Bullying in Primary and Secondary Schools

P R R O O O O F F

Copyright © 2010

10

Bullying in Primary and Secondary Schools

Psychological and Organizational Comparisons

PETER K. SMITH

In this chapter I will compare bullying in primary and secondary schools, and especially what appears to be a difference in relative success rates of anti-bullying interventions, in these two sectors. In this connection I will briefly summarize the history of large-scale school-based antibullying interventions, starting with the Norwegian campaign in the 1980s, the Sheffield (UK) project in the early 1990s, and similar projects in Canada, Belgium, Finland, the United States, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere. I will overview the varying rates of success of these studies. I will then review the replicated finding that apparent reductions in bullying are generally less in the adolescent years. Finally, I will discuss possible reasons for the often lesser impact of antibullying programs in the adolescent years, focusing on two main areas: developmental changes in pupils, and organizational changes in schools. I will conclude by discussing the challenges this raises for improving the effectiveness of anti-bullying intervention work. School-Based Anti-Bullying Interventions

P

Over the last 20 years, there have been an increasing number of school-based anti-bullying interventions, some quite large-scale (see e.g., Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004). There have by now been several reviews of these projects (e.g., Rigby 2002; Smith, Ananiadou, & Cowie, 2003; Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004; Baldry & Farrington, 2007). The historically relatively new wave of these interventions, in many European countries, Australasia and North America, is probably due to a range of factors: the rapid increase in our knowledge base in this period, including the severe focused effects on victims and more diff usely on the school community; the publicity given to incidence rates, and to pupil suicides due to bullying; the resulting pressure from former victims and parents, and court cases against schools and education authorities; and in some countries, relatively new legal requirements (e.g., in England since 1999, it has been a legal requirement to have a school anti-bullying policy; a considerable number of European countries have some such requirement; Ananiadou & Smith, 2002). It is worth noting that some relevant interventions would be beyond the scope of the school; for example, parent training, parental stress management, dealing with community violence, moderating effects of the mass media. Also, some researchers (e.g., Galloway & Roland, 2004) believe that broad interventions to improve school climate are more important than “bully-focused”

Jimerson_C010.indd 137

137

8/4/2009 4:32:43 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F

138 • Peter K. Smith

interventions. Nevertheless, almost all intervention programs include some direct anti-bullying components. Direct interventions against bullying can be classified as responding to the main causes of bullying. Some focus on the bullying children: those who get particular satisfaction (and rewards) from bullying because of their temperament, home background, and peer group; some focus on those children who may be at greater risk of being a victim, because of their temperament, home background, lack of good friends, disability, or other kind of difference; and some focus on the school as providing greater or lesser opportunities for bullying to take place, through the physical environment and the school ethos, and sanctions policy. Such school-based interventions date back over 25 years, to the first nationwide Norwegian intervention campaign of 1982–84; since then there have been large-scale projects in England, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Australia, Canada, and the United States. These campaigns have had varying success rates. The evaluation of the first Norwegian campaign in Bergen, by Olweus (1993), produced reductions in bullying of around 50%. Subsequent work in Bergen has also produced encouraging results, of around 35–45% (Olweus, 2004). However, most other studies (including replications of the Olweus program in Schleswig-Holstein, and in South Carolina) have had more modest impacts. A few studies have reported some negative results (Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004). Some explanations for these varying success rates include the nature of intervention, the length of intervention, the extent of support by researchers promoting and evaluating the intervention, the extent of ownership by school and effective implementation, the age or grade of pupils, and the neighborhood, community, and national context (Smith et al., 2003). Here, we will focus on one of these—the age, or grade, of pupils. How do primary and secondary schools compare, in the literature on anti-bullying interventions? Some projects are just at one school level, either primary or secondary (e.g., Cross, Hall, Hamilton, Pintabona & Erceg, 2004, in Australia; Rosenbluth, Whitaker, Sanchez, & Valle, 2004, in the United States; Alsaker, 2004, in Switzerland). In two such cases it was nevertheless reported that interventions had more effect with younger pupils. In Finland, Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Voeten, and Sinisammal (2004) found that intervention effects were generally greater in Grade 4 (10–11 years) than Grade 5 (11–12 years). In Italy, Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, and Cowie (2003) found that intervention effects were greater in 12- than 13- or 14-year-olds. Some other studies do not report age differences (e.g., Pepler, Craig, O’Connell, Atlas & Charach, 2004, in Canada; Limber, Nation, Tracy, Melton, & Flerx, 2004, in the United States; Ortega, del Rey, & Mora-Merchan, 2004, in Spain; Koivisto, 2004, in Finland; O’Moore & Minton, 2004, in Ireland). However, some direct comparison of effects in primary and secondary schools is available in five studies. These will be reviewed in turn. Olweus (Norway)

