Posted: April 24th, 2025

Psychology Homework help

Theme:

How to stop bullying at schools?

paper should be between 4 pages long (not counting the title or works cited pages) and should follow APA formatting. Be sure to include at least three (3) sources in your Works Cited page, and don’t forget to submit it as a Word document

HOW TO STOP BULLYING AT SCHOOL

Research Paper Thesis and Outline

I. Introduction

· This research is necessary because it analyzes how to stop and terminate this pandemic more profoundly. Additionally, students are less likely to bully others when they can approach ideas and problems from multiple perspectives. Teaching kindness and empathy is crucial. As parents, what are we doing wrong? What is happening to society?

Thesis: Bullying in schools is a widespread problem that can have severe consequences for victims, such as reduced academic performance, mental health issues, and even thoughts of suicide.

II. Body

1. To effectively address bullying in schools, educators, parents, and students must collaborate to foster a culture characterized by mutual respect and empathy.

2. Everything starts at home. We need to create open lines of communication among parents, educators, and students. This can help identify and address bullying behavior before it escalates.

3. Prevention and intervention:

– Create a safe environment. (Stop bullying before it starts)

– Implement social and emotional learning.

– Build strong self-esteem.

– Establish strict policies.

– Involve parents on both sides, supporting the victim and addressing the aggressor’s behavior.

Schools can construct a safe and inclusive environment by collaborating to promote empathy, respect, and inclusivity, with a focus on interventions for students involved in bullying.

III. Conclusion

Students who are subjected to bullying, whether it is physical, verbal, or even online, may experience feelings of being overwhelmed, sadness, depression, or anxiety. These experiences can have a powerful effect on their mental and emotional well-being, as well as their educational performance and social interactions.

Creating An Anti-Bullying Culture In Secondary Schools: Characterists to Consider When
Constructing Appropriate Anti-Bullying Programs

Author(s): Joseph R. Jones and Sharon Murphy Augustine

Source: American Secondary Education , Summer 2015, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Summer 2015), pp.
73-84

Published by: Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43694219

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Secondary Education

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43694219

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Creating An Anti-Bullying Culture
In Secondary Schools: Characterists to

Consider When Constructing Appropriate
Anti-Bullying Programs

Authors

Joseph R. Jones, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Tift College of Educa-
tion at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia.

Sharon Murphy Augustine, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Tift Col-

lege of Education at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia.

Abstract

Bullying in schools is a tremendous challenge that many secondary educators
are attempting to address within their school environments. However ; educa-
tors are often unsure of the attributes of an effective anti-bullying program;
thus , they tend to create programs on a “trial and error” basis. This article
provides an overview of the problem of bullying and discusses six character-
istics that should be included in attempting to create an effective anti-bullying
program: community involvement , an assessment of the school climate , a
consensus on the definition of bullying , student and parental engagement ,
professional development for faculty and staff, and ongoing program evalu-
ation.

Bullying is not a new phenomenon in schools, but the topic is currently
experiencing a renaissance of scholarly attention (Miller, Burns, & Johnson,
2013; Vail, 2009). Increased attention anti-bullying curricula in schools, es-
pecially in secondary school environments, has occurred within the context
of horrifying, deadly, and highly publicized events such as the Columbine
school shootings, which resulted in the murder of twelve students and one
teacher and the suicides of the two teen gunmen.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

In her recent article on gun violence in American schools, Gupta (201 5)
documented 55 school shootings between 1991 and 2013, which further
shows a pattern of school violence. That pattern also includes cyberbully-
ing, which has been linked to the teen suicides of Ryan Halligan in Vermont
in 2003, Megan Meier in Missouri in 2006, Jessica Logan in Ohio in 2009,
and Tyler Clementi in New Jersey in 2010. All of these teenagers committed
suicide after being targeted by individuals using social media (Wood, 201 5).
Vail (2009) noted that all forms of bullying have been linked by the “FBI
and the U.S. Department of Justice” to school violence and low academic
achievement (p. 43). All educators, especially secondary school educators,
must address what the Centers for Disease Control (201 1 ) has labeled a pub-
lic health crisis.

A Bullying Epidemic
Statistics about students’ lived experiences in schools describe a dire en-
vironment of bullying. Haynie, et al. (2001) postulated that up to 45% of
students in schools were involved in bullying practices, either as the target or
as the bully. It has been estimated that 25% of students are bullied on a regu-
lar basis, and 20% of students have bullied their peers (Bullying Statistics,
2013). In another study, 37.9% of students surveyed were involved in bully-
ing behavior (O’Brennan & Sawyer, 2008). According to researchers (Hanish
& Guerra, 2002; Hawker & Boulton, 2000), targets of bullying behaviors are
more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and loss of self-esteem.

Cyberbullying is bullying behavior that involves the use of electronic
media, such as cell phones and social media. This type of bullying is differ-
ent because harassment may be posted anonymously and may happen off
school property; thus, it is more difficult for school administrators to address.
1 6% of high school students are cyberbullied (CDC, 201 1 ). Students who are
cyberbullied experience the same detrimental results as traditional bullying
(stopbullying.org).

Factors Associated with Bullying

In discussing the bullying epidemic, it may be beneficial to view a snapshot
of factors that impact levels of harassment in secondary schools. Data from
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2013) show that racial
bullying is a tremendous challenge facing educators. In fact, racial bullying is
quite rampant among adolescents. Every minority group experienced being
a target of bullying behaviors, and Asian Americans reported receiving the
most harassment (NCES, 2013).

Data from the NCES (2013) indicate that lower socio-economic students
are at a higher risk of being bullied because of their socioeconomic status…
Students from impoverished families are at a higher risk for becoming tar-
geted and victimized by others in their schools (Due, et al., 2009). Gender

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

also plays a role in the bullying epidemic with a majority of female adoles-
cents being harassed by other females. As female students continue through
secondary school, reports of harassment for girls are dramatically higher than
boys (NCES, 2013). A majority of female bullying exists within high school
settings and connects to the “mean girl” phenomenon in which girls demean
and discipline each other (Garandeau & Cillessen, 2006).

Marginalized Students

As the data above support, bullying is a tremendous challenge in schools
as it relates to race, class, and gender, but there are two specific marginal-
ized groups who are the recipients of a majority of the harassment from
their school-age peers: non-heterosexual students and students with special
needs. One’s perceived sexual orientation is one of the strongest contributing
factors impacting bullying behavior, and the effects of homophobic bullying
are devastating for students whose sexual orientation and gender expression
differs from the majority population. Statistics reported by the Gay, Lesbian,
Straight Education Network in their National School Climate Survey (GLSEN,
201 1 ), create a picture of what students face in schools on a regular basis:

• 84.9% of students heard ‘gay’ used in a negative way frequently or
often at school

• 91 .4% reported that they felt distressed because of this language

• 71 .3% heard other homophobic remarks frequently or often.

• 56.9% of students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their
teachers or other school staff.

• 81.9% were verbally harassed (e.g., called names or threatened) in
the past year because of their sexual orientation.

• 38.3% were physically harassed (e.g., pushed or shoved) in the past
year because of their sexual orientation.

Although these data are alarming, truly conceptualizing the problem of ho-
mophobic bullying requires putting a face to the grim statistics. Consider the
case of Madison, a 20 year-old college student:

[Madison] grew up in a middle class family, one where he was ex-
pected to attend college. Although he had not come out in high
school, everyone knew he was gay. They constantly harassed him,
and he avoided sports because of the harassment and possible locker
room assaults. He learned how to skip school without his parents
finding out. To him, high school was not about having fun, but rather
it was about survival (Jones, 2014b, p.3).

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

Students with special needs are another marginalized population within
K-12 schools who receive a great amount of harassment. Students who self-
reported taking ADHD medication, for instance, experienced more bullying
than their peers did (Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Wiener & Mak, 2009). The
online community AbilityRath.org (2014) provides statistics, resources, and
networking opportunities for parents and educators. Their research reports
disturbing statistics similar to those that non-heterosexual students encoun-
tered:

• Students with special needs are two to three times more likely to be
bullied than the general population of the school building.

• 47% of parents reported that their children had been hit by peers or
siblings.

• 50% of parents reported their child was scared of their peers.

• 9% of the students with special needs were attacked by a group of
students and hurt in their “private parts.”

• 12% of parents indicated their child had never been invited to a
birthday party.

• 6% of students were almost always picked last for teams.

• 3% of students ate alone at lunch every day (abilitypath.org).

Additionally, students with special needs were told not to tattle on others
who had bullied them nearly twice as often as their non-special education
counterparts. AbilityPath (2014) presents the case of Tyler Long as an ex-
ample of the devastating effects of bullying.

[Tyler’s] diagnosis with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) caused
unique personality traits that made him unpopular in school. His
mother, Tina Long, says being different made him a target of bul-
lying. Classmates took his things, spat in his food and called Tyler
names. On October 17, 2009, 17-year-old Tyler’s battle with the
bullies led to a tragic end. Depressed; he hanged himself before
school and committed suicide. It devastated his family and engulfed
a community to seek answers. (AbilityPath, 2014)

Bullying behaviors create hostile and oppressive climates for all students,
especially non-heterosexual and students with special needs. It is not enough
to be disheartened, outraged, or even angry that these statistics and personal
accounts exist in the very place where students should learn, be safe, and be
transformed by educational experiences rather than be targets of the bully-

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

ing. Instead, school systems must take action to change the climates of the
school.

Creating an Empathetic School
Teachers often assume that children come into school with the ability to
empathize with their classmates, but empathy is a characteristic that must
be taught (Schachter, 2011). Empathy clearly plays a tremendous role in
an effective anti-bullying program. In addressing homophobia in schools,
Jones (2010) argued that realizing the personal pain that homophobic bul-
lying causes other students is vital in attempting to create safe places for all
students Research supports the necessity of including empathy training in
anti-bullying programs.. Stanbury, Bruce, Jain, & Stellern (2010), for instance,
developed an empathy building anti-bully program that decreased bullying
behaviors in their school building. Another study, (Rock, Hammond, & Ras-
mussen, 2002) implemented a program teaching fairness, aiding victims, and
other empathie traits. That program reduced bullying incidents in the build-
ing by 73% .

Creating empathetic educators and students can be accomplished by
implementing a community-based anti-bullying curriculum within schools,
but doing so requires six important components: (a) community involvement,
(b) an assessment of the school climate, (c) a consensus on the definition of
bullying, (d) student and parental engagement, (e) professional development
for faculty and staff, and (f) program evaluation. In the following discussion,
we explore each of these components that are necessary to consider when
constructing anti-bullying programs.

Community Involvement

Because we believe bullying exists because of a social construction of dif-
ference, we argue, that successful programs must incorporate everyone in-
volved in the schooling process such as administrators, teachers, parents, and
community organizations. Engaging all members of the community ensures
that the program will be appropriate for the school culture in which it is used
(OJJDP, 2014). Effective anti-bullying programs should not be prefabricated
(OJJDP, 201 4). As Langdon and Preble (2008) have argued, the entire school
community and all educational stakeholders should be considered when at-
tempting to combat bullying. Research has advocated that individuals must
work together to effectively reduce bullying practices within schools (Croth-
ers & Kolbert, 2004; Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006).

We are advocates of a paradigm shift within society concerning the
process of social normalization. Jones (2014b) argued that combating bully-
ing requires a change in the normalizing process of schooling. He believes
that bullying behaviors develop because of the structures of binary opposi-
tions, which control the ways through which individuals view difference,

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullymg Culture Jones & Augustine

which engenders bullying behavior. For example, in terms of sexuality, so-
ciety views sexual difference through a straight versus gay binary. Straight
becomes the positive, or accepted, side of the binary, and gay is the negative
side. Because society views these concepts as oppositional within a “good
versus bad” mentality, homophobic bullying continues to thrive in society
and schools.

Jones (2014b) postulated that the same oppositional framework exists
with all forms of bullying as it relates to difference in race, class, gender, and
so forth. Bullying only exists because society places difference within op-
positional frameworks, and this view of difference is normalized within chil-
dren as they grow. In this manner, schools become the major normalizing
factor in students’ lives when they enter the schooling process. Schools must,
therefore, change how students view difference and build tolerant attitudes
toward other individuals. In essence, Jones posits that schools must break the
binary oppositions through which students view their world, and specifically
view difference within their worlds.

