. Teachers were expected to continue classroom meetings through the school year.

Data Analysis

The data obtained from the BVQ were analyzed to identify the risk of having a bullying role (victim, bully, bully-victim, joiner, and defender), before and after OBPP implementation. Identifying the absolute risk of the bullying roles pre and post intervention with chi square comparisons indicates program effectiveness.

Additionally, victims’ mean score on each victimization scale, before and after OBPP implementation, was compared using independent samples t tests.

Gender differences in bullying role were analyzed, similarly to pre and post intervention comparisons, with absolute risk ratios and chi square tests. Gender differences were analyzed separately by year.

(40)

30 RESULTS

There were fewer participants with a victim role post intervention than pre-intervention (see Table 3). This difference was significant for indirect victimization and approached significance for any type of victimization. Similarly there were fewer bullies post intervention. This difference was significant for indirect bullying and marginally significant for any type of bullying. There is also marginal support for fewer participants with a bully-victim role post intervention.

There were less participants with a supporter role post-intervention than pre-intervention, but this difference was not significant (see Table 3). There was no significant difference between the ratio of participants noticing bullying post-intervention (317 noticed/151 did not notice) compared to pre-post-intervention (343 noticed/149 did not notice), χ2 = 0.44, p = .51. Furthermore, participants that noticed bullying were not at significantly greater odds of having a defender role

(41)

31 Table 3

A Comparison of the Likelihood of Reported Bullying Roles Before and After Intervention

Pre Post Risk Ratio [95% CI] χ2 Victim Any 186/496 154/483 0.92 [0.84,1.01] 3.41a Direct 142/496 126/483 0.97 [0.89,1.04] 0.78 Indirect 130/496 94/483 0.92 [0.86,0.98] 6.42** Bully Any 41/496 26/483 0.97 [0.94,1.00] 3.19a Direct 15/496 14/483 1.00 [0.98,1.02] 0.13 Indirect 21/496 10/483 0.98 [0.96,1.00] 3.74* Bully-Victim Any 35/496 22/483 0.97 [0.94,1.01] 2.79a Supporter 44/493 30/468 0.97 [0.94,1.01] 2.14 Defender 238/343 233/317 1.15 [0.91,1.47] 1.37 Notes: ap <.10, *p < .05, **p < .01. Pre and Post columns are the ratio of participants with that bullying role to the sample population. Risk ratios less than one indicate less risk post intervention. Bullying roles are inclusive.

(42)

32 The mean scores of victims’ reported bullying type pre and post-intervention were compared using t tests. Participants that reported no bullying in each type of bullying were excluded from analysis. Bullying victimization severity was not significantly less post intervention than pre intervention for total bullying, direct bullying, and indirect bullying, ps = .22, .71, .28 respectively (see Table 4).

Table 4

A Comparison of Pre and Post Intervention Victimization Severity

Pre Post

Mean SD Mean SD t (df) Cohen's d [95% CI] Total 1.79 0.78 1.72 0.77 1.22(715) 0.09[-0.06,0.24] Direct 1.76 0.78 1.74 0.76 0.37(601) 0.03[-0.13,0.19] Indirect 2.31 1.00 2.22 0.95 1.09(552) 0.09[-0.74.0.26]

(43)

33 Gender differences in bullying roles was largely not statistically significant for both assessment 1 (see Table 5) and assessment 2 (see Table 6). However, in

assessment 1 male participants were at statistically greater odds to be a bullying supporter than female participants. There was marginal support that male participants were at greater odds of having a direct victim role than females in assessment 1. These differences did not carry over to assessment 2.

Table 5

A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 1

Female Male Risk Ratio [95% CI] χ2 Victims Any 95/252 91/243 1.00 [0.87,1.14] 0.01 Direct 64/252 78/243 1.10 [0.98,1.23] 2.72a Indirect 73/252 57/243 0.93 [0.84,1.04] 1.94 Bullies Any 17/252 24/243 1.04 [0.98,1.09] 1.60 Direct 5/252 10/243 1.02 [0.99,1.06] 1.91 Indirect 10/252 11/243 1.01 [0.97,1.04] 0.10 Bully-Victim 14/252 21/243 1.03 [0.98,1.09] 1.73 Supporter 11/240 33/208 1.11 [1.05,1.17] 13.10** Defender 129/180 108/162 0.85 [0.62,1.17] 1.00 Notes: a = p < .10, **p < .01. Female and Male columns are the ratio of students with that bullying role to the sample population. Risk ratios greater than one indicate that male participants have a greater proportion in the role than female participants. Risk ratios less than one indicate that female participants have a higher proportion in that role than male participants.