Olweus now has data on a number of large-scale evaluations of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in Bergen and Oslo, Norway; the first program was from 1983–85, with subsequent programs in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In a report on the findings from six projects, Olweus (2005, p. 4) writes (following a description of uniformly positive results in primary schools) that:

P

Results in lower secondary schools have also been clearly positive in about half of our intervention projects, while the other projects have shown weaker effects.…We have good reasons to believe that the more varied effects in the lower secondary schools are connected to how teaching is organized at this level and to the student’ entry into puberty with its attendant increase in opposition to adult authorities. In addition we


8/4/2009 4:32:48 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F

Bullying in Primary and Secondary Schools • 139

have registered that important components of the program are not implemented to the same degree as in the primary schools.

Hanewinkel: Schleswig-Holstein Project (Germany)

Hanewinkel (2004) reported findings from use of the Olweus program in 37 primary and secondary schools, from grades 3 to 12 (ages 9–18 years), in 1994–96; grades 3 and 4 are (later) primary, grades 5 to 9 are Hauptschule or basic secondary, while grades 10 to 12 are higher grades for continuing students. The intervention was modeled after the Olweus program, with school-, class-, and individual-level interventions. Hanewinkel assessed both low-level (sometimes or more) and high-level (once a week or more) levels of victimization, and also separately for direct and indirect victimization. In fact, the program had no positive effects (some negative) for indirect victimization. Looking at the more positive findings for direct victimization, and averaging over grades at each level, there was not much difference by sector for low-level victimization: changes (reductions) of 12.4% in primary, 14.4% in secondary, or 11.9% in secondary through to Grade 12. However, for high-level victimization, the reduction in primary grades at 13.6% is much greater than that in secondary at 2.1%, or secondary through to Grade 12, which showed an increase of 10.6%. Hanewinkel comments of the intervention that the effects were most visible in younger grades but does not speculate further on why this might be so. Smith & Sharp; Cowie, Boulton, Thompson: Sheffield Project—England

In this project, 23 schools in Sheffield (16 primary schools, 8–11 years; 7 secondary, 11–16 years) undertook to develop a whole-school anti-bullying policy and to implement from a range of optional interventions, over four school terms from 1992–1993. The percentage changes in being bullied (decreases) averaged 14.1% in primary schools, considerably more than the 6.8% in secondary schools (see Smith & Sharp, 1994). Pitts and Smith: Home Office Project, England

In this Home Office funded project in Liverpool and London, England, four schools (1 primary and 1 secondary in each city), took part in interventions between 1991 and 1993. The percentage change in those never bullied (increases) averaged 35% in the primary schools, but only 4% in the secondary schools. Again, in neither of these English projects were possible reasons put forth for these differences in success (Pitts & Smith, 1995). Stevens, van Oost, and de Bourdeaudhuij: Flanders Project (Belgium)

P

In this project (Stevens, van Oost, & de Bourdeaudhuij, 2004), 18 schools took part (9 primary and 9 secondary schools, pupils aged 10–16 years) in interventions modeled on the Bergen and Sheffield projects, between 1995 and 1997. There were three schools each in three conditions: (a) Treatment with Support, (b) Treatment without Support, and (c) Control. The percentage changes (decreases) in victim rates after 2 years were: for Treatment with Support, primary 3%, secondary 0%; for Treatment without Support, primary 6%, secondary 1%; for Control, primary 3%, secondary 1%. Changes are small, but in all conditions larger in the primary schools; as Stevens, de Bourdeaudhuij and van Oost (2000) comment, “The results revealed clear differences between the primary and secondary school level” (p. 206). The authors cite as possible reasons, developmental changes in conformity, and organizational differences between primary


8/4/2009 4:32:48 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


and secondary schools; within the latter category they cite more complex timetables and more difficulties for teachers to react (to bullying), in secondary schools, and more difficulty in program implementation. Why Are Interventions Less Effective in Secondary Schools?

It does appear that when the success rates of interventions have been directly compared between primary and secondary schools, changes in secondary schools are smaller. Why should this be so? I reviewed some evidence concerning this at the National Coalition Against Bullying conference in Melbourne, Australia, in 2005, drawing on my own review material and the writings of Stevens and colleagues (2000). Subsequently, I have received comments on this issue from Olweus (personal communication, 2007; reproduced verbatim in appendix A). The main factors suggested are, Developmental Changes, as children reach puberty and adolescence in secondary school, and Organizational Changes, related to the larger size and more complex organization of secondary (compared to primary) schools.