Effective anti-bullying programs must combat social normalization by
causing students to grapple and engage with their beliefs about otherness
and to conceptualize how those beliefs were framed and constructed. We
believe that this recognition has the possibility to lead individuals to a more
tolerant attitude toward difference. However, beginning just with students is
not enough, it is necessary to assess the school community.

Assessing the School Climate

Before an effective anti-bullying program can be constructed, one must as-
sess the school community to fully understand how bullying is impacting the
school building. As Jones (2014a) argued, school communities determine
how they define difference and otherness based on socialized belief systems.
For example, a student with a specific characteristic may be rejected and bul-
lied in one community, but accepted within another community. Bullying ex-
ists and strengthens because of social constructions about others. Therefore,
it is important to assess, through surveys and interviews, the types of bullying
behaviors that exist and the school personnel’s overall beliefs about bully-
ing in the school. Further, it may be necessary to survey the student body
to gather data about specific bullying practices. This data provides informa-
tion that is necessary for designing an anti-bullying program, and it provides
directions for professional development that will be offered for faculty and
staff. After assessing the school culture, the data should be used to construct
the program, but every effective program must also have a consensus under-
standing of how bullying is defined.

A Consensus on the Definition of Bullying

As Thompson and Cohen (2005) postulated, bullying must be defined in
clear and understandable terms so everyone in the community can compre-

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

hend how the school defines bullying behaviors. In doing so, it is necessary
for the school and surrounding community to recognize the myths related to
bullying (Scarpaci, 2006). Bullying is not:

• Just teasing,

• Something some students simply deserve,

• A behavior only males commit,

• A natural behavior (i.e., “kids will be kids”),

• A rite of passage for adolescence,

• Simply going to go away if the target ignores it,

• Something that is the result of the bully’s low self-esteem,

• Something that requires the target to fight back,

There are numerous definitions of bullying in the literature, but bullying al-
ways encompasses some basic attributes. Bullying cannot exist within an
equal distribution of power (Costello, 2011). In this capacity, a more pow-
erful individual exerts his or her power on a weaker individual. Moreover,
bullying is the repeated targeting of an individual; it is not a one-time inci-
dent. Finally, bullying behavior is classified as physical, verbal, and/or social
harassment (Scarpaci, 2006).

In order for an anti-bullying program to be effective, the school com-
munity must conceptualize how bullying is being defined and what behavior
is classified as bullying behavior. Therefore, it may be beneficial to give the
school community specific examples of bullying behaviors. It may also be
beneficial for students to view skits that depict bullying practices to illustrate
a clear definition.

Student and Parental Involvement

Effective anti-bullying programs should “increase student engagement,
model caring behavior for students, offer mentoring programs, provide stu-
dents with opportunities for service learning, address the difficult transition
between elementary and middle school” (OJJDP, 2014, p.6). Moreover, the
program must include an appropriate method for students to report incidents
without the fear of the bully finding out, and must offer avenues for targets
of bullying behavior to receive assistance and emotional support (Swearer,
Espelage, & Napolitano, 2009).

Another aspect to consider when constructing anti-bullying programs in-
volves educating parents and communicating with them about the program
and its importance (OJJDP, 2014). Parents must also be trained to recognize

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

when their child is being bullied. Students who are being bullied may exhibit
a decrease in grades, fear attending school or faking an illness, a decrease in
cell phone and social media use, or bruises or other injuries. Parents must be
able to recognize these symptoms so that an intervention can place.

Preparing Faculty and Staff

Because colleges may not have provided formal training to address bullying
behaviors within school environments, school districts must offer profession-
al development for faculty and staff to address this challenge. This is impor-
tant because, in a majority of instances, faculty and staff do not intervene in
bullying practices (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000, GLSEN, 201 1), which sends
a message to all of the students in the classroom who witness the teacher’s
avoidance (Jones, 201 0). Perhaps teacher reluctance to intervene grows from
their lack of self-confidence in “intervention skills, or a lack knowledge’
(Holmgren, Lamb, Miller, & Werderitch, 2011, p. 35). Moreover, a number
of teachers do not intervene because they are not sure if what they are seeing
is, in fact, bullying, which highlights the need for a well-developed definition
of bullying in the school culture.

For years researchers (Olweus, 1993; Pepler, Craig & O’Connell, 1999)
have postulated teacher intervention is necessary for reducing bullying prac-
tices in schools. That being said, as Yoon (2004) discovered that it is impera-
tive to provide continual staff development to increase teachers’ awareness
of the problem, which increases the likelihood that they will intervene in
bullying behaviors. In order for professional development to be effective,
however, teachers must believe that bullying is a problem in their schools
(Marachi et al., 2007). Thus, it is necessary to share the results of the school-
wide assessment that was conducted prior to attempting to construct the anti-
bullying program. Receiving local and real data about their own students and
school community impacts teachers’ beliefs about bullying and tolerance
(Jones, 2010).

Knowledge about one’s own students raises awareness of the problem,
which in turn, impacts teachers’ adherence to the anti-bullying program. For
example, Amy Grimes, a middle school science teacher, taught for several
years without recognizing the bullying practices that were transpiring in her
school. Several years after a student left her science lab, she received a letter
and wept as she read how he “looked forward to my class each and every
day because it was the one hour that he felt safe and accepted” (Jones, 201 2,
p. 93). As a result of the letter, she changed her pedagogy and now keeps a
post-it note on her desk that reads “minutes matter.” She continues, “it made
me stop and to think about how many minutes passed each year in my class-
room, and how many life-changing consequences occurred with or without
my knowledge” (p. 99).

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Jones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

As with Amy, if teachers are aware that bullying is a problem in their
school building, they are more likely to make changes. Teachers, as well
as parents, must also be trained to recognize indicators of bullying such as
a decrease in grades, fear of attending school, or an increase in bruises or
injuries. Further, students who are being bullied may begin stealing money
or being dishonest about being ill. Although it is important for teachers to
recognize the signs of bullying, Allen (201 0) postulates most teachers do not
recognize those signs because they have not been formally trained to do so.

Program Assessment

It is important to note that data suggest mixed results for the success of an-
ti-bullying programs. Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, and Isava (2008) discovered
little to no change in bullying behaviors after an intervention was conducted.
Further, programs in the United States are less effective in completing their
aim to reduce bullying behavior (Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008). This fail-
ure may be a result of attempting to use a “one size fits all” approach to
addressing bullying, rather than constructing a program infused with school
and community beliefs. Therefore, it is imperative to annually assess the ef-
fectiveness of the program. In doing so, there should be clear and measurable
objectives, which provide comparable data. Viable methods of data collec-
tion include pre and post surveys about bullying behaviors, increases or de-
creases in student referrals that are related to bullying behavior, and teacher
reflective journals about student interactions. After each annual assessment,
changes should be made if necessary.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is to illuminate for secondary educators the impor-
tance of a community’s social construction of difference and how that con-
struction creates unsafe educational settings. We posit that each school com-
munity must develop its own anti-bullying program with input from school
and community stakeholders. In constructing that program, schools should
consider the attributes we have discussed above. Anti-bullying programs can
be effective if approached in these comprehensive and serious ways, not as
an add-on program but integrated part of the school experience. Effective
anti-bullying programs must clearly define bullying for the community. They
must involve faculty, staff, administrators, students, parents and others from
the community. In doing so, the program must teach children and adults
to be empathetic to others. Finally, bullying prevention programs must be
assessed annually to discover how well the program is working and what
aspects may need to be adjusted. Bullying continues to cause horrendous
pain for too many students. We must create safe places for all our children to
learn, to grow, and to develop into the great individuals they are able to be.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Antí-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

References

Allen, K. (2010). “A bullying intervention system: Reducing risk and creating support for
aggressive students/’ Journal of Preventing School Failure , 54 (3), 1 99-209.

Bullying Statistics. (2013). School bullying statistics: Retrieved from: http://www.bullying-
statistics.org/content/school-bullying-statistics.html

Centers for Disease Control. (201 1 ). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov
Costello, M. (201 1 , November). Make your school a bully free zone. Our Children , 37 ( 12),

10-13.

Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in
the classroom. School Psychology International ., 21, 22-36.

Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2004). Comparing middle school teachers’ and
studentsViews on bullying and anti-bullying interventions. Journal of School Violence,
3(1), 17-32.

Crothers, L. M., Kolbert, J. B., & Barker, W. F. (2006). Middle school students’ preferences
for anti-bullying interventions. School Psychology International , 27, 475-487.

Due, P., Merio, J., Harel-Fisch, Y., Damsgaard, M., Holstien, B., Hetland, J., Currie, C,
Gabhainn, S., Gaspar de Matos, M., & Lynch, J. (2009). Socioeconomic inequality in
exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel
study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 907-914.

Garandeau, C., & Cillessen, A. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible aggression:
A conceptual view of bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent
Behaviour, 11, 612-625.

GLSEN. (201 1). Retrieved from www.glsen.org.
Gupta, S. (2015). School shootings: An American problem? Harvard Political Review.

Retrieved from http://harvardpolitics.com/special_features/gun.html
Hanish, L., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment follow-

ing peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89.
Haynie, D., Nansel,T., Eitel, P., Crump, A., Saylor, K., & Yu, K. (2001). Bullies, victims, and

bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 2 1, 29-49.

Hawker, D., & Boulton, M. (2000). Twenty years of research on peer victimization and psy-
chosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441-455.

Holmgren, J., Lamb, J., Miller, M., & Werderitch, C. (201 1) Decreasing bullying behaviors
through discussing young-adult literature, role-playing activities, and establishing a
school-wide definition of bullying in accordance with a common set of rules in language
arts andmat/7.(Unpublished thesis). Chicago, IL: St. Xavier University.

Jones, J. (2014a). Purple boas, lesbian affection and John Deere hats: Teacher educators’
role in addressing homophobia in secondary schools. Teacher Education and Practice,
27(1), 154-167.

Jones, J. (2014b). Unnormalizing education: Addressing homophobia in higher education
and K-12 schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Jones, J. (201 2). Bullying in schools: A professional development for educators. Seattle, WA:
Kappa Delta Pi.

Jones, J. (2010). Making safe places unsafe : A discussion of homophobia with teachers.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Langdon, S., & Preble, W. (2008). The relationship between levels of perceived respect and
bullying in 5th through 12th graders. Adolescence, 43 (1 71), 485-503.

Marach i, R., Astor, A, & Benben ishty, R. (2007). Effects of teacher avoidance of school poli-
cies on student victimization. School Psychology International, 20(4), 501 -518.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Iones & Augustine Anti-Bullying Culture

Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S., & Isava, D. (2008). How effective are school bullying
intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology
Quarterly , 23(1), 26-42.

Miller, S.J., Burns, D. B., & Johnson, T. S. (Eds.). (2013). Generation bullied 2.0: Prevention
and intervention strategies for our most vulnerable students. New York, NY: Peter Lang
Publishing.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (201 3). Student reports of bullying and cyber-
bullying: Results from the 20 1 1 school crime supplement to the national crime victim-
ization survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Olweus, D. (1 993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.

Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O’Connell, P. (1999). Understanding bullying from a dynamic sys-
tem perspective. In A. Slater & D. Muir (Eds.) The Blackwell Reader In Developmental
Psychology 440-451. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Rock, E., Hammond, M., & Rasmussen, S. (2002). Schools based program to teach chil-
dren empathy and bully prevention. Paper presented at the APA Annual Conference,
Chicago, IL.

Scarpaci, R. (2006 Summer). Bullying: Effective strategies for its prevention. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 170-174.

Schachter, R. (201 1, Winter). Can kindness be taught? Instructor, /20(14), 58-63.
Seely, K., Tombari, M., Bennett, L., & Dunkle, J. (2011, December). Bullying in schools:

An overview. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Programs.

Stanbury, S., Bruce, M., Jain, S., & Stellern, J. (2009). The effects of an empathy building
program on bullying behavior. Journal of School Counseling, 7(2), 3-27.

