How to Reduce School Bullying

Victims and Offenders, 4:321 326, 2009 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 online DOI: 10.1080/15564880903227255 How to Reduce School Bullying UVAO 1556-4886 1556-4991 Victims and Offenders, Vol. 4, No. 4, Aug 2009: pp. 0 0 Reducing D. P. Farrington School Bullying and M. M. Ttofi David P. Farrington and Maria M. Ttofi Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Abstract: A systematic review was conducted of the 30 largest and highest quality controlled evaluations of antibullying programs. Most programs were effective. The prevalence of bullying and being bullied was reduced by an average of 20 23% in experimental schools compared to control schools. The most important program elements associated with a decrease in bullying and victimization were identified. A system for accrediting effective antibullying programs in schools was recommended. Keywords: school bullying, intervention, meta-analysis BACKGROUND School bullying is defined by several key elements: physical, verbal, or psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim; an imbalance of power (psychological or physical); the absence of provocation by the victim; and repeated incidents between the same students over a prolonged period (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1993). School bullying can occur in, or on the way to or from, school. The mutual victimization of two students (physical, psychological, or verbal) of the same strength is not considered bullying. Bullying is a type of aggressive behavior. However, not all aggression or violence involves bullying and not all bullying involves aggression or violence. Bullying includes rumormongering, name-calling, teasing, threatening, rejection, ostracizing, exclusion from activities, and the theft of belongings (Baldry & Farrington, 1999). This article is specifically concerned with bullying and its reduction. School bullying is a critical social problem that has negative short-term effects on students physical and psychological health and long-term effects on their psychosocial adjustment (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008a). For example, adolescents who are bullied and those who are bullies have an increased risk of depression and severe suicidal ideation (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999). Being bullied is frequently a factor in the referral Address correspondence to David P. Farrington, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DA, UK. E-mail: dpf1@cam.ac.uk 321

322 D. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi of adolescents for psychiatric services, especially for depression (Salmon, James, Cassidy, & Javaloyes, 2000). Bullying others is also a risk factor for antisocial behavior, such as excessive drinking and substance use (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, & Rimpela, 2000) and offending (Farrington, 1993). For example, studies in Norway indicated that, among those identified as bullies in the sixth to the ninth grades, 70% were convicted of at least one crime by age 24 (Olweus, 1997). Given the link between bullying and later offending, effective bullying prevention programs should lead to later reductions in crime. Much is known about the risk factors for bullying and victimization (Ttofi & Farrington, in press). For example, bullies tend to have low empathy and low school attainment, and tend to be high on measures of hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and attention deficit. Victims tend to have low self-esteem and low school attainment, and tend to be lonely, unpopular, rejected, and friendless. No general theory of bullying or victimization has been proposed, but important perspectives include social information processing (Crick & Dodge, 1994), social skills deficits (Slee, 1993), defiance theory (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008a), and reintegrative shaming (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008b). EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS School-based intervention programs have been implemented in an attempt to reduce bullying by targeting bullies, victims, peers, teachers, or the school in general. Some countries legally require schools to have an antibullying policy (Ananiadou & Smith, 2002). Many programs are based on commonsense ideas about what might reduce bullying rather than on empirically validated theories of why students bully, why they become victims, or why bullying occurs. The first large-scale antibullying program was implemented nationally in Norway in 1983, following three well-publicized suicides of Norwegian boys which were attributed to bullying. A more intensive version of the national program was evaluated in Bergen (Olweus, 1991). The study showed a decrease in bullying of roughly 50% after program implementation. Since then, many other large-scale antibullying programs have been implemented and evaluated in several countries. There have been previous reviews of the effectiveness of antibullying programs (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2007; Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). In a project for the Campbell Collaboration and the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Farrington & Ttofi, in press; Ttofi & Farrington, 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008), we went beyond existing reviews by doing much more extensive meta-analyses and searches for evaluations focusing only on programs that were specifically designed to reduce bullying, and including only the largest

