PROBLEM 1: the Burden of Being Bullied
Bullying Behavior at school— by Juvonen and Graham
➔ Goal: monograph; studying the behavior of bullies and the plight of victims
➔ Bullying
◆ purposeful intimidation or humiliation
◆ power imbalance→ differentiates from regular conflict
◆ not clear if repetition is required→ single traumatic event might raise
expectations of continued abuse
◆ in both children and adults
◆ 20-25% adolescents→ directly involved in bullying
● 4-9% of adolescents→ bullies
● 9-25%→ victims
◆ only 5-10% of adolescents are chronic bullies
◆ many childhood bullies grow up→ but physical aggression might be replaced by
other forms of bullying
◆ stronger stability within one year
◆ direct bullying→ physical aggression, name calling, belittling, intimidation,
threats
◆ indirect (relational) bullying→ exclusion, spreading gossip, trying to
underhandedly hurt someone’s status
● no age differences found in the type engaged→ only physical bullying
decreases with age
● previously believed girls preferred indirect bullying→ no gender
difference found
◆ bullies do not lack emotional regulation or social skills→ instead they try to
establish social dominance
◆ inflated self-image
◆ positive reinforcement when bystanders don’t intervene
◆ information processing biases of bullies
● attributional bias→ perceive peers’ ambiguous behaviors as reflecting
hostile intentions
● maintain positive self-beliefs by blaming others instead of accepting
responsibility
➔ Characteristics of victims
, ◆ experience depression, academic problems, psychosomatic problems
(headaches, abdominal pain etc.) and so on→ directionality not clear, might be
the cause or outcome of bullying
◆ submissive victim→ insecure, anxious, sensitive, low self-confidence; increases
the risk of being bullied
◆ provocative victim→ aggressive; but it’s ineffective as they don’t have the bullies’
social status
◆ risk factors→ being over or underweight, early or late puberty, LGBTQ, physical
or mental disabilities, lack of friends…
◆ relationship between risk factors and consequences of bullying is cyclical
◆ attributional style→ more likely to use internal & uncontrollable attributions→
increase in internalizing problems & self-blame→ increased victimization
◆ school→ more absence and lower grades
◆ health→ psychosomatic problems as a result of altered cortisol levels & changes
in HPA axis
◆ brain→ increased dACC activation when feeling socially excluded (physical pain
region)
➔ school factors
◆ need to be studied more
◆ greater racial/ethnic diversity→ buffering effect; less bullying
◆ deviation from classroom norms→ increased bullying
◆ group assignments (academic teaming)→ stronger victim experience
◆ school climate→ most consistent correlate
➔ Cyberbullying
◆ can be direct (e.g. threatening messages) or indirect (e.g. distributing pictures of
the victim)
◆ overlaps with traditional bullying
◆ differences→ anonymity, fast and wide spread of information, fewer social cues
➔ school-wide interventions
◆ sees bullying as a systemic social problem
◆ raising awareness, increased monitoring, consistent response to bullying
behavior
◆ usually small impact
◆ Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)
● Norway
, ● Increased awareness of the nature of the problem, heightened
monitoring, and systematic and consistent responses to incidents of
bullying
● Students asked to create own rules for bullying
● Given strategies for dealing with bullying
● Outcomes:
○ decreases in self-reports & peer and teacher reports of bullying
and victimization
○ increases in students’ perceptions of a positive school climate
○ Meta-analysis shows the effects to be modest at best
● Discussion:
○ no random assignment or control groups etc.
○ Rely heavily on self-reports
○ Increased consciousness about bullying as an aim of the program
might mask treatment effects
○ Norwegian schools→ norm is a small classroom, well-trained
teacher, homogenous student population
➔ targeted interventions
◆ only addresses the students who are involved in bullying
◆ addresses dysfunctional thoughts (e.g. hostile attribution bias) and behaviors in
bullies
◆ positive effects found in short-term; long-term research needed
◆ interventions to change conditions in victims don’t exist
➔ Future research
◆ longitudinal effects on victims
◆ stigmatized social identities & victimization
◆ risk & protective factors in schools
The Support Group Approach in Dutch KiVa Anti-harassment programme– by van der Ploeg et
al.
➔ Goal: intervention study; assessing the effectiveness of support group approach; in
terms of reducing victimization, increasing defense (=more people supporting the
victim) and improving the victim’s school welfare
➔ Programme
, ◆ bullying is seen as a group phenomenon with different roles, instead of an
isolated incident between bully and victim
◆ addresses persistent bullying situations
◆ no punishments
◆ support groups of 6-8 children→ the bully, accomplices, defenders of the victim,
prosocial classmates, NOT the victim
◆ aims to create concern for the victim’s wellbeing and encourage bully to change
behavior
➔ Method
◆ 66 Dutch elementary schools
◆ n=38 victims with a support group were matcher d to victims without a support
group (n=571)
◆ victims with a support group + KiVa training
◆ victims with only KiVa training
◆ control group with no intervention
➔ Results
◆ reduced victimization in short-term, but not in long-term
◆ victim’s wellbeing also not improved in long-term
◆ victims with a support group had more defenders at the end of the school year
◆ effectiveness of the intervention decreases over time
➔ Limitation
◆ small sample size
◆ interview & questionnaire→ social desirability bias
◆ works better for some victims→ should be investigated
The Effectiveness of Anti-bullying school programmes– by Jimenez-Barbero et al.