Stopbullying.gov (2014). What is cyberbullyingì Retrieved from www.stopbullying.gov
Swearer, D., Espelage, D., & Napolitano, S. (2009). Bullying, prevention & intervention :

Realistic strategies for schools. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Thompson, M., & Cohen, L. (2005). When the bullied must adjust. Education Digest,

70( 16),16-19.
Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., & Baldry, A. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school

bullying. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, Information, and Publica-
tions.

Unnever, J., & Cornell, D. (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 81(2), 129-147.

Vail, K. (2009). From words to action: A decade after Columbine, schools have made
numerous changes to confront bullying, but has it worked? American School Board
Journal, /96(19)41-45.

Wiener, J., & Mak, M. (2009). Peer victimization in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyper-
activity Disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (2), 116-131.

Wood, K. (2015) Case studies. Cyberbullying website: http://cyberbullying.ua.edu/index.
php/casestudies/

Yoon, J. (2004). Predicting teacher intervention in bullying situations. Education and Treat-
ment of Children, 27(1), 37-45.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Secondary Education 43(3) Summer 2015

Anti-Bullying Culture Jones & Augustine

Author Biographies:
Joseph R. Iones, PhD is a former high school English teacher and is known
widely for his research addressing homophobia and bullying in educational
environments. He has coined two terms in his academic community, con-
textual oppositions and unnormalizing education. He has been interviewed
extensively by media outlets about homophobia and bullying in schools,
and has published copiously (22 publications) on the topic. In November of
2010, his book, Making Safe Places Unsafe: A Discussion of Homophobia
with Teachers, was released. Bullying in Schools : A Professional Development
for Educators , was released in the Fall of 2012. His most recent books were
released in the 2014, Unnormalizing Education : Addressing Homophobia
in Higher Education and K-12 Schools and Under the Bleachers : Teachers’
Reflections of What They Didn’t Learn in College . More recently, he has co-
constructed a K-12 anti-bullying program with an academic colleague. In
2014, he was awarded a prestigious national award from Auburn University
and the National Anti-Bullying Summit for his scholarship and service in
attempting to create safe schools for all students. He currently teaches at
Mercer University.

Sharon Murphy Augustine, PhD is an associate professor in the Tift College
of Education at Mercer University. She earned her B.A. in English from Agnes
Scott College, M.Ed, in Secondary English from Georgia College & State Uni-
versity, and Ph.D. in Language and Literacy Education from the University
of Georgia. She is the chair of teacher education in Macon and teaches a
variety of literacy, theory, and writing courses in the undergraduate, masters,
and doctoral programs. She is interested in how socially constructed identi-
ties marginalize some students and how reading young adult literature can
deconstruct bullying as a rite of passage in adolescence. Her research inter-
ests include poststructural and socio-cultural theories of teaching and learn-
ing, adolescent literacy, writing pedagogy, qualitative research methods, and
gender in education. She has published in the Journal of Teacher Education ,
English Education , English in Australia , The Teacher Educator , and Qualitative
Inquiry

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:38 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

p. 73

p. 74

p. 75

p. 76

p. 77

p. 78

p. 79

p. 80

p. 81

p. 82

p. 83

p. 84

Issue Table of Contents

American Secondary Education, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Summer 2015) pp. 1-86

Front Matter

From the EDITOR: Continuous Improvement in American Secondary Education [pp. 2-3]

Shifting Educational Paradigms: From Traditional to Competency-Based Education for Diverse Learners [pp. 4-19]

Examining the College Preparation and Intermediate Outcomes of College Success of AVID Graduates Enrolled in Universities and Community Colleges [pp. 20-35]

In Their Own Words: Perceived Barriers To Achievement By African American and Latino High School Students [pp. 36-59]

The Impact of Special Education Law on Career and Technical Education [pp. 60-72]

Creating An Anti-Bullying Culture In Secondary Schools: Characterists to Consider When Constructing Appropriate Anti-Bullying Programs [pp. 73-84]

Back Matter

Children’s Physiological and Emotional Reactions to Witnessing Bullying Predict
Bystander Intervention

Author(s): Lydia R. Barhight, Julie A. Hubbard and Christopher T. Hyde

Source: Child Development , JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013, Vol. 84, No. 1
(JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013), pp. 375-390

Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23469421

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23469421?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23469421

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23469421?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

Child Development, January/February 2013, Volume 84, Number 1, Pages 375-390

Children’s Physiological and Emotional Reactions to Witnessing Bullying
Predict Bystander Intervention

Lydia R. Barhight and Julie A. Hubbard
University of Delaware

Christopher T. Hyde
BioAssessments

Study goals were to explore whether children clustered into groups based on reactions to witnessing bullying
and to examine whether these reactions predicted bullying intervention. Seventy-nine children
(M = 10.80 years) watched bullying videos in the laboratory while their heart rate (HR) was measured, and
they self-reported on negative emotion after each video. Bullying intervention was assessed by school peers.
Two groups emerged based on reactions to the bullying videos: The Emotional group (43% of children) dis
played HR acceleration and reported high negative emotion, whereas the Unemotional group (57% of chil
dren) showed HR deceleration and reported low negative emotion. Group membership predicted bullying
intervention, with peers reporting that Emotional children were more likely to stop a bully than Unemotional
children.

Bullying is defined as intentional actions repeated
over time that harm, intimidate, or humiliate
another person (Olweus, 1993). An aggressive act is
only defined as bullying when the perpetrator is
more powerful than the victim, either physically or
socially (Baldry & Farrington, 2007; Olweus, 1993).
Bullying is an alarmingly common problem in
schools. Although prevalence estimates vary, in the
most recent large-scale study in the United States,
13% of students reported being the victim of physi
cal bullying and 37% of students reported being the
victim of verbal bullying (Wang, Iannotti, & Nan
sel, 2009).

Children who are bullied are at increased risk

for a host of negative outcomes. They are more
likely than their nonbullied peers to be depressed
(Hanish & Guerra, 2002) and to engage in self-harm
(Barker, Arseneault, Brendgen, Fontaine, & Mau
ghan, 2008). Bullied children are also more likely to
be anxious and to experience psychosomatic com
plaints, such as headaches and dizziness (Natvig,
Albrektsen, & Qvarnstrom, 2001). In addition, bul
lied children suffer academically, with poorer

This research was supported by a Belfer-Aptman Dissertation
Award from The Melissa Institute. The authors would like to

thank Jean-Phillipe Laurenceau for his statistical consultation, as
well as the project’s undergraduate research assistants for their
hard work and dedication. Most of all, they appreciate the help
of the children, parents, teachers, and principals who made this
project possible.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Julie A. Hubbard, Department of Psychology, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Electronic mail may be sent to
jhubbard@psych.udel.edu.

grades and higher rates of absenteeism than their
nonbullied peers (Irving & Parker-Jenkins, 1995;
Srabstein & Piazza, 2008). Of most concern, bully
ing can lead to tragic consequences; bullied chil
dren are at increased risk for suicidal behavior

(Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould,
2008), and 71% of children who perpetrated school
shootings were chronically bullied (Vossekuil, Fein,
Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). For all these
reasons, bullying has been identified as a public
health risk, one that must be addressed primarily
through intervention in schools.

The Importance of Bystanders in Bullying Episodes

A common myth about bullying is that it occurs
covertly. In fact, Pepler and Craig (1995) found that
bystanders are present in at least 85% of bullying
episodes. These bystanders are usually peers, since
most bullying occurs during unsupervised periods
and in unsupervised areas at school (Atlas &
Pepler, 1998; Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 2008).

Children who witness bullying have great poten
tial power. The reactions and behaviors of these
bystander children may impact the outcome of the
bullying event. Cheering the bully on, joining in the
bullying, or even just ignoring the incident could
encourage victimization, whereas telling an adult

Child Development © 2012 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2013/8401-0028
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01839.x

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

376 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

or defending the victim could end the incident and
discourage the bully in the future. The Olweus Bul
lying Prevention Program (e.g., Olweus et al., 2007)
describes how every bystander to a bullying epi
sode is involved in some way. For example, the
“follower” joins in, the “defender” actively sup
ports the victim, and the “disengaged onlooker” is
not affected by seeing the bullying.

Estimates vary concerning the percentage of
bystander children who engage in each of these
behaviors. Using self report, Whitney and Smith
(1993) found that about half of 8- through 11-year
old students reported that they would try to help a
victim of bullying. In contrast, O’Connell, Pepler,
and Craig (1999) observed actual bystander behav
ior during bullying episodes on the playground
among first- through sixth-grade children. They
found that, compared to the self report estimates
mentioned earlier, fewer children intervened (only
25%); most children ignored the incident (roughly
50%), or even joined in (25%). This discrepancy
between children’s self reports and their actual
behaviors is consistent with the findings of Salmiv
alli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiai
nen (1996), which suggest that children tend to
overestimate the likelihood that they would inter
vene. The authors compared peer- and self-report
estimates of different “participant roles” in bully
ing episodes in a sample of sixth graders. Many
children self-reported that they would intervene
when they saw bullying happen; however, peer
report indicated that a significantly lower number
of children (only 17%) actually intervened.

Increasing bystander intervention is an important
goal, because it has been shown to be effective. Pe
pler and Craig (1995) found that when a bystander
actively expressed disapproval during a bullying
incident, bullies stopped aggressing approximately
50% of the time. Together, this information high
lights the need for bullying interventions that target
the important role that bystander children can play
in decreasing school bullying.

Interventions: Inclusion of Components Aimed at
Bystanders

In fact, many school-based bullying interventions
do include a component aimed at bystanders. This
component usually involves parents and teachers
emphasizing to children the necessity of interven
ing or seeking adult help if they see a peer being
bullied. The positive outcomes of such interven
tions for bullied children are stressed, and role
plays are often included for children to model and

practice the skills needed to intervene or tell an
adult. Parents and teachers are encouraged to
praise and reward children who engage in these
behaviors (e.g., Olweus, 1993; Pepler, Craig, O’Con
nell, Atlas, & Charach, 2004; Rigby, 2008; Stevens,
Van Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2004). The KiVa
program, an antibullying curriculum recently eval
uated in Finland, is notable for its more compre
hensive focus on bystanders. This program actively
works to enhance children’s empathy for victims,
increase their self-efficacy about intervening in bul
lying episodes, and provide them with concrete
support when they do try to help bullied peers
(Kama et al., 2011).

Few evaluations of bullying interventions report
specifically on change in bystander behavior. How
ever, in several studies that have, the change was
not dramatic. In one study, only 34% of children
who indicated at preintervention that they would
ignore a bullying episode reported at postinterven
tion that they would now intervene (Evers, Proch
aska, Van Marter, Johnson, & Prochaska, 2007). In
another study, Pepler et al. (2004) reported no sig
nificant increases in peer report of fellow students’
bystander intervention. Even the Finnish KiVa pro
gram, which demonstrated strong effects for
decreases in self- and peer-reported victimization,
did not produce similar sustained effects for bystan
der intervention. Although children in schools
receiving the KiVa intervention reported that their
peers defended victims of bullying more than chil
dren in control schools at the mid-point of the inter
vention year, these effects were not maintained by
the end of the intervention (Kama et al., 2011).
Thus, despite efforts to encourage bystander chil
dren to intervene, evaluations of bullying interven
tions suggest that many children resist doing so.

First Goal: Identification of Groups Differing in
Reactions to Witnessing Bullying

These findings suggest that basic research on
children’s reactions to bullying is needed, as con
nections between these reactions and bystander
intervention are not well understood. The degree to
which children are upset by bullying may be a criti
cal factor in predicting active bystander interven
tion. It is likely that children react in different ways
when they are bystanders to bullying incidents.
Some children may be strongly affected, demon
strating emotional and physiological arousal corre
sponding with empathy and concern for the victim.
However, witnessing bullying may not particularly
bother other children. These children may not have

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 377

an emotional or physiological reaction and instead
may respond with indifference.