Developmental Changes Adolescence has traditionally been seen as a period of turmoil and rebellion, initially based on psychoanalytic theorizing from the earlier twentieth century. While an over-emphasis on this was later put in perspective (e.g., Rutter, Graham, Chadwick, & Yule, 1976), nevertheless the distinctive nature of adolescence has been re-affirmed in much recent research. For example, Arnett (1999) contends that adolescence is characterized by conflict with parents, mood disruption, and risk behaviors; albeit moderated by cultural and socialization factors. Biological and cognitive changes in the adolescent years (such as neural and hormonal changes; sexual maturity; cognitive changes, adolescent egocentrism and the imaginary audience, the search for identity) result in changes in relationships. These can be readily understood from an evolutionary developmental psychology perspective, as broadly adaptive for many adolescents as they show their independence from parents and find and display their status in the peer group at a time when this is important for becoming attractive to the opposite sex (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Weisfeld & Janisse, 2005). Particularly relevant in understanding bullying are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Changes in pupil-pupil relationships Changes in pupil attitudes to adults and school Greater risk-taking and anti-social behavior generally An increasing stability of victim and bullying tendencies, with age

P

Organizational Changes Secondary schools are much larger than primary schools. In many countries and school systems, primary schools typically have around 100–200 pupils, whereas secondary schools may have 500–1,000 pupils. Inevitably secondary schools have a more complex organization, with more hierarchical layers and specialist roles in the teaching staff. In primary schools, most teaching is in one homeroom, so that the class-based peer group is rather constant and the class teacher has a formative influence. In secondary schools, with more specialist or optional subjects and more banding by ability according to subject, pupils often move to different classrooms and having varying class peers in different subjects; they may have their own tutor group, but there is likely no single teacher with the same influence as in the primary school. These could have implications for intervention programs as: 5. Change is more difficult in large organizations and intervention programs are less wellimplemented.


8/4/2009 4:32:48 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


6. The curriculum in secondary schools focuses more on traditional subject matter and examinations, and places less emphasis on personal and social education. 7. Teachers’ roles may differ; specifically teachers in secondary schools may see responsibility for dealing with bullying as more diff used, and find it more difficult to react quickly to incidents.

These various explanations will be considered in turn, to assess what evidence may support them. Developmental Changes

Pupils enter secondary school around age 11 years, shortly before or at the beginning of the period of puberty for most adolescents. The current age of menarche in Western societies is around 12–13 years (Hermann-Giddens, Slora, & Wasserman, 1997); with spermache for boys some 18 months later. Puberty is brought about by an increase in hormonal activity, specifically growth hormones, and adrenocorticotrophic and gonadotrophic hormones, which, in turn, bring about the growth spurt and changes in sexual characteristics and sexual maturity. These obviously affect behavior through the young person’s awareness of these changes, and the fact that they are now able to have children themselves. There have been decades of debate about the extent to which these hormonal changes also have direct effects on behavior, with evidence, for example, that the onset of puberty increases parent-child distance and conflict, independent of chronological age (Steinberg, 1988). The pathways appear complicated, and Buchanan, Eccles and Becker (1992, p.101) concluded that “We have only begun to comprehend the many ways in which hormones affect and are affected by human emotions and behavior.” More recent work has placed greater emphasis on puberty and brain development (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Romer & Walker, 2007). Just prior to puberty, there is an increase in grey matter, followed by a period of synaptic pruning after puberty which occurs mainly in the frontal cortex. It appears that a lot of remodeling of the brain is going on in areas that affect emotional regulation, response inhibition, planning, and executive functioning. There is some evidence that during this period the brain areas mediating emotional experience change more rapidly than those mediating cognitive regulation (Monk et al., 2003). These differential changes may well contribute to relevant aspects such as greater self-focus in adolescence and greater risk-taking. Whether due to direct or indirect hormonal influences, neural developmental changes, or to more sociocultural factors such as expectations about and stereotypes of adolescence, this period is generally recognized as a time of turmoil, of increased peer pressure, and of strains on adult relationships, especially those in positions of authority (parents, teachers). A number of well-documented changes in adolescence could help understand why at least some adolescents become more resistant to anti-bullying interventions. 1. Changes in Pupil-Pupil Relationships

P

Characteristic changes in adolescence include more anxiety about friendships and more conformity to peer pressure, especially in anti-social situations; this increase in concern about peer relationships and status with same-sex and opposite-sex peers can lead to both bullying as an attempt to enhance status, and negative attitudes toward victims (and schemes to protect victims) as a way of protecting status.

More Anxiety about Friendships Anxieties about friendships with peers appear to peak at early adolescence. For example Coleman (1980) asked adolescents to complete unfi nished sentences


8/4/2009 4:32:48 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


about friendships in a small group, and analyzed the results for their emotional content. Themes of anxiety and fear of rejection by friends increased from 11 to 13 and then to 15 years, but declined by 17 years (the effect being stronger for girls than boys).