(44)

34 Table 6

A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 2

Female Male Risk Ratio [95% CI] χ2 Victims Any 79/258 74/223 1.04 [0.92,1.17] 0.36 Direct 64/258 61/223 1.04 [0.93,1.15] 0.40 Indirect 52/258 41/223 0.98 [0.90,1.07] 0.24 Bullies Total 14/258 12/223 1.00 [0.96,1.04] 0.01 Direct 7/258 7/223 1.00 [0.97,1.05] 0.08 Indirect 3/258 7/223 1.02 [0.99,1.05] 2.30 Bully Victims 11/258 11/223 1.01 [0.97,1.05] 0.12 Supporter 12/252 18/215 1.04 [0.99,1.09] 2.52 Defender 130/177 103/140 1.01 [0.69,4517] 0.01 Notes: Female and Male columns are the ratio of students with that bullying role to the sample population. Risk ratios greater than one indicate that male

participants have a greater proportion in the role than female participants. Risk ratios less than one indicate that female participants have a higher proportion in that role than male participants.

(45)

35 DISCUSSION

Implementation of the bullying prevention program coincided with a reduction of bullying involvement. Participants were less likely to have a victim, bully, or bully-victim role after program implementation. Participants’ reports reflect an increased awareness and compliance with non-aggression, but not a greater

willingness to defend others being bullied. OBPP shifted students away from the negative roles, evidenced by fewer bullies and victims after intervention. However, there were not more defenders, suggesting further intervention is required to promote the defender role.

Differences in bullying roles between genders were largely rejected. There was minimal support that boys are more likely to report being victims of direct bullying, while girls showed a trend to be indirectly bullied more than boys. Boys were more willing than girls to join in bullying a student they did not like pre-intervention.

Intervention

The assessment, kick-off event, and initial classroom meetings were implemented largely according to plan. There was not a single protest from any participant. The reading of each assessment item to grades three and four provided an interaction that the participants reported enjoying. Participants also seemed to enjoy the kick-off event and classroom meetings. Printing errors occurred for one grade, in one school for Assessment 2, but did not appear to cause distress to participants.

(46)

36 One barrier to program implementation was found in developing a robust and diverse committee. The committee’s main purpose is to facilitate program adoption and encouragement in the community domain. As such, there was limited community involvement from businesses, families, and community organizations. These

community alliances are designed to support students and school staff. Community involvement expands preventative factors outside of schools’ influence (Holt, Raczynski, Frey, Hymel, & Limber, 2013). Committee responsibilities were primarily handled by the school principal and implementation team during staff meetings. Capital resources would alleviate this barrier by providing funding for advertisement, additional events, and hiring support staff.

Interpretation

The lack of a control group or staggered interventions does not allow cause to be attributed directly to intervention. Additionally, statistical power was reduced in order to ensure the level of anonymity needed to comply with educational code. Therefore, paired t-tests and repeated measure ANOVAs were not appropriate. There are many natural variables between school sites: size, location, administrators, and number of grades, but these variables were not explored at this time.

The effect sizes, though small, are indicative of a clear change in bullying behavior, especially when considering that approximately six percent of the entire population moved out of the victim role, from 38% to 32%. Similarly, about three percent moved out of the bully role after intervention, from 8% to 5%. While not captured by the BVQ, students verbalized to teachers and staff how they felt about

(47)

37 bullying and what steps can be taken when bullying happens. Objective school-wide changes in responses on the BVQ indicate changes in the system, a changing tide of norms. Students know not to bully, are less likely to bully, and as a result there are fewer victims. However, student’s decisions about defending victims has yet to improve.

The effect of this intervention may be smaller than interventions using like protocols implemented more robustly, namely at the classroom level. Olweus and Limber (2010) demonstrated a dose response curve at multiple intervention sites. The effect of this intervention may be minimized by an overestimating bias in self-report of bullying after intervention. Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrom, and Snell (2009) found that behaviorally observed rates of bullying and aggression decrease at a greater rate than self-reported bullying. One reason for higher reports is an increase in awareness by students. Additionally, these researchers found that students’ beliefs about program effectiveness are reinforced by continuing adult efforts.