The first goal of the current project was to exam
ine the prediction that children would cluster into
identifiable “Emotional” and “Unemotional”

groups based on their physiological and emotional
reactions to bullying, as depicted in videos shown
in a laboratory procedure. We hypothesized that an
“Unemotional” group of children would not dem
onstrate significant physiological or emotional
arousal, corresponding to the indifferent reaction
described earlier. The second hypothesized group
was an Emotional group, whom we predicted
would be particularly affected by the bullying
videos. We expected that these children would show
an increase in heart rate (HR) and report feeling
high levels of negative emotions, corresponding to
the concerned and upset reaction described earlier.

Second Goal: Prediction of Bystander Intervention

Our second goal was to investigate the hypothe
sis that children’s physiological and emotional re
action to the bullying videos would predict their
likelihood of intervening in bullying episodes at
school. We expected that children in the Emotional
group would be rated by peers in the classroom as
more likely to “stop a bully” than children in the
Unemotional group. Thus, our study was not
designed to test whether children’s in-the-moment
reactions to witnessing bullying would correspond
to intervention in that same bullying episode. How
ever, we wanted to explore associations between
children’s reactions to witnessing bullying in a lab
oratory procedure and their tendency to intervene
when bullying happens at school.

Little is understood about how children’s reactions

to bullying relate to bystander behavior. Some previ
ous work has suggested that individuals who are
emotionally aroused may be less likely to engage
empathically or prosocially, if their main goal is to
reduce personal distress (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade,
1994). However, the theory of emotion utilization
(Izard, Stark, Trentacosta, & Schultz, 2008) suggests
that both positive and negative emotions can lead to
adaptive action. For example, fear or worry may
cause someone to take steps to ensure safety, or anger
may give someone the strength to face a difficult
confrontation. In the context of our study, the physio
logical and emotional arousal that emotional children
feel when witnessing bullying may be associated with
intervening to try to stop the bully. Arousal may serve
as the catalyst that children need to have the strength
and determination to confront a bullying peer.

Our goal was not only to explore whether chil
dren’s physiological and emotion reactions to bully
ing videos predicted the likelihood that they would
intervene in bullying episodes at school, but to
determine whether this prediction held over and
above other factors hypothesized to influence the
likelihood of intervention. Moreover, through this
approach, we aimed to identify additional factors
that may help determine whether children attempt
to stop bullying peers.

The first additional factor that we included was

the extent to which children are victimized by
peers. Previous studies suggest that children who
have a history of being bullied are less likely to
intervene when they witness bullying than other
children (e.g., Rigby, 2008; Rigby & Johnson, 2006).
In this situation, these children may be more
focused on their own safety than on that of their
peers. Thus, we hypothesized that peer victimiza
tion would negatively predict children’s bystander
intervention in bullying.

The second factor that we investigated was chil
dren’s sense of efficacy in confronting peers. In pre
vious work, Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and Altoè (2008)
demonstrated that social self-efficacy was an impor
tant predictor of bystander intervention in bullying.
However, the broader construct of social self
efficacy incorporates the ability to perform a variety
of social behaviors, such as making friends. In the
current study, we focused specifically on the nar
rower construct of efficacy about confronting peers.
To attempt to stop a bully, children likely need to
believe that they will be successful in handling that
particular and difficult social situation. This specific
element of efficacy is quite distinct from a general
sense of oneself as a socially skilled person. For this
reason, we hypothesized that children’s perceived
self-efficacy about confronting peers would be a
strong positive predictor of bystander intervention
in bullying incidents.

The third factor that we included was the extent

to which children tend to be emotionally expressive
across situations. Although some children are
generally open and express emotions freely, other
children are temperamentally cooler and more
detached. Following from the theory of emotion
utilization described earlier, we reasoned that gen
eral levels of emotional expressiveness might influ
ence children’s likelihood of intervening to help
bullied peers, with more emotionally expressive
children being more inclined to get involved and
attempt to help. However, we were interested in
exploring whether children’s specific emotional
reactions to the bullying videos versus their more

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

378 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

trait-like tendency to be emotionally expressive
across situations would more strongly predict their
intervention in bullying episodes. We hypothesized
that both factors would be important but that emo
tional responses to the bullying videos in particular
would emerge as a significant predictor over and
above children’s temperamental emotional expres
siveness.

The fourth factor that we examined was affective

empathy. Separate from the construct of emotional
expressiveness, empathy refers to the extent to
which children understand or experience others’
emotions. Theorists have distinguished two forms
of empathy, cognitive empathy and affective empa
thy (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). While cognitive
empathy refers to the ability to understand how
others are feeling, affective empathy represents the
tendency to actually feel the same emotions as oth
ers. Previous work by Gini, Albiero, Benelli, and
Altoè (2007) found that affective empathy in partic
ular positively predicted helping a victimized class
mate. The emotional pull of affective empathy may
more strongly motivate children to intervene when
others are being bullied, compared to the detached
reasoning of cognitive empathy, and so we focused
on this form of empathy in the current study. When
children keenly experience the same fear or humili
ation that a victim is feeling, these emotions may
compel them to act to try to help the distressed
peer. By including affective empathy in our model,
we were able to explore whether children’s specific
emotional reactions to the bullying videos pre
dicted the likelihood that they would intervene in
bullying episodes beyond their more general ten
dency to be affectively empathie. We hypothesized
that both factors would predict intervention, with
emotional reactions to the bullying videos in partic
ular making a significant contribution over and
above the general tendency to be affectively
empathie.

The final factors that we considered were the

demographic variables of age and gender. Previous
research suggests that younger children and girls
are more likely to intervene when they see bullying
happen than older children and boys (Rigby, 2008;
Rigby & Johnson, 2006). We were interested to see
whether these demographic effects were replicated
in the current study.

In summary, when predicting children’s likeli
hood of intervening in bullying at school, we
included the following predictors: age, gender, peer
victimization, efficacy in confronting peers, emo
tional expressiveness, affective empathy, and mem
bership in the Emotional or Unemotional group

(based on reactions to witnessing bullying in videos
in the laboratory). Drawing from previous research
and our theorizing, we hypothesized that: (a) age
and peer victimization would negatively predict
intervention, and (b) female gender, efficacy in con
fronting peers, emotional expressiveness, affective
empathy, and membership in the Emotional group
would positively predict intervention. Finally, we
expected that membership in the Emotional group
would predict bystander intervention in bullying
episodes over and above all other factors.

The Importance of Groups in the Current Study

Notably, we expected that the combination of
physiological and emotional reactions to the bully
ing videos would be important in predicting chil
dren’s bystander behavior. This combination may
more comprehensively and accurately capture chil
dren’s reactions than any single physiological or
emotional variable alone. Moreover, we hypothe
sized that children would cluster into distinct Emo

tional and Unemotional groups based on this
combination of reactions to witnessing bullying,
rather than demonstrating a more continuous range
of responses. Thus, we predicted that membership
in the Emotional or Unemotional group, based on a
combination of variables assessing physiological
and emotional reactions to the bullying videos,
would predict children’s tendency to intervene in
bullying episodes at school. Other studies have
used a similar approach, forming latent groups
based on children’s reactions to emotionally evoca
tive situations and demonstrating that group mem
bership predicted regulatory and behavioral
constructs, even when individual reaction variables

often did not (e.g., Wilson, Lengua, Tininenko, Tay
lor, & Trancik, 2009).

Method

Overview

Data collection took place in two phases, a class
room phase and a laboratory phase. Classroom data
collection was conducted in 43 fourth- and fifth

grade classrooms. A fourth- and fifth-grade sample
was chosen because bullying becomes increasingly
common by this age (e.g., Olweus, 1993). During
classroom data collection, we collected peer-report
data on bystander behavior to bullying and self
report data on peer victimization, efficacy in
confronting peers, emotional expressiveness, and
affective empathy.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 379

A subsample of 79 children subsequently partici
pated in laboratory data collection. At this time, we
assessed children’s physiological and self-reported
negative emotional reactions as they watched vid
eos depicting bullying episodes.

Participants

Classroom sample. Children were recruited for
classroom data collection through parental permis
sion letters sent home from school. To ensure a

strong participation rate, three rounds of letters
were distributed to children who had not returned

a previous letter. Two incentives encouraged chil
dren to return their letters. First, each child who
returned a letter (regardless of whether the parent
granted consent) received a small prize (a colorful
pencil). Second, children were told that if 80% of
the letters were returned in a class (regardless of
whether parents granted consent), children would
receive a party with refreshments provided by our
laboratory.

Eight hundred and forty-five children (78%)
were given permission to participate. Classroom
permission rates ranged from 50% to 100%
(M = 79.2). At the beginning of classroom data col
lection, the experimenter began by reading an
assent form aloud and giving children an opportu
nity to grant or decline assent. Of the children with
parental permission, 2.5% (21 children) declined
assent, and an additional 6.3% (53 children) were
absent on the day of their classroom data collection.

Thus, our final classroom sample included 771
children (415 girls). Participants’ age ranged from
9.25 to 12.59 years (M = 10.58). Four hundred and
sixty-four (60.2%) children were identified by their
parent or guardian as European American, 140
(18.2%) as Latino American, 89 (11.5%) as African
American, 28 (3.6%) as Asian American, 28 (3.6%)
as being of mixed race/ethnicity, and 10 (1.3%) as
Native American. Twelve parents or guardians
(1.6%) declined to respond to the question about
race/ethnicity on the parental permission form.

The 43 classrooms were located in nine elemen

tary schools in a mid-Atlantic state. Four of the
schools were parochial (Ν = 195, 25% of classroom
sample), and five were public (Ν = 576, 75% of
sample). Three schools (one parochial, two public)
were in suburban areas (N = 323, 42% of sample),
and the remainder were in urban areas (Ν = 448;
58% of sample).

Data on the peer victimization experienced by
the classroom sample were collected using the self
report measure by Neary and Joseph (1994)

described in the following sections. The mean for
the classroom sample was 2.11 (SD = .76) on a 1-4
rating scale, with higher scores indicating greater
peer victimization. Peer victimization did not vary
by public versus parochial schools, F(1, 769) = 1.02,
ns. However, children in urban schools (M = 2.17,
SD = .76) reported more peer victimization than
children in suburban schools (M = 2.03, SD = .75),
F(1, 769) = 5.86, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .19.

Laboratory sample. Participants in the laboratory
sample included a random subset of 80 children
from the classroom sample, stratified by gender.
One child’s physiological data were lost due to
equipment malfunction. We dropped this partici
pant, because assessment of physiological arousal
was central to the first goal of the study (identifica
tion of groups differing in reactions to bullying
videos). Thus, the final laboratory sample included
79 participants (40 girls).

Families were recruited through telephone con
tacts in which the purpose and procedures of the
study were explained in full detail. At the begin
ning of the laboratory visit, the parent completed
a permission form, which included demographic
information such as age, race/ethnicity, and income.
The child completed an assent form.

The laboratory sample did not differ significantly
from the classroom sample on any demographic or
assessed variable. Age ranged from 9.88 to
12.19 years (M = 10.80). Parents or guardians iden
tified 54 children (67.5%) as European American, 11
(13.75%) as African American, 8 (10%) as being of
mixed race/ethnicity, 5 (5.25%) as Latino American,
and 1 (1.23%) as Asian American. One parent or
guardian (1.25%) declined to report the child’s
race/ethnicity. Income ranged widely, from $0
(unemployed) to $400,000 (Mdn = $70,000).

Classroom Data Collection Procedures, Questionnaires,
and Data Reduction

An experimenter and approximately four under
graduate assistants conducted 1-hr visits to each of
the 43 classrooms to collect self- and peer-report
data. The experimenter group-administered paper
and-pencil measures to participating children. Chil
dren received a manila folder to stand upright on
their desk as a “privacy shield.” Undergraduate
assistants circulated throughout the room to ensure
that children stayed on track, answer children’s
questions, and maintain privacy. In addition, other
assistants worked individually and privately with
any children who required reading assistance to
complete the measures validly, as determined

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

380 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

beforehand through consultation with the teacher
or as needed. Classrooms were compensated with
$100 to be used for classroom supplies.