More Conformity to Peer Pressure, Especially in Anti-Social Situations In a classic study, Berndt (1979) measured conformity to attitudes of peers, in hypothetical neutral (e.g., going to a fi lm), prosocial (e.g., visiting a sick relative), and antisocial (e.g., stealing from shop) situations. Conformity to peers generally increased from 9 to 12 to peak at 15 years (then declined), but this increase was especially marked for conformity to peer pressure in antisocial situations. Concern about Peer Group Status Can Be an Incentive to Bully Others Rigby (1997), in a survey of Australian children, asked whether Bullying other students gets you admired by other children at this school. The percent agreeing with this was much greater in secondary school pupils: for boys, in primary schools 13.9%, in secondary schools 23.4%; for girls, in primary schools 9.5%, in secondary schools 14.5%. Pellegrini and Bartini (2001), and Pellegrini and Long (2002, 2003) argue that aggression/ bullying is used in early adolescence to enhance status, particularly with opposite-sex peers. Th is is particularly important in the first years of secondary school, as new status relationships are being established at an age when peer status issues are especially salient. Each sex uses preferred modes of aggression or bullying. Pellegrini and Long examined opposite-sex dating popularity in U.S. 12- to 13- year-olds. They found that for boys, physical aggression (but not relational aggression) correlates with opposite-sex dating popularity; for girls, it tended to be relational aggression (but not physical aggression) that did so.

More Nnegative Attitudes toward Victims Rigby and Slee (1991) assessed attitudes toward victims in Australian students. In general, pupils express sympathetic attitudes toward victims, but a sizeable minority do not. The pro-victim attitudes are also greater in girls than boys. However, for both sexes (though more obviously for boys), these pro-victim attitudes are lowest at 14–6 years. Very similar age trends have been reported in Italian and English students by Menesini and colleagues (1997). These studies did not find strong interactions with gender, but Olweus and Endresen (1998), in a Norwegian sample, located the effect specifically in boys’ attitudes toward boy victims. They found that (hypothetical) empathic concern for boys to boys decreased from 10 to 16, but increased for boys to girls, and for girls to either boys or girls.

More Skepticism about Peer Support Schemes in Secondary Schools Pupils, and Boys Besides more negative attitudes toward victims in adolescence, there is also evidence that peer support schemes, which are designed to help victims by providing befriending, mentoring or counseling from peer supporters, are viewed more negatively in secondary school, especially by boys. Smith and Watson (2004) reported findings from an evaluation of peer support schemes in 20 schools in England, including attitudinal responses from 834 pupils. When asked, “Is the peer support system in your school a good idea?”, while the majority said “yes” and very few said “no,” views are markedly (and significantly) more skeptical in secondary than primary school pupils, and especially in boys; see Table 10.1.

P

2. Changes in Pupil Attitudes to Adults and School Besides increased peer pressure, it is well documented that parent-child relationships become less close in adolescence. For example, large-scale U. S. data from Rossi and Rossi (1991) gave


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


Table 10.1 Percentage Responses to ‘Is the peer support system in your school a good idea?’ in a Sample of English Primary (n = 455) and Secondary (n = 379) School Pupils (adapted from Smith & Watson, 2004) Yes

Not Sure

No

Primary boys

75

23

2

Primary girls

82

16

1

Secondary boys

59

35

7

Secondary girls

67

30

3

ratings for closeness to parents, at ages 10, 16, and 25; data was available for the four different parent-child dyads (mother-daughter, etc); and for two birth cohorts, those born in 1925–39 who were adolescents in the 1940s–50s, and those born during 1950–59 who were adolescents in the 1960s–70s. In every case, rated closeness is lower at 16 than at 10 years, recovering by 25. The dip in closeness is more pronounced in the later cohort, probably reflecting the turbulence and social protest of the 1960s, but to some extent is ubiquitous. There appears to be little data on age-related changes in pupil attitudes toward teachers or other adults in school, and to schools themselves. 3. Greater Risk-taking and Anti-Social Behavior Generally