The lack of gender differences found is similar to the findings of Crapanzano et al. (2011). These authors suggest the largest difference between genders is that boys are more likely to stay in the same bullying role from year to year, while girls bullying role is more variable.

Bevans, Bradshaw, and Waasdorp (2013) analysis of self-report bullying behavior supports the two factor model of direct and indirect bullying. However, these authors suggest that bias underscores the larger amounts of direct bullying boys experience and the more indirect bullying that girls experience. Some specific

(48)

38 behaviors such a pushing and shoving are much more common in boys and spreading rumors is more common in girls, but aggregate out in the two factor model.

Limitations and Future Directions

Low and Van Ryzin (2014) discovered that prosocial attitudes among school staff and students strengthen intervention effects. However, negative attitudes or a school climate that has a high acceptance of aggression does not negate effectiveness. Changing staff and student attitudes and behavior takes time and the current

intervention was limited in scope and duration. Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott's (2012) meta-analysis of several bullying prevention programs reveals that increasing prosocial bystander engagement takes additional interventions above and beyond current bullying prevention programs.

Data for adherence to classroom meetings and following through on

behavioral contingencies were not recorded, but both school sites reported difference among teachers. Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, and Dill (2008) demonstrated that adherence to bullying prevention programs drives outcomes, yet is highly variable. Teachers often report partial and zero adherences. These researchers demonstrated that the primary barrier to adherence was preexisting teacher attitudes. Additionally, the most helpful and adherent teachers had the best defending students. Teachers are five times more likely to implement evidence based programs when trained specifically on adherence (Hanley et al., 2009).

Cyberbullying is likely to be more commonplace as electronic social networking and internet access continue to grow. Computer based assessments are

(49)

39 available (Verlinden et al., 2014), including an electronic version of the BVQ, that address cyberbullying. Cyberbullying will most likely be reduced and prevented with elements of the OBPP; however further research on overlapping prevention is needed (Low & Espelage, 2013). Cyberbullying will likely respond to bullying prevention programs when addressed by parents/guardians, educators, and communities (Smith et al., 2008).

It seems clear that the role of defender needs more attention. Defenders need to be supported in their use of advanced moral and prosocial skills. Defensive tactics and community skills can be taught and practiced in classroom meetings, but effects take several rounds of intervention to become palpable (Azad & Amiri, 2012). Empathy is an established motivator for defenders (Nickerson & Mele-Taylor, 2014) and may be increased through training (Frey et al., 2009). Continued contingency management and support systems will create an environment wherein practiced defenders will act. Additional research is needed to further assess and understand the development of defenders.

School-based counseling services are a likely ally in bullying response and prevention. McElearney, Adamson, Shevlin, and Bunting (2013) found that school counseling is an effective resource to support victims, bullies, and bully-victims. Stadler, Feifel, Rohrmann, Vermeiren, and Poustka (2010) identified support from teachers and school staff as a protective factor against peer victimization, especially for middle and high school students and students with mental illness. Counseling at school will support these students and foster those protective child-adult connections.

(50)

40

Applications

The primary application of the current research is to provide validation for bullying prevention programs in primary schools. The current implementation of OBPP provides a model of community based intervention for bullying, specifically a collaborative partnership between universities and public schools. Public schools are often resource limited and unable to fund comprehensive intervention programs. Schools benefit by having trained intervention teams, as future professionals gain valuable experience.

(51)
(52)

42 REFERENCES

Allison, S., Roeger, L., & Reinfeld-Kirkman, N. (2009). Does school bullying affect adult health? Population survey of health-related quality of life and past victimization. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 1163– 1170. doi:10.3109/00048670903270399

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington D.C.