Reducing School Bullying 323 evaluations with the highest-quality controlled methodological designs. We hand-searched all volumes of 35 journals from 1983 onward and also searched 18 electronic databases, including evaluations in foreign languages. We found 593 reports concerned with the prevention of bullying, of which 59 (describing 30 different evaluations) were the highest-quality, best controlled, and largest (based on at least 200 students). After analyzing effect sizes in each study, we concluded that school-based antibullying programs are generally effective, reducing bullying and victimization (being bullied) by an average of 20 23% in experimental schools compared to control schools (Farrington & Ttofi, in press). Based on feedback from the evaluators of 24 of the 30 antibullying programs, we correlated the effect size of each program with the intervention components and evaluation features (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009). The most important program elements associated with a decrease in bullying were disciplinary methods, parent meetings, playground supervision, information for parents, school conferences, classroom rules, and classroom management. In addition, the total number of program elements and the duration and intensity of the program for students and teachers were significantly associated with a decrease in bullying. Also, programs inspired by the work of Dan Olweus worked best. Programs worked better with older children (in Norway specifically, and in Europe more generally), and they were less effective in the United States. The most important program elements associated with a decrease in victimization (being bullied) were videos, disciplinary methods, work with peers, parent meetings, and cooperative group work. In addition, the duration and intensity of the program for children and teachers were significantly associated with a decrease in victimization. As with bullying, programs worked better in Norway specifically and in Europe more generally, and they were less effective in the United States. POLICY IMPLICATIONS In developing new policies and practices to reduce bullying, policy makers and practitioners should draw on high-quality, evidence-based programs. New antibullying initiatives should be inspired by successful programs such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, but modified in light of the key program elements that are highly correlated with effectiveness. In addition, a system of accrediting effective antibullying programs should be developed to ensure that the programs contain elements that have been proved effective in high-quality evaluations. This accreditation system could be organized by an international body such as the International Observatory on Violence in Schools.

324 D. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi The intensity and duration of a program are directly linked to its effectiveness, with a dose-response relationship between the number of components of a program and its effect on bullying (Olweus, 2005). Programs need to be intensive and long-lasting in order to have an impact. A considerable time period may be needed in order to create an appropriate school ethos to tackle bullying. Antibullying initiatives should also enhance playground supervision because a lot of bullying occurs during recess. Improving the school playground environment (e.g., through reorganization and identification of hot spots ) may also be a promising and low-cost intervention component. Firm disciplinary methods are significantly related to both bullying and victimization. To some extent, this finding may be attributable to the substantial effects of the Olweus program, which includes a range of sanctions including admonishing bullies, sending them to the principal, making them stay close to the teacher during recess, and depriving them of privileges. Antibullying initiatives should also target the family. Studies indicate that bullied children often do not communicate their problem to anyone, while parents and teachers often do not talk to bullies about their conduct (e.g., Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). In our systematic review, parent meetings were significantly related to a decrease in both bullying and victimization, suggesting that parents should be sensitized about school bullying through educational presentations and teacher-parent meetings. Future programs should be based more on theories of bullying and victimization such as defiance theory and restorative justice approaches (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008a, 2008b). For example, poor social relationships in school can be repaired through restorative justice techniques that bring together students (bullies, victims, and others) in a participatory process that addresses wrongdoing while respecting the parties involved (Morrison, 2007). Defiance theory is useful because it emphasizes bonding with the sanctioner; shame management; and legitimate, respectful sanctioning of antisocial behavior. In conclusion, a great deal has been learned about how to reduce school bullying and victimization. A coordinated, cross-national program of research should be conducted to advance knowledge about prevalence, development, risk factors, theories, and the effectiveness of antibullying interventions. REFERENCES Ananiadou, K., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Legal requirements and nationally circulated materials against school bullying in European countries. Criminal Justice, 2, 471 491. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Types of bullying among Italian school children. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423 426. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 2, 183 204.

Reducing School Bullying 325 Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social informationprocessing mechanisms in children s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (vol. 17, pp. 381 458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (in press). Reducing school bullying: Evidence-based implications for policy. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (vol. 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, P. S. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81 91. Ferguson, C. J., Miguel, C. S., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401 414. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348 351. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying at school: An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661 674. Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26 42. Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411 448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495 510. Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design and effects of the Olweus bullying prevention program. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 389 402. Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E. L., & Javaloyes, M. A. (2000). Bullying: A review; Presentations to an adolescent psychiatric service and within a school for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 5, 563 579. Slee, P. T. (1993). Bullying: A preliminary investigation of the nature and effects on social cognition. Early Child Development and Care, 87, 47 57. Smith, J. D., Schneider, B., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole- school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 548 561. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008a). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders, 3, 2 3, 313 336.

326 D. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008b). Reintegrative shaming theory, moral emotions and bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352 368. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventing bullying? Effective elements of anti-bullying programs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 13 24. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (in press). School bullying: Risk factors, theories, and interventions. In F. J. Brookman, M. Maguire, H. Pierpoint, & T. H. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of crime. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying: A systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78 88.

Copyright of Victims & Offenders is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.