Bystander intervention. Bystander intervention in
bullying was assessed through peer report during
classroom data collection. Children were first pro
vided with the following definition of bullying:
“Bullying is when a kid does something on pur
pose to hurt or threaten another kid. It could
involve hurting the kid’s body, like hitting or kick
ing. It also could involve hurting the kid’s feelings,
like mean teasing or name calling.” Children then
completed the peer nomination “When other kids
are being bullied, who tries to stop the bullying?”
Children nominated an unlimited number of class

mates who fit this description by circling their
names on a roster. The variable Stop the Bully was
computed by standardizing the number of nomina
tions received within classroom.

Peer victimization. Peer victimization was assessed

through self report during classroom data collec
tion. Children completed the six-item Peer
Victimization Scale by Neary and Joseph (1994). For
each item, participants first selected which of two
statements (one indicative of peer victimization and
the other not) was more like them. Next, they indi
cated if that statement was “really like me” or “sort
of like me” (1 = really like me for phrase describing
lack of victimization to 4 = really like me for phrase
describing victimization).

To determine whether these data collected from

this classroom sample formed a unidimensional
scale, we conducted a principal components analy
sis (PCA) with a varimax rotation. Items were

removed from the scale if the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy was less than .50
for that item or if the communality value for that
item was less than .50. Iterations of the PCA proce
dure were repeated until all remaining items met
these two criteria. On the final iteration, we
checked to ensure that the overall Kaiser-Meyer
Olkin Measure of Sampling was at least .50, that
the ρ value for the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was
significant, that one and only one component with
an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 emerged, and that
the proportion of variance accounted for by that
component was at least 60%.

This PCA procedure resulted in three items
being retained: “Some kids are often teased by
other kids; other kids are not teased by other chil
dren,” “Some kids are often bullied by other chil
dren; other kids are not bullied by other children,”
and “Some kids are often picked on by other
children; other kids are not picked on by other

children.” Internal consistency for this three-item
scale for this sample was α = .77. We averaged the
three items to compute the variable Peer Victimiza
tion.

Efficacy in confronting peers. Efficacy in confront
ing peers was assessed through self report during
classroom data collection. Children completed three
items from the Social Self Efficacy Scale by Pastorel
li, Caprara, and Bandura (1998; 1 = not at all to
5 = very) that best described the ability to confront
peers in difficult situations. The scale was pub
lished by Pastorelli et al. (1998) in Italian; for the
present study, the English translation published in
Pastorelli et al. (2001) was used. After performing
the PCA procedure described earlier, two items
were retained: “Stand up for yourself when you
feel you are being treated unfairly” and “Deal with
situations where others are annoying you or hurt
ing your feelings.” The correlation between these
two items for this sample was .62, ρ < .0001. We
averaged the two items to create the variable Effi
cacy in Confronting Peers.

Emotional expressiveness. Emotional expressive
ness was assessed through self report during
classroom data collection. Children completed the
five-item Unemotional subscale from the Inventory
of Callous-Unemotional Traits Youth Version

(Kimonis et al., 2008; 1 = not at all true to 4 = com
pletely true). After performing the PCA procedure
described earlier, two items were retained: “It is
easy for others to tell how I am feeling” and “I am
emotional and show my feelings.” The correlation
between these two items for this sample was .53,
ρ < .0001. We averaged the two items to create the
variable Emotional Expressiveness.

Affective empathy. Affective empathy was
assessed through self report during classroom data
collection. Children completed the 11-item affective
empathy subscale of Jolliffe and Farrington’s (2006)
Basic Empathy Scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree). As the measure was developed
in England, we made a small number of minor
changes in item wording to reflect vocabulary that
would be more familiar to our American sample.
After performing the PCA procedure described ear
lier, five items were retained: “I get frightened
when I watch characters in a good scary movie,”
“Other people’s feelings do not bother me at all”
(reverse scored), “I often become sad when watch
ing sad things on TV or in movies,” “I tend to feel
scared when I am with friends who are afraid,”
and “My friend’s unhappiness does not make me
feel anything” (reverse scored). Internal consistency
for this five-item scale for this sample was α = .57.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 381

We reverse scored items as necessary and averaged
the five items to compute the variable Affective
Empathy.

Laboratory Data Collection Procedures and Measures

An experimenter and an undergraduate assistant
conducted a 1-hr laboratory visit for each parent
and child. Parents and children were each compen
sated with $20. After the parent consent form and
child assent form were completed, the experimenter
placed the physiological equipment on the partici
pant, with the parent observing. Next, the experi
menter and child played games or completed an
arts-and-crafts project, while the child habituated to
wearing the equipment.

The experimenter then asked the participant to
remain seated, still, quiet, and with his or her atten
tion on a computer monitor while he or she
watched a series of eight focal videos. The first and
last videos depicted neutral interactions between
children, whereas the other six videos depicted epi
sodes of bullying. Videos were quite brief, lasting
between 10 and 21 s. These videos were excerpts
from an educational film and a commercial film on

bullying designed for this age group (Adelson,
Braunstein, Jaffe, & McLoughlin, 2005; Faull, 2007).

Bullying videos were selected to represent differ
ent types of bullying, with three videos depicting
physical bullying and the other three showing verbal
bullying. In each video, the bully(ies) and victim were
of the same gender; three videos were of boys and
the other three were of girls. Videos also depicted
bullies and victims of different races or ethnicities.

Examples of bullying videos include one in which
two boys push a third boy in a locker room and
another in which one girl verbally insults another girl
in the cafeteria while her friends watch and laugh.

After watching each of the eight focal videos and
answering questions (described in the following
sections), the child saw a 20-s nature video depict
ing a flowing creek before the next focal video was
presented. This nature video has been empirically
demonstrated to be relaxing and soothing (Ulrich
et al., 1991). Its purpose was to allow the child’s
physiological arousal to return to baseline before
the introduction of the next focal video.

After giving instructions, the experimenter left
the room while the child watched the videos and

answered the questions. The experimenter and par
ent monitored the child for signs of distress via
video camera from an adjacent room; none of the
participants became overtly distressed. Children
were informed during the child assent process that

they were free to terminate participation at any
time; however, no child did so. Thus, all children
completed the entire session.

Self report of emotion following videos. After each
focal video, the child was asked to rate on a 5-point
scale how much he or she felt each of three nega
tive emotions (sad, scared, and mad). Questions
appeared on the computer monitor, and the child
responded using a keypad. This approach yielded
three variables indexing negative emotional re
actions to the bullying videos (Sad Bullying, Scared
Bullying, and Mad Bullying). These variables
resulted from averaging children’s self reports
across the six bullying videos. Internal consistency
was .90 for Sad Bullying, .84 for Scared Bullying,
and .90 for Mad Bullying. Similar scores were
calculated for children’s self reports of emotion fol
lowing the two neutral videos (Sad Neutral, Scared
Neutral, and Mad Neutral).

Physiological reactions to videos. Physiological
responding was measured through HR or electro
cardiogram (ECG). The ECG was recorded from
three Ag-AgCl disposable electrodes, with two
active electrodes on the ribs and one reference elec
trode on the collarbone. Wires from these electrodes

were connected to a computer in the adjacent room
through a small opening in the wall, and this com
puter was synchronized with the computer on
which the participant viewed videos. LabVIEW
software (National Instruments, Austin, TX) col
lected, synchronized, and time-stamped physiologi
cal signals with an average accuracy of 5 ms or less.

Software designed by BioAssessments was used
to clean and process HR data. Processing began
with the identification of artifacts. IBI (interbeat

interval, a measure of HR describing the time in
milliseconds between consecutive R-waves in the

ECG) artifacts were defined as excessively long or
short intervals relative to a moving 30-s average.
Short IBIs were combined and long IBIs were seg
mented as appropriate.

If more than 10% of HR data for any of the 15
videos (6 bullying videos, 2 neutral videos, 7 nature
videos) for any child required more than minimal
editing, we made the conservative decision to
exclude data from the entire video. Using this rule,
we excluded HR data for 2.7% of videos (32 of

1,185 videos). For the remaining videos, approxi
mately 70% required no IBI editing, and the other
30% required three or fewer edits.

We generated average IBI scores for each child
for each 2-s interval of each bullying video. Next,
we calculated the slope of each child’s IBIs over
each bullying video. Then, we averaged across the

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

382 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

six bullying videos to compute a final slope score
for each child. Averaging across videos resulted in
a more robust index of participants’ physiological
reaction to the videos, because HR is sensitive not
only to the bullying content of the videos, but also
to factors such as movement, noise, and lighting
that differed across videos. Internal consistency
across the six videos was .50. Although this esti
mate of internal consistency is somewhat low, we
considered it acceptable, given the sensitivity of HR
to extraneous qualities of the videos.

In this initial format, positive slopes indicated
that IBIs increased in length over the duration of the
video, or that HR decreased. In contrast, negative
slopes indicated that IBIs decreased, or that HR
increased. For ease of interpretation, we calculated
the inverse of IBI slope by multiplying the values by
-I. This yielded a final HR Slope Bullying score for
each child, in which positive values indicate increas
ing HR, and negative values indicate decreasing HR
over the videos. Similar scores were calculated for

HR slope during the two videos depicting neutral
interactions and during the seven nature videos
(HR Slope Neutral, HR Slope Nature).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The steps described earlier yielded the final 14
variables listed in Table 1. This table includes

descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation,
range, and skewness) for each variable. For all vari
ables, higher scores represent increased levels of
the construct of interest.

We identified skewed variables using a cutoff of
±0.5 (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). We corrected them
by performing log, square root, and inverse trans
formations; we reflected negatively skewed vari
ables prior to transformation. For each construct,
the transformed variable that reduced skewness the

most was retained for all subsequent analyses.
Then, we examined bivariate correlations among

nine of the final variables (see columns 2-10 of

Table 2). Variables representing children’s reactions
to the neutral or nature videos were not included

(HR Slope Neutral, HR Slope Nature, Mad Neutral,
Sad Neutral, and Scared Neutral). These variables
were not of primary interest but were used simply
as a baseline or manipulation check. Within variables
representing children’s reactions to the bullying
videos: (a) the correlations between Mad Bullying,
Sad Bullying, and Scared Bullying were all positive
and significant, and (b) HR Slope Bullying and Sad

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics

Variable Rater M SD Min. Max. Skew.

Physiological reaction
HR Slope Bullying — .63 4.24 -11.86 10.41 -.19

HR Slope Neutral — -1.49 5.05 -12.27 14.07 .18

HR Slope Nature — -2.02 4.48 -10.79 9.30 .14

Emotional reaction

Mad Bullying — 3.05 1.13 1.00 5.00 -.20

Sad Bullying — 2.67 1.01 1.00 5.00 .30

Scared Bullying — 1.86 .78 1.00 4.33 .86

Mad Neutral — 1.54 .71 1.00 4.50 1.67

Sad Neutral — 1.61 .66 1.00 4.00 1.21

Scared Neutral — 1.23 .49 1.00 3.50 2.63

Bystander behavior
Stop the Bully Peer -.09 .96 -2.17 1.95 .04

Child characteristics

Peer Victimization Self 2.16 .85 1.00 4.00 .41

Efficacy in Self 3.89 1.07 1.00 5.00 -.94

Confronting Peers
Emotional Self 1.33 .82 1.00 4.00 .14

Expressiveness
Affective Empathy Self 3.00 .69 1.33 5.00 .31

Note. Statistics provided are for raw variables before
transformation.

Bullying were positively correlated. Between the
reaction variables and child characteristics, Scared
Bullying was negatively correlated with Efficacy in
Confronting Peers and positively correlated with
Emotional Expressiveness. No significant correla
tions emerged among the four child characteristics
or between the child characteristics and Stop the
Bully.

Table 2 also includes correlations between the

demographic variables of age and income and each
of these final nine variables (columns 10-11). The

only significant correlation was a positive relation
between age and Stop the Bully.