Arnett (1992, 1999) sees reckless or risk-taking behaviors as characteristic of adolescence. These can include socially accepted behaviors, such as daring sporting activities; or less socially unacceptable behaviors and delinquent acts such as having unprotected sexual intercourse, drugtaking, shop-lifting, joy-riding, vandalism. In general, criminal offending rates are highest in the late teenage years (15–19 years; Farrington, 2005). The peer group is an important influence here; Berndt and Keefe (1995), in a study of U.S. 13- to 14-year-olds, found that those pupils with disruptive friends increased more in self-reported disruption; those with high quality friendships were generally less disruptive and more involved in school, but those whose friends were disruptive but also high quality were particularly likely to become more disruptive. Reputation enhancement theory (Emler et al., 1987; Carroll et al., 1999) suggests that ‘deviant’ adolescents and adolescent peer groups have different values concerning antisocial behavior; for non-deviant groups antisocial behavior might be a reason for exclusion, but for deviant groups it is a reason for inclusion. Bullying is clearly one form of antisocial behavior, which anti-bullying interventions generally highlight as being disapproved of by adults and the school; so opposition to such interventions may be especially likely in these deviant peer groups. 4. An Increasing Stability of Victim and Bulling Tendencies, with Age

P

The incidence of self-reported victimization decreases with age (although with sometimes a temporary rise as pupils start secondary school); although the incidence of self-reported bullying others does not show such a decrease (Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999). However, even if victim rates fall with age, there is evidence that victims in secondary school are in more severe difficulties. They are less likely to seek help, and the stability of victim status is higher (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Card, 2003). Being labeled as a victim, and getting into a negative spiral of low self-esteem and lack of good friends, can make recovery more difficult (Graham & Juvonen, 2001). The stability of bullying roles also increases with age (Monks, Smith, & Swettenham,


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


2005; Boulton & Smith, 1994); besides developing characteristically aggressive behavior patterns, older bullying children may also get labeled as aggressive and bullying, which may in fact enhance their status in certain peer groups and again make change more difficult. Organizational Changes

Secondary schools are different from primary schools, and their different characteristics might affect the success with which school-based anti-bullying interventions have impact, independent of any age-related changes in the pupils themselves. We will look at size and complexity and how this might effect implementation; changes in curricula; and changes in teacher’s role. 5. Change Is More Difficult in Large Organizations

Secondary Schools Are Larger in Size Secondary schools are typically much larger in size than primary schools; but given that much anti-bullying prevention work is either class-based or individual-based, at least in terms of face-to-face interaction with pupils, it is not clear that school size in itself would be an important mediating factor. In fact, most evidence suggests that school size does not correlate significantly with rates of bullying or victimization (Olweus, 2004; Whitney & Smith, 1993), or school violence generally (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005).

More Complex Organizational Structure There are more levels of management in a typical secondary school. This might make the implementation of an anti-bullying program more difficult, or less effective, if for example there is a top-down approach from senior management. Although much intervention work is class-based, the homeroom class has less importance in secondary schools. Nevertheless, in an analysis of school-level predictors of implementation of classroom intervention measures (in schools in Norway using the Olweus Bullying Prevention program), Olweus (2004) found the most important predictors of implementation and effectiveness to be Openness in Communication and School Attention to Bullying Problems. Neither of these appear obviously related to size or complexity of organization, but rather to school climate and whether bullying is seen as a priority for teacher-based work. 6. The Curriculum in Secondary Schools Focuses More on Traditional Subject Matter

Lessons are Less Class-Based In secondary schools it is not so easy for one class teacher to give a consistent message to influence pupils, as pupils will likely have quite a number of different teachers. This might particularly impact interventions centered on class-based rules, such as the Olweus program traditionally has been. However, most anti-bullying programs (e.g., the Sheffield, England, and Flanders projects mentioned above) use school-based rather than classbased policies. If these are implemented reasonably uniformly across the school, then the change in teaching and lesson structures might have little impact on the effectiveness of intervention.

P

Less Social Relationships Curriculum in Secondary Schools It is not clear whether this is the case. Personal and social education is a component of the school curriculum in many countries (e.g., it is a required component in both primary and secondary schools in England). A new curriculum in this area (SEAL: Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) includes a module on bullying; it is currently being rolled out in primary schools and a version is being developed for secondary schools. Additionally, the larger size of secondary schools provides the


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


opportunity for having specialized staff with responsibility for relationship issues. There may be a school counselor; or in English secondary schools, there will be a senior member of staff with responsibility for pastoral care of pupils. Such persons are generally less available or absent in primary schools. 7. Teacher’s Roles May Differ

In the absence of a classroom teacher with very clear responsibility for pupils in their class, teachers in secondary schools might see responsibility for dealing with bullying as more diffused, and therefore might be less likely to take action. Stevens and colleagues (2000) suggest that they may find it more difficult to react quickly to incidents.

Diff usion of Responsibility There appears to be little evidence to test these predictions, but Olweus (2004), in his study of predictors of implementation and effectiveness of class-based intervention measures, found the most important predictors at the teacher level were Perceived Staff Importance (influence and responsibility), Read Program Information, and Perceived Level of Bullying. The first of these might be influenced by the diff usion of responsibility that is argued to be more likely in secondary schools. The other two predictors appear to relate more to individual teacher commitment, and to how they evaluate the seriousness of the problem— issues not clearly related to school organization. Interestingly, two factors which Olweus found did not predict implementation effectiveness were measures of Teacher-Leadership Collaboration and Teacher-Teacher Collaboration (which, in fact, did predict weakly, but in a negative direction).

