Re-thinking approaches to reducing bullying behaviour

By Donna Cross, Winthrop Professor, Telethon Kids Institute and The University of Western Australia in Blogs

Bullying has traditionally been seen by schools as a behaviour problem that requires sanctions or consequences to “stop the behaviour from happening again”. Yet evidence suggests that consequences - especially harsh consequences that punish the perpetrator - are counterproductive when trying to build and maintain a positive school climate where power is not used to dominate others. Treating bullying as only a behaviour problem without considering it to also be an education and health problem, may fail to help the perpetrator behaviour better and understand the benefits of this change for them and others, instead may only incite resentment from the perpetrator.

Bullying refers to aggressive actions carried out repeatedly over time to intentionally harm a person who finds it hard to stop this bullying from continuing (Olweus, 1980). This behaviour is not uncommon among young Australians, with 25% of those aged 8-14 years being bullied frequently (defined as every few weeks or more often), and 9% bullying others frequently (Cross et al, 2009). More recently, with rapid developments in communication and information technologies, cyberbullying has emerged as a form of bullying behaviour that is particularly concerning. Cyberbullying behaviours include teasing, threatening, humiliating or socially isolating others using phone calls, text messages, emails, social networking sites, instant messages and websites (Smith et al., 2008). All forms of bullying appear be motivated by a perpetrator’s desire to gain approval and recognition from their peers (Emler & Reicher, 1995), to be popular (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012) or socially powerful (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2007).

Bullying and cyberbullying contribute uniquely and directly to mental health problems, with potentially severe and long lasting consequences (Hemphill, Kotevski, & Heerde, 2015; Hemphill et al., 2011). Bullying behaviour is a significant (preventable) contributor to young people’s poor mental health for both the perpetrators and/or targets. While the risks of bullying to the targets are well-known, including emotional distress, school non-attendance,  low self-esteem, difficulty making friends, social isolation, depression, suicidal ideation, deliberate self-harm and antisocial behaviours (Cross, Lester, & Barnes, 2015; Hemphill et al., 2015; Hemphill et al., 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; Sourander et al., 2010; Sourander, Ronning, Brunstein-Klomek, & et al., 2009), those who bully others are also at risk.  Bullying perpetration is linked to an increased risk of experiencing psychosomatic symptoms, anxiety, depression and suicidality (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Sourander et al., 2009), as well as substance and alcohol use, violence and criminal activity (Hemphill et al., 2015; Kim, Catalano, Haggerty, & Abbott, 2011). Further, persistent perpetration and victimisation are predictive of substantial use of government support, such as public health and justice, by 28 years of age (Scott, Knapp, Henderson, & Maughan, 2001). 

Multiple factors are associated with the manifestation of bullying behaviour. Accordingly, single level programs such as the provision of classroom curriculum only, or targeted interventions engaging only higher risk young people, while necessary, are not sufficient to provide an effective and sustainable response (Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007).  Whole-school interventions are described as the most effective, non-stigmatising means to reduce bullying behaviour (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011).  Using a socio-ecological framework, these interventions acknowledge the impact of numerous individual, social and community factors on young people’s likelihood of being involved in bullying situations (Cross et al.; Espelage, 2014). Research suggests that whole-school programs can reduce bullying perpetration by as much as 20-23% and victimisation by 17-20% (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011).

Targeted approaches to reduce bullying have largely focussed on supporting victimised students, given psychologically vulnerable children may be a prime target for bullying (Delfabbro et al., 2006). However, whilst the prevalence of victimisation declines with increasing age, the prevalence of perpetration does not (Whitney & Smith, 1993), which suggests that  for every student being bullied, there may be several student perpetrators (i.e. more ‘bullies’ per ‘target’) (Borg, 1999). Importantly, limited empirical research has investigated the effectiveness of targeted approaches for individual students who bully others.

Targeted efforts that focus only on building the skills and resilience of the targeted student, may be insufficient because of the power imbalance associated with bullying. Consequently, it is essential to also work with the student who is bullying others. While there is support for restorative methods such as The Social Group Method, the Method of Shared Concern and Restorative Justice methods (Rigby & Bauman, 2009), these methods have limited quality empirical evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness. These methods are based on the assumption that perpetrators of bullying are remorseful for their behaviour and would like to make amends (Burns, Cross, Alfonso, & Maycock, 2008; Olweus, 1992). However, this approach alone can be challenging given students who bully others are generally characterised as having low levels of empathy (Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004).