Next, we examined gender differences and
race/ethnicity differences in these final nine vari
ables. In terms of gender: (a) girls (M = 2.94,
SD = 1.07) reported higher levels of Sad Bullying
than boys (M = 2.40, SD = 0.89), F(1, 77) = 6.08,
ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .55; (b) girls (M = 0.28,
SD = 0.18) reported higher levels of Scared Bullying
than boys (M = 0.19, SD = 0.16), HI, 77) = 4.57,
ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .47; and (c) girls (M = 1.62,
SD = .82) reported higher levels of Emotional
Expressiveness than boys (M = 1.06, SD = .74), F( 1,
77) = 9.88, ρ < .01, Cohen's d = .72. For race/ethnic
ity, there was a significant effect for Peer Victimiza
tion, F(3, 73) = 4.31, ρ < .01. Post hoc Bonferroni
comparisons indicated that African American chil

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 383

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. HR Slope Bullying .14 .32** ,20f -.07 .13 -.03 -,20+ -.01 -.06 -.01

2. Mad Bullying — .43*** .41*** .08 .06 .03 .01 -.16 .05 -.11

3. Sad Bullying — — 72*** .16 .14 -.12 -.14 -.10 -.02 -.08

4. Scared Bullying — — — .18 .15 -.24* -.33** -.20f -.11 -.09

5. Stop the Bully — — — — -.13 .10 -.17 .08 .34** -.12

6. Peer Victimization — — — — — -.10 -.10 -21f .00 .02

7. Efficacy in Confronting Peers — — — — — — .13 .12 .07 -.10

8. Affective Empathy — — — — — — — .10 .02 -.07

9. Emotional Expressiveness — — — — — — — — -,23+ -.20+

10. Age — — — — — — — — — .00

11. Income — — — — — — — — —

ν < .10. *ρ < .05. **ρ < .01. ***ρ < .0001.

dren (M = 2.70, SD = .98) self-reported more Peer
Victimization than Latino American children

(M = 1.53, SD = .38), ρ < .05, Cohen's d = 1.57, or
than children of mixed race/ethnicity (M = 1.58,
SD = .43), ρ < .05, Cohen's d = 1.48.

In addition, we examined children’s overall reac
tivity to the bullying videos. For physiological reac
tivity, we compared HR slopes during the bullying
videos to HR slopes during the neutral or nature
videos. HR Slope Bullying differed significantly
from HR Slope Neutral, F(l, 77) = 11.94, ρ < .001,
Cohen's d = .45, and HR Slope Nature, F( 1, 77) =
15.41, ρ < .0001, Cohen's d = .61. As can be seen in
Table 1, during the bullying videos, the average HR
slope across all children was positive, suggesting
physiological reactivity. However, during the neu
tral and nature videos, the average HR slope was
negative. Basic psychophysiological research has
repeatedly shown that individuals exhibit decreas
ing HR when orienting to a novel stimulus (e.g.,
Ohman, Hamm, & Hugdahl, 2000). Thus, these data
suggest that children were attending to the neutral
and nature videos, but did not exhibit physiological
signs of emotional arousal.

For emotional reactivity, we compared children’s
self report of emotion following the bullying videos
(Mad Bullying, Sad Bullying, and Scared Bullying)
with their self report of emotion following the neu
tral videos (Mad Neutral, Sad Neutral, and Scared
Neutral). Children reported feeling angrier,
χ2(1) = 70.05, ρ < .0001; sadder, χ2(1) = 55.35, ρ <
.0001; and more scared, χ2(1) = 56.53, ρ < .0001,
following the bullying videos than the neutral vid
eos. The nonparametric test Friedman's two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks was used
for these analyses, because the variables were

skewed and we could not assume normality or
equality of variance.

Finally, within the larger classroom sample, we
explored the percentage of children who were con
sistently nominated by their peers as someone who
tries to stop bullying. We found that many children
were nominated by at least a few peers, a pattern
that is common when using peer nominations for
positive behaviors. However, a much smaller per
centage of children were nominated by a majority
of their peers. In fact, only 20% of children were
nominated by more than 50% of their peers as
someone who intervenes in bullying episodes.

First Goal: Categorizing Children Based on Reactions to
Witnessing Bullying

We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to examine
whether children in our sample clustered into
groups based upon their physiological and emo
tional reactions to the bullying videos. Analyses
were conducted using Mplus 5.1 (Muthén & Muthén,
1998-2007). LPA is a person-centered approach that
groups individuals into latent categories, or classes,
on the basis of their scores on two or more

observed continuous variables (McCutcheon, 1987;
Walrath et al., 2004). In our LPA, we included
observed continuous variables to index physiologi
cal reactions (HR Slope Bullying) and emotional
reactions (Sad Bullying, Scared Bullying, and Mad
Bullying) to the bullying videos.

In LPA, the optimal number of groups is deter
mined through fit statistics and tests of significance,
whereas this determination is more subjective in
traditional cluster analysis (McLachlan & Peel,
2000; Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007;

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

384 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

Vermunt & Magidson, 2002). We used a combina
tion of fit statistics to determine the number of

groups that best fit the data. The Bayesian informa
tion criterion (BIC; Kass & Wasserman, 1995) was
used to estimate model fit; lower numbers repre
sent better fitting models. The Vuong-Lo-Men
dell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLMR) and the

adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test
(adjusted LMR) were used to compare models; for
these tests, significant γ values suggest that the esti
mated model fits the data better than a model with

one fewer group (e.g., Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001;
McLachlan & Peel, 2000; Vuong, 1989). Finally, the
normalized entropy criterion (NEC), proposed by
Celeux and Soromenho (1996), was used to indicate
how well the model classified individuals into

groups. NEC values range from 0 to 1, with values
closer to 1 suggesting better classification of indi
viduals to groups and less overlap between groups.

The data were fit to models with four indicators

(HR Slope Bullying, Mad Bullying, Sad Bullying,
and Scared Bullying) and increasing numbers of
groups. An a priori decision was made to continue
testing models with additional groups until none of
the fit statistics suggested better fit of the model in
question (N groups) compared to a model with N-l
groups. In addition, we decided in advance that
should there be discrepancies among the fit statis
tics, we would choose the model supported by the
largest number of fit statistics, while also consider
ing parsimony. Using these rules, models with one
to five groups were fit to the data.

The two-group model emerged as the one that fit
best, with three of the four fit statistics supporting
this model (see Table 3). The VLMR and adjusted
LMR were only significant for the two-group
model. In addition, entropy was higher for the two
group model than for any other model. Although
the remaining fit statistic (BIC) supported the three
group model, the BIC value decreased negligibly
by 1.23 from the two-group to the three-group
model, suggesting that the three-group model was
only very slightly better than the two-group model.
A final consideration in choosing the two-group
model over the three-group model was parsimony;
models with fewer groups are more parsimonious.

Within Mplus, the two latent Groups were com
pared on the four indicators (see Table 4). Signifi
cant differences between groups emerged for all
four indicators. Group 1 (57% of children) dis
played a decreasing HR and reported low levels of
all three negative emotions in response to the bully
ing videos. In contrast, Group 2 (43% of children)
displayed an increasing HR and reported signifi

Table 3

Fit Statistics for LP A Models

VLMR Adjusted LMR
Groups BIC p value p value Entropy

1 894.87 n/a n/a n/a

2 827.26 .0001 .0001 .92

3 826.03 .31 .32 .91

4 828.73 .17 .18 .89

5 836.36 .70 .71 .87

Note. BIC = Bayesian information criterion; VLMR = Vuong
Lo-Mendell-Rubin; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin; LPA = latent
profile analysis.

Table 4

Indicator Variable Means and Standard Deviations for Groups Pro
vided by the Two-Group LP A Model

LPA group HR slope* Mad*** Sad*** Scared***

1 (N

2 (N

= 45)

= 34)

-0.28 (4.34)

1.81 (3.85)

2.69 (1.16)

3.52 (.89)

1.94 (.55)

3.63 (.59)

.11 (.10)

.40 (.10)

Note. LPA = latent profile analysis; HR = heart rate.
‘Contrast between groups significant at ρ < .05. '"'Contrast
between groups significant at ρ < .0001.

cantly higher levels of anger, fear, and sadness.
Based on these data, we labeled Group 1 the
Unemotional group and Group 2 the Emotional
group.

For the Emotional group, each of the four indica
tors significantly predicted group membership (HR
Slope Bullying: estimate and SE = 2.62, ρ < .01; Mad
Bullying: estimate and SE = 22.78, ρ < .0001; Sad Bul
lying: estimate and SE = 30.94, ρ < .0001; Scared
Bullying: estimate and SE = 20.78, ρ < .0001). For the
Unemotional group, three of the four indicators pre
dicted group membership (Mad Bullying: estimate
and SE = 15.48, ρ < .0001; Sad Bullying: estimate and
SE = 21.58, ρ < .0001; Scared Bullying: estimate
and SE = 6.51, ρ < .0001).

The Mplus output includes scores for the condi
tional probability that each child is a member of
each group. Children were assigned to the group
for which they had the highest conditional proba
bility. These scores were quite high, with an aver
age highest conditional probability score of .98.
Fifty-nine children had a highest conditional proba
bility score of 1.00, 14 children had a score of .95
.99, 2 children had a score of .90-94, 2 children had
a score of .80-89, 1 child had a score of .70- 79, and
1 child had a score below .70.

Analyses were run to examine whether the Emo
tional and Unemotional groups differed in terms of

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 385

gender, race/ethnicity, age, or income. The groups
differed marginally by gender, χ2(1) = 3.67, ρ < .06,
but not by race/ethnicity, χ2(3) = .95, ns; age, F( 1,
77) = 1.43, ns; or income, F(l, 77) = .00, us. The
Emotional group included more girls (62%) than
boys (38%), whereas the Unemotional group
included more boys (60%) than girls (40%).

We also examined whether the Emotional and

Unemotional groups differed on bystander inter
vention or the four child characteristics. Two signif
icant effects emerged. The Emotional group
(M = 2.38, SD = .93) self-reported more Peer Vic
timization than the Unemotional group (M = 1.99,
SD = .75), F(1, 77), 4.24, ρ < .05, Cohen's d = .46. In
addition, and not surprisingly, the Emotional group
(M = 1.55, SD = .70) self-reported more Emotional
Expressiveness than the Unemotional group
(M = 1.18, SD = .88), F(l, 77) = 3.93, ρ < .05, Cohen's
d = .47. A slight marginal trend also emerged for
bystander intervention in bullying episodes. Peers
reported that the Emotional group (M – .09,
SD = .91) was more likely to Stop the Bully than
the Unemotional group (M = -.23, SD = .98),
F(l, 77) = 2.21, ρ = .14, Cohen's d = .34.

Since one of the fit statistics (BIC) supported a
three-group model, we did explore the three
groups that emerged from this LP A analysis. They
included a group with decreasing HR and low
reported negative emotion, a group with increasing
HR and high reported negative emotion, and a
group with even more quickly increasing HR and
even more reported negative emotion. Thus, the
three-group model was essentially a more detailed
version of the more strongly supported two-group
model discussed earlier.

Second Goal: Predicting Bystander Intervention in
Bullying Episodes

We conducted a linear regression to predict chil
dren’s bystander intervention in bullying episodes
at school. Stop the Bully served as the dependent
variable. Predictors included: (a) the demographic
variables of gender and age; (b) the child character
istics of Peer Victimization, Efficacy in Confronting
Peers, Emotional Expressiveness, and Affective
Empathy; and (c) group membership (Emotional or
Unemotional). In combination, these variables sig
nificantly predicted bystander intervention in bully
ing, F(7, 69) = 3.46, ρ < .01, R2 = .26. Age was a
significant predictor, with older children being
more likely to intervene than younger children.
Peer Victimization and Emotional Expressiveness
were marginal predictors, with children who

reported higher levels of Peer Victimization and
lower levels of Emotional Expressiveness being less
likely to try to stop bullying. Most importantly,
group membership significantly predicted bystan
der intervention, after taking other predictors into
account, with children being more likely to inter
vene if they were in the Emotional group than the
Unemotional group (see Table 5).

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to investigate
children’s physiological and emotional reactions to
bullying videos and to relate these reactions to chil
dren’s tendency to intervene in bullying episodes at
school. Participants watched bullying videos in the
laboratory while we assessed their HR, and they
self-reported levels of negative emotions after each
video. To determine if children clustered into

groups based upon these reactions, four variables
(the physiological variable of HR slope and three
self-reported emotion variables for anger, sadness,
and fear) were examined using LPA. Two groups
of children emerged based upon their reactions to
the bullying videos, an Emotional group and an
Unemotional group. The two groups can be sum
marized as follows: The Emotional group (43% of
children) displayed HR acceleration, whereas the
Unemotional group (57% of children) showed HR
deceleration. The Emotional group also reported
higher levels of fear, sadness, and anger to the bul
lying videos than the Unemotional group.