Teacher Involvement in Implementation of Anti-Bullying Programs Some data on this can be found in the results from the Sheffield, England project (Smith & Sharp, 1994). Table 10.2 presents averaged data for the 16 primary and 7 secondary schools that took part, together with the range of scores across schools in each sector. Staff Involvement was based on interviews with participating staff in the schools, in which their involvement in policy development was coded on a 1 (low) to 4 (high) scale. Policy plus Options Input is a measure of the amount of time and effort (staff meetings, training sessions, classroom sessions, etc.) that each school put into preparing and implementing the whole school anti-bullying policy and associated interventions; the maximum score possible would have been 104. Perceived Action is a pupil-based measure, given at post-test, where pupils used a 5-point scale to indicate whether the school had done much to try and stop bullying. The results do suggest that staff in primary schools were more involved in the development of the anti-bullying policy. However, there is no suggestion that primary schools put any more effort into the interventions. The difference in action as perceived by pupils is also quite slight. What is also noticeable in every measure is the large range of scores. Any between-sector differences are considerably less than within-sector differences. Table 10.2 Means, and Range of Scores by School, for Anti-Bullying Implementation in Schools in the Shefﬁeld Project (adapted from Smith & Sharp, 1994) Policy + Options Input

Perceived Action

Primary schools n = 16

2.68 (1.50–3.75)

45.5 (16–73)

1.17 (0.54–1.73)

Secondary schools n = 7

1.86 (1.10–3.13)

50.4 (20–79)

0.96 (0.58–1.39)

P

Staff Involvement


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


Discussion

This chapter has sought to find reasons for a well-replicated finding that anti-bullying interventions often have less success in secondary than in primary schools. Overall, there appears good reason from many decades of psychological research to suppose that individual developmental factors are important in this. As pupils enter puberty, they assert their independence, tend to conflict more with adults, and to engage in reckless or risk-taking behaviors. It becomes more important to impress peers and to seek status in the peer group. What form this takes will depend upon both the peer culture in the school and the wider society. However, in western societies the expectations of personal expression and autonomy, and the psychosocial moratorium—what Arnett (1992) terms “broad socialization”—will tend to facilitate such changes. Bullying weaker children can be a way of demonstrating power and status, and pupils who bully may appear cool and be thought of as popular (perceived popularity), even if many pupils may not like them personally. Helping victims runs a danger of being perceived as uncool and might lower the status of the defender. Of course, such trends are not inevitable. Older adolescent pupils are becoming more cognitively sophisticated, and able to understand others’ feelings. Not all adolescents join deviant peer groups. Helping and defending behaviors can be seen as praiseworthy, and some adolescents will have a more mature and longer-term grasp of opportunities and will not reject school values. But generally, these risks appear greater in secondary schools due to the age of the pupils there. Secondary schools are also larger. This will interact with peer group characteristics, in that the peer group will be larger. The referent peer group is likely to be a whole year group rather than a class. The peer group organization will itself be more complex, with different types of cliques as well as varying positions within cliques (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995). What impact does this have on bullying? There is certainly more opportunity for some deviant peer groups to arise; but there is also perhaps more opportunity for shy or victim-prone children to find other friends that they feel safe with. Overall, the variance of effectiveness of anti-bullying implementation programs might be increased, but it is not clear that the overall effectiveness would be greatly changed. Other organizational factors may impact the success of anti-bullying interventions but the evidence is far from conclusive. Indeed, the evidence seems rather limited, but in general, it appears that school climate rather than school size (or organizational structure) is more important. Effective leadership and a climate of opinion in favor of intervention appear most important. There is some evidence (from Olweus’ analyses and from the Sheffield project) that teachers in primary schools may feel more directly involved and responsible for anti-bullying work; but this does not necessarily translate into implementation, either as recorded by researchers or perceived by pupils. Clearly, organizational differences between primary and secondary sectors cannot be dismissed as an explanation of more limited intervention effectiveness in secondary schools, but developmental factors appear much better established. Moreover, the great withinsector school differences point to the importance of school factors related to leadership and school climate, rather than size and complexity of organization. Summary of Implications for Practice

P

Many implications of this review simply reinforce existing good practice recommendations. It is clearly important to have good communication of school policy across the whole school, and a consistent response to bullying; to encourage good classroom climate and pupil-teacher relationships; and to involve parents and the community constructively (see Table 10.3).


