Research has revealed that students around the world regularly report witnessing and experiencing bullying (Eslea et al., 2003). Although bullying among children and youth is not a recent phenomenon, it has received increased attention internationally during the past several decades. For instance, in Australia, it is estimated that 1 child in 6 is subjected to bullying on a weekly basis (Rigby, 2002). Previous studies in Norway and Sweden found that 15% of students reported being involved in bully/victim problems at least 2â3 times per month (Olweus, 1993). Studies in the United States have yielded slightly higher rates of bullying, ranging from a low of 10% for âextreme victimsâ of bullying (Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988) to a high of 75% who reported being bullied at least one time during their school years (Hoover, Oliver, & Thomson, 1993). In a nationally representative study of American students in Grades 6 through 10, Nansel and colleagues (2001) reported that 17% had been bullied with some regularity (several times or more within the semester) and 19% had bullied others.
Bullying is not a part of normative development for children and adolescents and should be considered a precursor to more serious aggressive behaviors (Nansel et al., 2001). It is also clear that bullying can contribute to an environment of fear and intimidation in schools (Ericson, 2001). Furthermore, the culmination of more than a decade of research indicates that bullying may seriously affect the psychosocial functioning, academic work, and the health of children who are targeted (Limber, 2006; Swearer et al., 2001). The persistent prevalence and deleterious consequences associated with bullying have resulted in numerous countries around the world developing national initiatives to address bullying (examples listed in Table 1.1).
Recent Meta-Analyses of International Scholarship Addressing Bullying
A recent meta-analysis (Ttofiet al., 2008; sponsored by The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention) includes the results of a systematic review of 59 reports describing evaluations of 30 school-based bullying prevention and intervention programs implemented and studied around the world. The meta-analysis included four types of research design: (a) randomized experiments; (b) experimental-control comparisons with before and after measures of bullying; (c) other experimental-control comparisons; and (d) age-cohort designs, where students of a specific age after the intervention were compared with students of the same age in the same school before the intervention. Studies considered for inclusion in the meta-analysis included research from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Cyprus, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the United States. The effect sizes regarding impact on bullying ranged from .77 to 2.52, with a weighted mean of 1.43. Statistical significance varied across the four types of research design, with 1 out of 9 of the randomized experiments yielding significant effect sizes; 6 out of 9 of the before-after experimental control yielding significant effect sizes; 2 out of 4 other experimental control yielding significant effect sizes; and 6 out of 6 of the studies using age-cohort designs yielding significant effect sizes.
Based on the results of the meta-analysis, Ttofiand colleagues (2008) concluded that 12 anti-bullying programs were clearly effective in reducing bullying and victimization: Andreou, Didaskalou, and Vlachou (2007), Ertesvag and Vaaland (2007), Evers, Prochaska, Van Marter, Johnson, and Prochaska (2007), Melton et al. (1998), Olweus/Bergen 2, Olweus/Bergen 1, Olweus/Oslo 1, Olweus/New National, Olweus/Oslo 2, Raskauskas (2007), Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, and Voeten (2005), and Salmivalli, Karna, and Poskiparta (this volume). Moreover, analyses of a systematic coding of program elements revealed the most important program elements associated with a decrease in bullying were: parent training, improved playground supervision, disciplinary methods, school conferences, information for parents, classroom rules, classroom management, and videos. The most important program elements associated with a decrease in victimization were videos, disciplinary methods, work with peers, parent training, cooperative group work, and playground supervision.
Furthermore, the findings from this recent meta-analysis raise several questions that Ttofi and colleagues (2008) propose. For example; âWhy do results vary across different countries? Why do results vary by research design? Why do programs appear to work better with older children? Why are larger and more recent studies less effective than smaller-scale and older studies? Why do results vary with the outcome measure of bullying or victimization?â (p. 73).
Based on their meta-analysis of results included in 59 reports from 1983â2008, Ttofi and colleagues (2008) concluded that, âoverall, school-based anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing bullying and victimization. The results indicated that bullying and victimization were reduced by about 17â23% in experimental schools compared with control schoolsâ (p. 6). However, it is not clear whether this reduction results in clinically (versus statistically) meaningful changes that improve studentâs perceptions of school safety and prevent further bullying and/or peer victimization over the long haul. The authors also highlight that studies in Norway yielded more favorable results, relative to the studies in the United States.
Another recent meta-analysis, including 16 studies (published between 1994â2003) from 6 countries, of studies focusing on a broad range of interventions to address bullying, found that the majority of the outcomes revealed no meaningful change, either positive or negative (Merrell, Guelder, Ross, & Isava, 2008). Merrell and colleagues also highlighted that school bullying intervention programs are more likely to influence knowledge, attitudes, and self-perceptions, rather than actual bullying behaviors. Given that changes in attitudes need to occur prior to behavioral changes, these findings suggest that the programs as delivered might be too low of a dose and future work should consider how dose and implementation level impacts outcomes.
An examination of dosage issues and treatment fidelity in bullying prevention and intervention programming is vital. Ttofi and colleagues (2008) highlighted that the total number of program components (dose) and the duration and intensity of the programming for students and teachers were significantly linked to reductions in bullying behavior. In a recent study examining teacher adherence to anti-bullying programming, dose effects were also found (Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, & Dill, 2008). Results from the implementation of the Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment (CAPSLE) program found that the greater number of program components delivered and teacher treatment adherence were both associated with helping peers, greater empathy, and less aggressive bystander behavior among elementary-school students. Treatment fidelity is a critical, yet understudied component of bullying prevention and intervention programming.
These recent studies serve as a reminder of the importance of considering scholarship from around the world, and considering the multitude of variables associated with applied research. Additionally, different types of analyses are necessary to understand the effects associated with bullying programming at individual, peer, school, family, and community levels. These studies also highlight the...