Amundsen, E. J., & Ravndal, E. (2010). Does successful school-based prevention of bullying influence substance use among 13- to 16-year-olds? Drugs:

Education, Prevention & Policy, 17, 42–54. doi:10.3109/09687630802095591 Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining bullying: Towards a clearer general understanding

and more effective intervention strategies. School Psychology International,

17, 317–329. doi:10.1177/0143034396174002

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

doi:10.1080/00220679809597580

Azad, N. E., & Amiri, S. (2012). Effectiveness of Olweus Bullying Prevention Program on Iranian boys. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 18, 175–183. doi: 10.1014/2013-23146-001

Barnes, A., Cross, D., Lester, L., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., & Monks, H. (2012). The invisibility of covert bullying among students: Challenges for school

(53)

43 intervention. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 206–226. doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.27

Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005

Bender, D., & Lösel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 99–106. doi:10.1002/cbm.799

Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Social exclusion and pain sensitivity: Why exclusion sometimes hurts and sometimes numbs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 185–196. doi:10.1177/0146167211422449 Berthhold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 21, 65–78. doi:10.1177/0143034300211005

Bettencourt, A. F., & Farrell, A. D. (2013). Individual and contextual factors associated with patterns of aggression and peer victimization during middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 285–302. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9854-8

Bevans, K. B., Bradshaw, C. P., & Waasdorp, T. E. (2013). Gender bias in the measurement of peer victimization: An application of item response theory.

(54)

44 Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Dill, E. J. (2008).

Teacher adherence and its relations to teacher attitudes and student outcomes in an elementary school-based violence prevention program. School

Psychology Review, 37, 533–549.

Black, S., Washington, E., Trent, V., Harner, P., & Pollock, E. (2010). Translating the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program into real-world practice. Health

Promotion Practice, 11, 733–740. doi:10.1177/1524839908321562 Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer

victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361–382.

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Goldweber, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2013). Bullies, gangs, drugs, and school: Understanding the overlap and the role of ethnicity and urbanicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 220–234.

doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9863-7

Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a school-randomized controlled trial of steps to respect: A bullying prevention program. School Psychology Review, 40, 423–443.

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 engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1

(55)

45 Bullock, C., & Foegen, A. (2002). Constructive conflict resolution for students with

behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 289–295.

Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

46, 186–197. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x

Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Schuengel, C. (2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332–345.

doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00203

Caravita, S. C. S., Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2012). Main and moderated effects of moral cognition and status on bullying and defending. Aggressive Behavior,

38, 456–468. doi:10.1002/ab.21447

Chen, P.-Y., & Schwartz, I. S. (2012). Bullying and victimization experiences of students with autism spectrum disorders in elementary schools. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 200–212.

doi:10.1177/1088357612459556

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 138–149. doi:10.1037/a0030416

Crapanzano, A. M., Frick, P. J., Childs, K., & Terranova, A. M. (2011). Gender differences in the assessment, stability, and correlates to bullying roles in

(56)

46 middle school children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 677–694. doi:10.1002/bsl.1000

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894

Olweus, D., Limber, S., Crocker Flerx, V., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Schoolwide Guide. USA: Hazelden.

Dervin, D. (2011). 2010: The Year of the Bully. Journal of Psychohistory, 38, 337– 345.

Dickerson Mayes, S., Baweja, R., Calhoun, S. L., Syed, E., Mahr, F., & Siddiqui, F. (2014). Suicide ideation and attempts and bullying in children and

adolescents: Psychiatric and general population samples. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 35, 301–309.

doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000264

Dukes, R. L., Stein, J. A., & Zane, J. I. (2010). Gender differences in the relative impact of physical and relational bullying on adolescent injury and weapon carrying. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 511–532.

References

Related documents

The aim of this study was to examine the incidence and patterns of metastatic disease, surgical management and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer by reviewing

As Brown identifies (Brown 2018), videogames are not only technological twins of the platforms as interactive media, but they share the same governmental logic as controlled

The Executive Committee serves as the Kansas Family Leadership Team and a proxy for the full membership in between Council meetings to support membership recruitment and

A REVIEW OF CURRENT SIGNATURE ANALYSIS FOR CONDITION MONITORING OF WOUND ROTOR INDUCTION GENERATOR AND FAULT DIAGNOSIS

This paper has presented an approach to detect the incipient state bearing faults in induction motor using stator current signature analysis via noise cancellation using

These functions are tuned to specific fault frequencies taking into account motor speed and load torque, thus considering variable operation conditions of the motor.. Based on

The rotor electrical asymmetry condition in DFIGs is man- ifested through a range of additional sideband components in the stator current signal spectrum; it was experimentally

รวมคะแนนด้านผลงาน 2 คุณลักษณะการปฏิบัติงาน 2.1 ความสามารถ และความอุตสาหะในการปฏิบัติงาน (พิจารณาจากความรอบรู้