There is a need for rigorous research that examines the effectiveness of targeted support interventions for students who bully others, including those interventions used to modify other problem behaviours among adolescents. One such promising intervention is Motivational Interviewing (MI). MI has been used successfully with adolescents to reduce violent behaviour, drug use and eating disorders (Hettema, Steele, & Miller, 2005; Woodin & O’Leary, 2010) and has potential for the subset of bullying perpetrators who have high cognition and use it to their advantage. The technique seeks to elicit the motivations behind individuals’ behaviour, and can direct them to other more socially appropriate means of achieving these goals.

School psychologists and other pastoral care staff report they need more training and support to develop and use a variety of strategies to support student bullying behaviour change. Current research in Western Australia, conducted by the Telethon Kids Institute, is investigating over a four-year period, the usefulness of MI and other approached used by schools to support positive behaviour change in students who regularly engage in bullying in secondary schools.  The final results from this study will be available in 2017.

References

Borg, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary schoolchildren. Educational Research, 41(2), 137-153.

Burns, S., Cross, D., Alfonso, H., & Maycock, B. (2008). Predictors of bullying among 10-11 year old school students in Australia. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1(2), 49-60.

Caravita, S., & Cillessen, A. H. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21(2), 376-395.

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA psychiatry, 70(4), 419-426.

Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. A social–ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviours. Aggression and Violent Behavior. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.016

Cross, D., Lester, L., & Barnes, A. (2015). A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of cyber and traditional bullying victimisation. International journal of public health, 60(2), 207-217.

Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J., & Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 71-90.

Emler, N., & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency: The collective management of reputation. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological Theory: Preventing Youth Bullying, Aggression, and Victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 257-264. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2014.947216

Hemphill, S., Kotevski, A., & Heerde, J. (2015). Longitudinal associations between cyber-bullying perpetration and victimization and problem behavior and mental health problems in young Australians. International Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 227-237. doi: 10.1007/s00038-014-0644-9

Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Bond, L., Kim, M. J., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2011). Longitudinal consequences of adolescent bullying perpetration and victimisation: A study of students in Victoria, Australia. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 107-116.

Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Motivational Interviewing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 91-111.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206-221.

Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S., & Ahlbom, A. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three type of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81-89.

Kim, M. J., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2011). Bullying at elementary school and problem behaviour in young adulthood: A study of bullying, violence and substance use from age 11 to age 21. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 136-144

Kokkinos, C., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and victimization among early adolescents: associations with disruptive behavior disorders. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 520-533.

Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental psychology, 16(6), 644-660.

Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon & V. L. Quincy (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rigby, K., & Bauman, S. (2009). How school personnel tackle cases of bullying. In S. Jimerson, S. Swearer & D. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. Hoboken: Routledge.

Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J., & Maughan, B. (2001). Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood. BMJ, 323(7306), 191-194.

Smith, J., Schneider, B., Smith, P., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547-560.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.

Sourander, A., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., . . . Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: a population-based study. Archives of general psychiatry, 67(7), 720-728.

Sourander, A., Ronning, J., Brunstein-Klomek, A., & et al. (2009). Childhood bullying behavior and later psychiatric hospital and psychopharmacologic treatment: Findings from the finnish 1981 birth cohort study. Archives of general psychiatry, 66(9), 1005-1012. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.122

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27-56.

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2007). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. A handbook of prevention and intervention. In J. E. Zins, M. J. Elias & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Bullying, victimization, and peer harassment (pp. 317-337). New York: Haworth Press.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78-88.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25.

Woodin, E. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2010). A brief motivational intervention for physically aggressive dating couples. Prevention Science, 11, 371-383.

 

You may also be interested in

  • 10 Steps to Deal with School Bullying and Cyber Bullying

    These steps have been created by experts at the Alannah & Madeline Foundation’s National Centre Against Bullying and is a vital guide for parents, teachers and children who need to know how to manage the issue.

    Read More >
  • Covert bullying

    The Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, commissioned by the Australian Government.

    Read More >
  • Making Australian schools safer

    There is a growing awareness within Australia of the importance of safe learning environments in promoting social and academic outcomes for students.

    Read More >

Subscribe to our eBulletin Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter below or visit our media centre for media information including media releases, spokespeople, publications and contacts.