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


Table 10.3 Implications for Practice

Be aware that bringing about changes in bullying behaviors in secondary schools is often more challenging than doing so in primary schools In both sectors, effective leadership, commitment to anti-bullying work, and positive school climate are important factors for success Especially in secondary schools, it will be important to involve pupils as much as possible in anti-bullying work – through policy development, and through peer support schemes, for example. Peer group status is an especially important factor in secondary school pupils. Peer support schemes will benefit from having high status peer supporters. Victims of bullying will benefit from assertiveness training and development of friendship schools, to raise their status in the peer group

Although much of adolescent development is biologically primed, socialization does have an influence; in Western societies we will not wish to move to what Arnett (1992) terms “narrow socialization”—the kind of tight restrictions on adolescent development and self-expression found in many traditional societies. But it is legitimate for schools to develop effective antibullying policies and expect pupils to follow them; and this is likely to be more effective if pupils themselves are involved as much as possible, not only in developing the policy but also in implementing it. More pupil-led involvement may be crucial when teacher influence is relatively less. Peer support schemes are an obvious avenue here. The most successful peer support schemes are able to attract peer supporters (including enough boys) who are popular and of high standing in the peer group. Use of information technology (e.g., a school intranet referral system) can be useful here. More evidence is needed on the effectiveness of peer support schemes and they have a number of pitfalls, but an effective peer support scheme may enhance school climate and have a very positive effect on the ethos of peer groups, as well as having a more direct function of supporting victims. Given the greater importance of status and power in adolescent peer groups, another important strand of intervention is going to be helping victims of peer bullying acquire more status and power themselves. Assertiveness training was for example used, with some success, in the Sheffield project (Smith & Sharp, 1994). A project in Kansas has used physical education and self-defense classes to teach self-regulation skills (Twemlow et al., 2001). Also important is to encourage friendship and social skills in victims and potential victims (Fox & Boulton, 2005). Ways in which potential victims can acquire status by providing a range of activities and opportunities to do well, can help break the cycle of despair that some pupils find themselves in. References

P

Alsaker, F. D. (2004). Bernese programme against victimisation in kindergarten and elementary school. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 289–306).Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Ananiadou, K., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Legal requirements and nationally circulated materials against school bullying in European countries. Criminal Justice, 2, 471–491. Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339–373. Arnett, J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54, 317–326. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 183–204. Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: culture, neighborhood, family, school and gender. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 608–616. Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A.D. (2000). Evolutionary development psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


P

Blakemore, S. J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296–312. Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315–329. Buchanan, C. M., Eccles, J. S., & Becker, J. B. (1992). Are adolescents the victims of raging hormones: evidence for activational effects of hormones on moods and behavior at adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 62–107. Cairns, R. B., Leung, M-C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence: fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Development, 66, 1330–1345. Card, N. (2003, April). Victims of peer aggression: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at Society for Research in Child Development biennial meeting, Tampa, Florida. Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Hattie, J., Durkin, K, et al. (1999). Adolescent reputation enhancement: Differentiating delinquent, nondelinquent, and at-risk youths.. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 40, 593–606. Coleman, J. C. (1980). The nature of adolescence. London: Methuen. Cross, D., Hall, M., Hamilton, G., Pintabona, Y., & Erceg, E. (2004). Australia: The friendly schools project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp.187–21). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Emler, N., Reicher, S., Ross, A., et al. (1987). The social context of delinquent conduct, Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 28, 99–109. Farrington, D. P. (2005). Introduction to integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. Advances in criminological theory, Vol. 14 (pp 1–14). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 313–328. Galloway, D., & Roland, E. (2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always the best? In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 37–53). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (Eds.). (2001). An attributional approach to peer victimization. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimised (pp. 49–72). New York: Guildford. Hanewinkel, R. (2004). Prevention of bullying in German schools: An evaluation of an anti-bullying approach. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 81–97). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hermann-Giddens, M., Slora, E., & Wasserman, R. (1997). Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls. Pediatrics, 99, 505–512. Koivisto, M. (2004). A follow-up survey of anti-bullying interventions in the comprehensive schools of Kempele in 1990–98. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 235–249). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention programme in the southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 55–79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children’s responsibility to take action against bullying: evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 1–14. Menesini, E., Eslea, M., Smith, P. K., Genta, M. L., Giannetti, E., Fonzi, A., & Costabile, A. (1997). A cross-national comparison of children’s attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 245–257. Monk, C. M., McClure, E. B., Nelson, E. E., et al. (2003). Adolescent immaturity in attention-related brain engagement to emotional facial expression. Neuroimage, 20, 420–428. Monks, C.P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). The psychological correlates of peer victimization in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profi les. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 571–588. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention program: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Olweus, D. (2005). New positive results with the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in 37 Oslo schools. Unpublished report. Bergen, Norway: HEMIL-Center. Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (1998). The importance of sex-of-stimulus object: Age trends and sex differences in empathic responsiveness. Social Development, 3, 370–388. O’Moore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2004). Ireland: the Donegal Primary Schools’ anti-bullying project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 275–287). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


