Examining the Potential Mental Health Costs of Defending Victims of Bullying: a Longitudinal Analysis

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology - It has been speculated that defending victims of bullying is stressful for youth, and may contribute to poor mental health among those who...     

Tackling Acute Cases of School Bullying in the KiVa Anti-Bullying Program: A Comparison of Two Approaches

Whether cases of bullying should be handled in a direct, condemning mode or in a manner that does not involve blaming the perpetrator is a controversial issue among school professionals. This study compares the effectiveness of a Confronting Approach where the bully is openly told that his behavior must cease immediately to a Non-Confronting Approach where the adult shares his concern about the victim with the bully and invites him to provide suggestions on what could improve the situation. We analysed 339 cases of bullying involving 314 children from grades 1 to 9 (mean age?=?11.95). Cases were handled in 65 schools as part of the implementation of the KiVa anti-bullying program. In each school, a team of three teachers addressed cases coming to their attention by organizing discussions with the bullies using either a Confronting or a Non-Confronting Approach; schools were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Victims reported that bullying stopped in 78 % of the cases. Logistic regression analyses indicated that neither approach was overall more effective than the other, controlling for grade level, duration of victimization and type of aggression. The Confronting Approach worked better than the Non-Confronting Approach in secondary school (grades 7 to 9), but not in primary school (grades 1 to 6). The Confronting Approach was more successful than the Non-Confronting Approach in cases of short-term victimization, but not in cases of long-term victimization. The type of aggression used did not moderate the effectiveness of either approach.     

The social status of aggressive students across contexts: the role of classroom status hierarchy, academic achievement, and grade

This study tested the effects of 5 classroom contextual features on the social status (perceived popularity and social preference) that peers accord to aggressive students in late elementary school, including classroom peer status hierarchy (whether within-classroom differences in popularity are large or small), classroom academic level, and grade level as the main predictors of interest as well as classroom aggression and ethnic composition as controls. Multilevel analyses were conducted on an ethnically diverse sample of 968 fourth- and fifth-graders from 46 classrooms in 9 schools. Associations between aggression and status varied greatly from one classroom to another. Aggressive students were more popular and better liked in classrooms with higher levels of peer status hierarchy. Aggressive students had higher social status in Grade 5 than in Grade 4 and lower social preference in classrooms of higher academic level. Classroom aggression and ethnic composition did not moderate aggression-status associations. Limitations and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Differential effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and unpopular bullies

This study utilized data from the evaluation of the Finnish KiVa program in testing the prediction that school bullies' high perceived popularity would impede the success of anti-bullying interventions. Multiple-group structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted on a subsample of 911 third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders identified as perpetrators of bullying. They belonged to 77 Finnish schools, including 39 schools implementing the KiVa program and 38 control schools. Data on peer-reported bullying and perceived popularity were collected before program implementation and one year later. Controlling for sex, age, and initial levels of bullying, KiVa participation resulted in lower rates of bullying (indicated by fewer peer nominations) after one year for bullies of low and medium popularity. However, there was no significant effect for those high in popularity, suggesting that popular bullies are less responsive to anti-bullying interventions than less popular bullies.     

Classroom‐ and School‐Level Contributions to Bullying and Victimization: A Review

School bullying is increasingly viewed by researchers as a group phenomenon that extends beyond the perpetrator–victim dyad and is embedded in the wider social context. This paper reviews the literature on classroom and school factors contributing to bullying and victimization among children and adolescents. Considerable variability in the prevalence of these problems exists between classrooms and schools, which are highly relevant contexts for students' social development. Along with individual characteristics, both classroom‐ and school‐related factors explain the bullying dynamic. The contexts may also exacerbate, or buffer against, the effects of individual‐level risk for bullying involvement and the consequences of victimization. We discuss findings on the contributions of demographic and structural characteristics (e.g. grade level, classroom and school size), peer contextual factors (e.g. status hierarchy, group norms and bystander behaviours) and the role of teachers. Finally, implications for research and school‐based antibullying programs are considered. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation

Recent research has emphasized the importance of indirect aggression among children and has challenged the conception that aggressive children lack social–cognitive skills. In schools, victimization against non-provocative targets rarely involves just a dyad, but might not be simply the product of group processes either. This paper suggests that in most cases it results from the encounter between a skillful bully and a group that lacks true cohesiveness, through a process of normative social influence. Groups with low quality of friendships may be more likely than others to become instruments of aggression as victimization provides them with a common goal and an appearance of cohesion. We hypothesize that, in some cases, the manipulation of a healthy-functioning group is also possible but requires use of particularly subtle devices, and thus a higher level of social intelligence by the bully. We also suggest that in such a situation the aggressive act is not just indirect, but invisible and the influence exerted on the group might be informational and not normative. Implications for the characteristics of the victim and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

This study examines why the lower likeability of bullying perpetrators does not deter them from engaging in bullying behavior, by testing three hypotheses: (a) bullying perpetrators are unaware that they are disliked, (b) they value popularity more than they value likeability, (c) they think that they have nothing to lose in terms of likeability, as they believe that their targets and other classmates would dislike them anyway, regardless of their behavior. The first two hypotheses were examined in Study 1 (1,035 Dutch adolescents, M _age = 14.15) and the third hypothesis was examined in Study 2 (601 Dutch adolescents, M _age = 12.92). Results from regression analyses showed that those higher in bullying were not more likely to overestimate their likeability. However, they were more likely than others to find being popular more important than being liked. Moreover, those higher in bullying were more likely to endorse the belief that the victimized student or the other classmates would have disliked a bullying protagonist (in vignettes of hypothetical bullying incidents) before any bullying started. These findings suggest that adolescent bullying perpetrators may not be deterred by the costs of bullying in terms of likeability, possibly because they do not value likeability that much (Hypothesis 2), and because they believe they hardly have any likeability to lose (Hypothesis 3).