➔ Goal: meta analysis of the effectiveness of anti-bullying school programme
➔ Method:
◆ very strict inclusion criteria, limiting the number of studies included but high
methodological quality
◆ 2000-2015
◆ 14 studies
◆ interventions that targeted students directly
Bullying Behavior at school— by Juvonen and Graham
➔ Goal: monograph; studying the behavior of bullies and the plight of victims
➔ Bullying
◆ purposeful intimidation or humiliation
◆ power imbalance→ differentiates from regular conflict
◆ not clear if repetition is required→ single traumatic event might raise
expectations of continued abuse
◆ in both children and adults
◆ 20-25% adolescents→ directly involved in bullying
● 4-9% of adolescents→ bullies
● 9-25%→ victims
◆ only 5-10% of adolescents are chronic bullies
◆ many childhood bullies grow up→ but physical aggression might be replaced by
other forms of bullying
◆ stronger stability within one year
◆ direct bullying→ physical aggression, name calling, belittling, intimidation,
threats
◆ indirect (relational) bullying→ exclusion, spreading gossip, trying to
underhandedly hurt someone’s status
● no age differences found in the type engaged→ only physical bullying
decreases with age
● previously believed girls preferred indirect bullying→ no gender
difference found
◆ bullies do not lack emotional regulation or social skills→ instead they try to
establish social dominance
◆ inflated self-image
◆ positive reinforcement when bystanders don’t intervene
◆ information processing biases of bullies
● attributional bias→ perceive peers’ ambiguous behaviors as reflecting
hostile intentions
● maintain positive self-beliefs by blaming others instead of accepting
responsibility
➔ Characteristics of victims
, ◆ experience depression, academic problems, psychosomatic problems
(headaches, abdominal pain etc.) and so on→ directionality not clear, might be
the cause or outcome of bullying
◆ submissive victim→ insecure, anxious, sensitive, low self-confidence; increases
the risk of being bullied
◆ provocative victim→ aggressive; but it’s ineffective as they don’t have the bullies’
social status
◆ risk factors→ being over or underweight, early or late puberty, LGBTQ, physical
or mental disabilities, lack of friends…
◆ relationship between risk factors and consequences of bullying is cyclical
◆ attributional style→ more likely to use internal & uncontrollable attributions→
increase in internalizing problems & self-blame→ increased victimization
◆ school→ more absence and lower grades
◆ health→ psychosomatic problems as a result of altered cortisol levels & changes
in HPA axis
◆ brain→ increased dACC activation when feeling socially excluded (physical pain
region)
➔ school factors
◆ need to be studied more
◆ greater racial/ethnic diversity→ buffering effect; less bullying
◆ deviation from classroom norms→ increased bullying
◆ group assignments (academic teaming)→ stronger victim experience
◆ school climate→ most consistent correlate
➔ Cyberbullying
◆ can be direct (e.g. threatening messages) or indirect (e.g. distributing pictures of
the victim)
◆ overlaps with traditional bullying
◆ differences→ anonymity, fast and wide spread of information, fewer social cues
➔ school-wide interventions
◆ sees bullying as a systemic social problem
◆ raising awareness, increased monitoring, consistent response to bullying
behavior
◆ usually small impact
◆ Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)
● Norway
, ● Increased awareness of the nature of the problem, heightened
monitoring, and systematic and consistent responses to incidents of
bullying
● Students asked to create own rules for bullying
● Given strategies for dealing with bullying
● Outcomes:
○ decreases in self-reports & peer and teacher reports of bullying
and victimization
○ increases in students’ perceptions of a positive school climate
○ Meta-analysis shows the effects to be modest at best
● Discussion:
○ no random assignment or control groups etc.
○ Rely heavily on self-reports
○ Increased consciousness about bullying as an aim of the program
might mask treatment effects
○ Norwegian schools→ norm is a small classroom, well-trained
teacher, homogenous student population
➔ targeted interventions
◆ only addresses the students who are involved in bullying
◆ addresses dysfunctional thoughts (e.g. hostile attribution bias) and behaviors in
bullies
◆ positive effects found in short-term; long-term research needed
◆ interventions to change conditions in victims don’t exist
➔ Future research
◆ longitudinal effects on victims
◆ stigmatized social identities & victimization
◆ risk & protective factors in schools
The Support Group Approach in Dutch KiVa Anti-harassment programme– by van der Ploeg et
al.
➔ Goal: intervention study; assessing the effectiveness of support group approach; in
terms of reducing victimization, increasing defense (=more people supporting the
victim) and improving the victim’s school welfare
➔ Programme
, ◆ bullying is seen as a group phenomenon with different roles, instead of an
isolated incident between bully and victim
◆ addresses persistent bullying situations
◆ no punishments
◆ support groups of 6-8 children→ the bully, accomplices, defenders of the victim,
prosocial classmates, NOT the victim
◆ aims to create concern for the victim’s wellbeing and encourage bully to change
behavior
➔ Method
◆ 66 Dutch elementary schools
◆ n=38 victims with a support group were matcher d to victims without a support
group (n=571)
◆ victims with a support group + KiVa training
◆ victims with only KiVa training
◆ control group with no intervention
➔ Results
◆ reduced victimization in short-term, but not in long-term
◆ victim’s wellbeing also not improved in long-term
◆ victims with a support group had more defenders at the end of the school year
◆ effectiveness of the intervention decreases over time
➔ Limitation
◆ small sample size
◆ interview & questionnaire→ social desirability bias
◆ works better for some victims→ should be investigated
The Effectiveness of Anti-bullying school programmes– by Jimenez-Barbero et al.
➔ Goal: meta analysis of the effectiveness of anti-bullying school programme
➔ Method:
◆ very strict inclusion criteria, limiting the number of studies included but high
methodological quality
◆ 2000-2015
◆ 14 studies
◆ interventions that targeted students directly