P

Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Mora-Merchan, J.A. (2004). SAVE model: An anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 167–185). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affi liative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142–163. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 257–278. Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., O’Connell, P., Atlas, R. ,& Charach, A. (2004). Making a difference in bullying: Evaluation of a systemic school-based programme in Canada.In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 125–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pitts, J., & Smith, P. (1995). Preventing school bullying. London: Home Office Police Research Group. Rigby, K. (1994). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 202-220. Rigby, K. (2002). A meta-evaluation of methods and approaches to reducing bullying in preschools and early primary schools in Australia. Canberra: Attorney General’s Department, Crime Prevention Branch. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian schoolchildren: Reported behavior and attitudes to victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. Romer, D., & Walker, E. F. (Eds.). (2007). Adolescent psychopathology and the developing brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rosenbluth, B., Whitaker, D. J., Sanchez, E., & Valle, L. A. (2004). The Expect Respect project: Preventing bullying and sexual harassment in US elementary schools. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 211–233). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rossi, A. H., & Rossi, P. H. (1991). Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the life course. New York: de Gruyter. Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O., & Yule, W. (1976). Adolescent turmoil: fact or fiction? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 35–56. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Voeten, M., & Sinisammal, M. (2004). Targeting the group as a whole: The Finnish anti-bullying intervention. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 244–273). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 591–599. Smith, P. K., Pepler, D. K., & Rigby, K. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, D. J., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560 Smith, P. K., Madsen, K., & Moody, J. (1999). What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied in school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research, 41, 267–285. Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. Smith, P. K., & Watson, D. (2004). Evaluation of the CHIPS (ChildLine in Partnership with Schools) programme. Research report RR570 to DfES. London: HMSO. Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parent-child distance and pubertal maturation. Developmental Psychology, 24, 122–128. Stevens, V., de Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195–210. Stevens, V., Van Oost, P., & de Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2004). Interventions against bullying in Flemish schools: Programme development and evaluation. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 141–165). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., Evans, R., & Ewbank, R. (2001). Creating a peaceful school learning environment: A controlled study of an elementary school intervention to reduce violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 808–810. Weisfeld, G. E., & Janisse, H. C. (2005). Some functional aspects of human adolescence. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 189–218). New York: Guilford. Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25.


8/4/2009 4:32:49 PM

Copyright © 2010

P R R O O O O F F


Appendix A

Comments from Dan Olweus on why interventions may be less effective in older pupils (personal communication, May 16, 2007). With regard to the issue of weaker results for students in junior high/lower secondary grades, I would like to say first that we obtained positive results also for what at that time was called the grade 7 cohort (the lowest grade in junior high; the grade system was later changed and the designation now is grade 8 in Norway) in the first Bergen Project. We also obtained clear reductions for the grade 9 cohort (+ for the younger cohorts; the grade 9 cohort was the only cohort from the junior high grades in this project) in the second Bergen Project, but these results have not been published in English journals (only a short report in Norwegian). But generally, I certainly agree that it is more difficult to get good results at these grade levels. In talking about and presenting this issue I have usually invoked the following four factors as explanations (in brief): •

The organisation of the teaching is different in these grades and teaching focuses much more on subject matter than on social relations. The role of the homeroom/classroom teacher becomes less important (with fewer hours of teaching in the class) and the responsibility for the social relations among the students is "diff used" among the teachers (no one feels responsible). The teachers' definition of their own task as teachers (related to the first point) implies that they don't see it as their task to help solve or prevent bullying problems (and such responsibility was found to be an important factor in affecting degree of implementation of the program in the Kallestad and Olweus 2003 study) which in turn has the consequence that the program generally gets less well implemented in junior high school grades (documented in our internal analyses). Important components of the program such as class meetings, role playing, and introduction and enforcement of classroom/school rules against bullying, are less often/well implemented. Students enter puberty and tend to develop generally oppositional behaviour in response to adult views, values, and norms. Such behavior changes are also likely to come into play with regard to school efforts to change aggressive or generally acting out behavior. Many students don't want any longer to be "kind", "nice" and cooperative in relation to the adult world. They want to present themselves as independent, daring and oppositional. Many behavior tendencies tend to crystallize and be more automatized with increasing age. This is also likely to apply to aggressive/bullying tendencies and this will probably make the task of changing kids with such tendencies more difficult.

•

•

•

P

This is a quick summary of my key points on this issue.


8/4/2009 4:32:50 PM