Membership in the Emotional or Unemotional
group predicted peer ratings of children’s likeli
hood of intervening in bullying episodes at school.
This prediction held even when other demographic
factors (gender, age) and child characteristics (peer

Table 5

Summary of Regression Coefficients for Variables Predicting Bystander

Intervention in Bullying

Variable B S E B (5 f

Gender -.08 .22 -.04 -0.38

Age .53 .14 .41 379***

Peer Victimization -.21 .12 -.18 -1.71f

Efficacy in Confronting Peers .11 .10 .12 1.11

Emotional Expressiveness .25 -.13 .21 1.83+

Affective Empathy -.09 .15 -.07 -0.60

Group Membership .43 .22 .22 2.00*

Note. R2 = .26.

fp < .10. *p < .05. ***p < .0001.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

386 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

victimization, efficacy in confronting peers, emo
tional expressiveness, and affective empathy) were
considered. It should be remembered that physio
logical and emotional reactions to bullying and the
tendency to intervene in bullying episodes were
assessed in the different contexts of laboratory and
school. Thus, we cannot conclude from this study
that children’s physiological or emotional reaction
in the moment of a bullying episode would trans
late to action in that same episode. At the same
time, it is important to note that children who were
more physiologically and emotionally reactive to
bullying in the laboratory were more likely to inter
vene in bullying at school, even though the labora
tory procedure only involved watching short
videos of unfamiliar children being bullied. How
ever, a notable limitation of this finding is that
while group membership emerged as a significant
predictor of bystander intervention in the context of
the larger regression model, the effect was only a
slight marginal trend when group membership
alone was used to predict intervention behavior in
an ANOVA analysis.

These findings suggest that children in the Emo
tional group were “upset” by seeing bullying. As
described in the Introduction, previous work has
suggested that individuals who are emotionally
aroused may be less likely to respond prosocially, if
their main goal is to reduce personal distress (Bat
son et al., 1994). However, in our study, emotional
upset in response to the bullying videos was associ
ated with intervening when bullying happens at
school. These findings lend support to the theory of
emotion utilization (e.g., Izard et al., 2008), which
suggests that both positive and negative emotions
can lead to adaptive action. Arousal may a critical
factor in predicting which children will have the
motivation and determination to confront a bully
ing peer.

Importantly, though, more children in our sam
ple clustered into the Unemotional group than the
Emotional group (although both groups were
sizable at 57% and 43% of children, respectively).
The size of the Unemotional group suggests that
lack of a physiological or emotional response to the
bullying videos was common and not indicative of
pathological levels of callousness or insensitivity.
Rather, several alternative interpretations are
possible. First, Unemotional children exhibited HR
deceleration. Basic psychophysiological research
suggests that HR decreases when individuals orient
to a new stimulus (e.g., Ôhman et al., 2000). Thus,
children in the Unemotional group may have sim
ply been attending to the bullying videos, but not

particularly physiologically or emotionally aroused.
Second, the videos may not have been sufficiently
evocative for many children. More children may
become physiologically or emotionally aroused
when witnessing real-life bullying episodes involv
ing familiar peers. Third, these children may wit
ness bullying events so frequently that they have
become desensitized to them or have found it adap
tive to keep their emotional response to a minimum.

These possible explanations notwithstanding, the
children who did not react physiologically and
emotionally to the bullying videos were in fact
rated by their peers as less likely to intervene when
a classmate is bullied than those children who

reacted more strongly. Membership in the Emo
tional and Unemotional groups, however, predicted
only a portion of the variance in bullying interven
tion behavior, even in combination with other
demographic factors and child characteristics.
Additional factors that may be important to exam
ine in the future include fear of the bully, dislike or
blame of the victim, and diffusion of responsibility.

Despite these limitations, the current study
explored the association between children’s reac
tions to bullying and bystander intervention in a
methodologically sophisticated study. When chil
dren are simply asked how they feel about bullying
and whether they would intervene, they tend to
provide socially desirable answers. In contrast, in
the current study, children’s reactions to bullying
were assessed in the laboratory through both physi
ological and self-reported emotional measures, and
their tendency to intervene in bullying episodes in
the classroom were indexed through peer report.
This approach gave us a more nuanced and robust
understanding of the association between these
constructs.

Our findings suggest that it was important to
combine both physiological and emotional variables
in the assessment of children’s reactions to bully
ing. Furthermore, our results indicate that chil
dren’s reactions were better represented by a latent
variable that grouped children into Emotional and
Unemotional groups than by a continuous range of
responses. Specifically, although the group mem
bership predicted bystander intervention in the
context of the regression, bivariate correlations
between the four individual reaction variables used

to form the latent groups and bystander interven
tion were nonsignificant. This finding, combined
with the clarity and consistency of the results of the
LP A, suggests that the combination of children’s
physiological and emotions to the bullying videos
divided them fairly cleanly into two groups.

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 387

If replicated in future studies, these findings may
help guide interventionists as they work to improve
the bystander component of bullying intervention
programs. Our results suggest that one target of
intervention should be bystanders’ reactions to bul
lying. A substantial group of children in the sample
were not particularly aroused by witnessing bully
ing, and this same group was considered by peers
to be less likely to intervene in bullying episodes.
Thus, intervention programs may need to increase
children’s awareness of the seriousness of bullying
and help children to take the perspective of and
recognize the suffering of victims. If children become
more engaged, concerned, and upset by bullying
episodes, they may be more likely to intervene.

Beyond group membership, two other predictors
of bystander intervention trended in the hypothe
sized direction (peer victimization, emotional
expressiveness). However, both effects were only
marginal, and they only emerged in the context of
the regression model and not in bivariate correla
tions; thus, they should not be overinterpreted.
Furthermore, findings for gender, efficacy in con
fronting peers, and affective empathy as predictors
of bystander intervention failed to emerge as
hypothesized, either within the regression model or
at the level of bivariate correlations or ANOVA

analyses. With a sample size of only 79, low power
may explain these null findings. In addition, dis
crepancies from previous studies in which signifi
cant effects for these relations emerged may be
explained by differences the age and country of
origin of the sample studied, the source and mea
sure of bystander behavior used, or the way in
which the child characteristic was assessed. For

example, in a previous investigation in which peer
victimization negatively predicted intervention in
bullying (Rigby & Johnson, 2006), bystander behav
ior was assessed through self report rather than the
peer report used in the current study. Another
example concerns the two studies by Gini et al.
(2007, 2008), in which affective empathy and social
self-efficacy predicted bystander intervention; these
studies used somewhat older Italian samples, a dif
ferent peer-report measure of bystander interven
tion, and broader self-report measures of social
self-efficacy or affective empathy. In any case, more
work is clearly needed to gain a fuller understand
ing of the demographic factors or child characteris
tics that drive children’s behavior when they are
bystanders to bullying episodes. This work is an
important goal for future research; such knowledge
will be critical as we work to improve the bystan
der component of bullying prevention programs.

Finally, one demographic variable emerged as a
strong predictor of bystander intervention in bully
ing episodes. However, in contrast to previous
work, age was a strong positive predictor of bystan
der intervention, both at the level of bivariate corre
lation and in the context of the regression model.
This finding runs counter to a previous study sug
gesting that younger children are more likely to
intervene (Rigby & Johnson, 2006). Importantly, in
the current study, we assessed bystander interven
tion through peer report, whereas the previous
study used self report. Perhaps younger children
are more likely to report that they would try to stop
a bully, but older children are actually more likely
to do so, at least in the eyes of their peers.

An additional issue addressed in the current pro
ject concerns the percentage of children who tend
to intervene in bullying episodes. As discussed ear
lier, although about half of students report that
they would try to help a victim of bullying (Whit
ney & Smith, 1993), observational (O’Connell et al.,
1999) and peer-report (Salmivalli et al., 1996) data
suggest that much smaller percentages of children
actually do so (25% and 17%, respectively). The
classroom-based data set (Ν = 771) used here pro
vides another source of peer-report data on the per
centage of children who try to stop bullies. These
data suggest that only 20% of children were nomi
nated by at least half of their classmates as inter
vening in bullying episodes, a percentage that is in
line with the previous peer-report and observa
tional data. Given the tendency for most children in
a classroom to receive at least a few peer nomina
tions for positive behaviors, the use of this conser
vative criteria (nomination by at least half of peers)
seems appropriate as a means of identifying those
children who consistently work to help others who
are the victims of bullying.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study has a number of limitations
and suggests several directions for future research.
First, in future studies, researchers should use mul
tiple measures of physiological arousal to more
completely assess children’s reactions to bullying.
Cardiac response can be difficult to interpret, as it
is affected by both the sympathetic and parasympa
thetic branches of the autonomic nervous system.
Pairing electrodermal measurement with cardiac
measurement often helps in this interpretation,
since skin conductance is accepted as a purely sym
pathetic autonomic response (Dawson, Schell, &
Filion, 2000).

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

388 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

Second, observational coding of children’s facial
expressions during the bullying videos would have
allowed for more comprehensive assessment of
participants’ emotional response. Recent articles
(e.g., Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004) have called for
multimethod assessment of emotional arousal (e.g.,
physiological, self report, and observational) as
these components do not typically correlate highly.
Adding observation to future studies will allow for
more thorough examination of children’s emotional
reactions to bullying.

Third, future researchers may wish to provide
children with a more expansive definition of bul
lying when they complete the peer nominations
of bystander intervention. The definition used in
the current study was limited to physical and ver
bal bullying and did not specifically mention rela
tional bullying. More children may have been
nominated as intervening in bullying episodes if
relational bullying were explicitly included in the
definition.

Fourth, it will be important for future researchers
to explore connections between the constructs that
were the focus of the current study (reactions to
bullying, bystander intervention behavior) and chil
dren’s own bullying behavior and victimization
experiences. Such work will greatly enhance our
understanding of the complex interplay of these
constructs and may prove crucial to the improve
ment of bullying prevention programs.

Fifth, in future studies, researchers should
explore associations between reactions to bullying
and bystander intervention in different develop
mental periods. The findings of the current study
cannot be generalized beyond the fourth- and fifth
grade age group. Changes across development in
children’s perspective-taking abilities, social skills,
and the nature of bullying may make our findings
particularly age specific.

Finally, we would call for greater collaboration
among developmental and social psychologists in
the investigation of bystander behavior in children.
The adult social psychology literature has a rich
tradition of studying bystander intervention (e.g.,
Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981; van
den Bos, Miiller, & van Bussel, 2009). Unfortu
nately, there are few data on children’s bystander
behavior, even beyond the specific context of bully
ing. Basic research in this area will increase our
understanding of the various cognitive, emotional,
and physiological factors that contribute to chil
dren’s bystander behavior. With greater under
standing of why children do or do not intervene in
bullying situations, we will be able to do more to

prevent the serious problem that bullying currently
represents in our schools.

References

Adelson, Ov Braunstein, Η., & Jaffe, M. (Producers), &
McLoughlin, T. (Director). (2005). Odd girl out [Motion
picture]. USA: Jaffe/Braunstein Films, Lifetime Tele
vision, and Orly Adelson Productions.

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bully
ing in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92,
86-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597580

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of
programs to prevent school bullying. Victims and
Offenders, 2, 183-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15564880701263155

Barker, E. D., Arseneault, L., Brendgen, M., Fontaine, N.,
& Maughan, B. (2008). Joint development of bullying
and victimization in adolescence: Relations to delin

quency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1030-1038. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/ CHI.0b013e31817eec98

Batson, C. D., Fultz, ]., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1994). Dis
tress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious
emotions with different motivational consequences. In
B. Puka (Ed.), Reaching out: Caring, altruism, and proso
cial behavior (pp. 57-75). New York: Garland.

Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion
for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture
model. Journal of Classification, 13, 195-212. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01246098

Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion
regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological
challenges and directions for child development
research. Child Development, 75, 317-333. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111 / j.l467-8624.2004.00673.x

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2000). The
electrodermal system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassi
nary, & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of human psy
chophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 200-223). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Evers, K. E., Prochaska, J. O., Van Marter, D. F., Johnson,
J. L., & Prochaska, J. M. (2007). Transtheoretical-based
bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle
schools and high schools. Journal of Educational Research,
49, 397-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188070
1717271

Faull, C. (Producer & Director). (2007). Stories of us
[Motion picture]. (Available from Stories of US). 1215
Wellesley Road, Madison, WI 53705.

Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does
empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending
behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204

Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Deter
minants of adolescents’ active defending and passive
bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence,

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reactions to Bullying 389

31, 93-105. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.adolescence.
2007.05.002

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, Κ. D. (1996). Statistical methods in
education and psychology (3rd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal
analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer vic
timization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402001049

Irving, Β. Α., & Parker-Jenkins, M. (1995). Tracking tru
ancy: An examination of persistent non-attendance
amongst disaffected school pupils and positive support
strategies. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 225-235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764950250209

Izard, C., Stark, K., Trentacosta, C., & Schultz, D. (2008).
Beyond emotion regulation: Emotion utilization and
adaptive functioning. Child Development Perspectives, 2,
156-163. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.1750-8606.2008.
00058.x

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and
validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adoles
cence, 29, 589-611. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.adoles·
cence.2005.08.010

Kama, Α., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljo
nen, Α., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evalua
tion of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6.
Child Development, 82, 311-330. http://dx.doi.org/
10.111 l/j.l467-8624.2010.01557.x

Kass, R. E., & Wasserman, L. (1995). A reference Bayesian
test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the
Schwartz criterion. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 90, 928-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2291327

Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Marsee, Μ. Α.,
Cruise, K., Munoz, L. C., et al. (2008). Assessing cal
lous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Valida

tion of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 241-252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.04.002

Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I.
S., & Gould, M. (2008). Peer victimization, depression,
and suicidality in adolescents. Suicide and Life-Threaten
ing Behavior, 38, 166-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/
suli.2008.38.2.166

Latané, Β., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystan
der: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century
Crofts.

Latané, Β., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on
group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308
324. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308

Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the
number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika,
88, 767-778. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1093/biomet/88.3.
767

McCutcheon, A. (1987). Latent class analysis. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models.
New York: Wiley Interscience.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide
(5th éd.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Natvig, G. K., Albrektsen, G., & Qvarnstrom, U. (2001).
Psychosomatic symptoms among victims of school bul
lying. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 365-377. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600401

Neary, Α., & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its
relationship to self-concept and depression among
school-girls. Personality and Individual Differences,
16, 183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)
90122-8

Nylund, K., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, Β. (2007). Decid
ing on the number of classes in latent class analysis
and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simula
tion study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535-569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer
involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for
intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0238

Ohman, Α., Hamm, Α., & Hugdahl, K. (2000). Cognition
and the autonomic nervous system: Orienting, anticipa
tion, and conditioning. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassi
nary, & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of human
psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 533-575). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and
what we can do. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., Crocker Flerx, V. C., Mullin,
N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007). Olweus Bullying Pre
vention Program teacher guide. Center City, MN: Hazel
den.

Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Bandura, A. (1998). The
measurement of self-efficacy in school-age children: A
preliminary contribution. Età Evolutiva, 61, 28-40.

Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J.,
Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001). The structure of chil
dren’s perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 87-97.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.2.87

Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the
fence: Naturalistic observations of aggressive children
with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental Psy
chology, 31, 548-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012
1649.31.4.548

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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511584466.008

Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and
educators can reduce bullying at school. Maiden, MA:
Blackwell.

Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of
Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in sup
port of children who are being bullied. Educational Psy

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

390 Barhight, Hubbard, and Hyde

chology, 26, 425-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01443410500342047

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman,
Kv & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group pro
cess: Participant roles and their relations to social status
within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:l3.0.CO;2-T

Srabstein, J., & Piazza, T. (2008). Public health, safety and
educational risks associated with bullying behaviors in
American adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent
Medicine and Health, 20, 223-233. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1515/IJAMH.2008.20.2.223

Stevens, V., Van Oost, P., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2004).
Interventions against bullying in Flemish schools: Pro
gramme development and evaluation. In P. K. Smith,
D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How
effective can interventions be? (pp. 141-165). New York:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/ CB09780511584466.009

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles,
Μ. Α., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during
exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0272-4944(05)80184-7

van den Bos, K., Muller, P. Α., & van Bussel, A. A. (2009).
Helping to overcome intervention inertia in bystander’s
dilemmas: Behavioral disinhibition can improve the
greater good. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,
873-878. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.014

Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster
analysis. In J. Hagenaars & A. McCutcheon (Eds.),

Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). New York:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/CB09780511499531.004

Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. Α., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Mod
zeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe
School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school
attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret
Service and U.S. Department of Education.

Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model
selection and non-tested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57,
307-333. http: / /dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912557

Walrath, C. M., Petras, H., Mandell, D. S., Stephens, R. L.,
Holden, E. W., & Leaf, P. J. (2004). Gender differences
in patterns of risk factors among children receiving
mental health services: Latent class analyses. Journal of
Behavioral Health Services & Research, 31, 297-311.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School
bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physi
cal, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45, 368-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jado
health.2009.03.021

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature
and extent of bullying junior/middle and secondary
schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25. http:/ /
dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188930350101

Wilson, A. C., Lengua, L. J., Tininenko, J., Taylor, Α., &
Trancik, A. (2009). Physiological profiles during delay
of gratification: Associations with emotionality, self
regulation, and adjustment problems. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 30, 780-790. http:/ /
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.002

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:31 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

p. [375]

p. 376

p. 377

p. 378

p. 379

p. 380

p. 381

p. 382

p. 383

p. 384

p. 385

p. 386

p. 387

p. 388

p. 389

p. 390

Issue Table of Contents

Child Development, Vol. 84, No. 1 (JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013) pp. 1-390

Front Matter

In This Issue [pp. 1-5]

SPECIAL SECTION: Genomics

Introduction to the Special Section on Genomics [pp. 6-16]

þÿ�þ�ÿ��A�� G��e��n��o��m��e��-��W��i��d��e�� A��s��s��o��c��i��a��t��i��o��n�� S��t��u��d��y�� o��f�� A��u��t��i��s��m�� I��n��c��o��r��p��o��r��a��t��i��n��g�� A��u��t��i��s��m�� D��i��a��g��n��o��s��t��i��c�� I��n��t��e��r��v��i��e��w��R��e��v��i��s��e��d��,�� A��u��t��i��s��m�� D��i��a��g��n��o��s��t��i��c�� O��b��s��e��r��v��a��t��i��o��n�� S��c��h��e��d��u��l��e��,�� a��n��d�� S��o��c��i��a��l�� R��e��s��p��o��n��s��i��v��e��n��e��s��s�� S��c��a��l��e�� [��p��p��.�� 1��7��-��3��3��]

Child Development and Structural Variation in the Human Genome [pp. 34-48]

DNA Methylation: A Mechanism for Embedding Early Life Experiences in the Genome [pp. 49-57]

Epigenetic Vestiges of Early Developmental Adversity: Childhood Stress Exposure and DNA Methylation in Adolescence [pp. 58-75]

Gene Expression in the Human Brain: The Current State of the Study of Specificity and Spatiotemporal Dynamics [pp. 76-88]

From Genes to Environment: Using Integrative Genomics to Build a “Systems-Level” Understanding of Autism Spectrum Disorders [pp. 89-103]

Child Development and Molecular Genetics: 14 Years Later [pp. 104-120]

The Utility of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics [pp. 121-132]

EMPIRICAL REPORTS

To Study or to Sleep? The Academic Costs of Extra Studying at the Expense of Sleep [pp. 133-142]

Young Word Learners’ Interpretations of Words and Symbolic Gestures Within the Context of Ambiguous Reference [pp. 143-153]

Systems and Cascades in Cascades in Cognitive Development and Academic Achievement [pp. 154-162]

EMPIRICAL ARTICLES

þÿ�þ�ÿ��E��x��p��o��s��u��r��e�� t��o�� V��i��o��l��e��n��c��e�� A��c��r��o��s��s�� t��h��e�� S��o��c��i��a��l�� E��c��o��s��y��s��t��e��m�� a��n��d�� t��h��e�� D��e��v��e��l��o��p��m��e��n��t�� o��f�� A��g��g��r��e��s��s��i��o��n��:�� A�� T��e��s��t�� o��f�� E��c��o��l��o��g��i��c��a��l�� T��h��e��o��r��y�� i��n�� t��h��e�� I��s��r��a��e��l��i��P��a��l��e��s��t��i��n��i��a��n�� C��o��n��f��l��i��c��t�� [��p��p��.�� 1��6��3��-��1��7��7��]

Does Maternal Employment Following Childbirth Support or Inhibit Low-Income Children’s Long-Term Development? [pp. 178-197]

Maternal Education Preferences Moderate the Effects of Mandatory Employment and Education Programs on Child Positive and Problem Behaviors [pp. 198-208]

Geographic Variations in Cost of Living: Associations With Family and Child Well-Being [pp. 209-225]

Cliff or Step? Posture-Specific Learning at the Edge of a Drop-Off [pp. 226-240]

Preverbal Infants’ Attention to Manner and Path: Foundations for Learning Relational Terms [pp. 241-252]

Helping the In-Group Feels Better: Children’s Judgments and Emotion Attributions in Response to Prosocial Dilemmas [pp. 253-268]

þÿ�þ�ÿ��C��h��i��l��d��r��e��n�� T��r��u��s��t�� a�� C��o��n��s��e��n��s��u��s�� C��o��m��p��o��s��e��d�� o��f�� O��u��t��g��r��o��u��p�� M��e��m��b��e��r��s��B��u��t�� D��o�� N��o��t�� R��e��t��a��i��n�� T��h��a��t�� T��r��u��s��t�� [��p��p��.�� 2��6��9��-��2��8��2��]

Early Attachment Organization With Both Parents and Future Behavior Problems: From Infancy to Middle Childhood [pp. 283-296]

Tracing the Cascade of Children’s Insecurity in the Interparental Relationship: The Role of Stage-Salient Tasks [pp. 297-312]

Toddlers’ Processing of Phonological Alternations: Early Compensation for Assimilation in English and French [pp. 313-330]

Infant Categorization of Path Relations During Dynamic Events [pp. 331-345]

Developmental Dynamics of Emotion and Cognition Processes in Preschoolers [pp. 346-360]

Emotion Regulation Strategies That Promote Learning: Reappraisal Enhances Children’s Memory for Educational Information [pp. 361-374]

Children’s Physiological and Emotional Reactions to Witnessing Bullying Predict Bystander Intervention [pp. 375-390]

Back Matter

The Role of Elementary School Counselors in Reducing School Bullying

Author(s): Sheri Bauman

Source: The Elementary School Journal , Vol. 108, No. 5 (May 2008), pp. 362-375

Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589467

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Elementary School Journal

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589467

The Role of
Elementary School
Counselors in
Reducing School
Bullying

Sheri Bauman
University of Arizona

Abstract

In this article, I review the literature on school
bullying with an emphasis on elementary schools.
Bullying is defined and described, 3 types of
bullying are discussed, and the importance of
relational bullying is emphasized. I review ex-
isting programs to reduce bullying with atten-
tion to empirical studies. Barriers to implemen-
tation of effective programs are acknowledged.
Given the expertise and role of elementary
school counselors, they are in a unique position
to be leaders in reducing school bullying, a view
that is consistent with the American School
Counseling Association national model for pro-
fessional school counseling. I suggest ways in
which school counselors can have a significant
influence on school bullying, outline implica-
tions of research for best practice, and discuss
the need for future research.

Although scholarly interest in school bully-
ing in the United States has lagged behind
that of other countries such as Canada,
Australia, and the United Kingdom, public
concern and research attention have in-
creased in recent years, in part due to
highly publicized incidents of school vio-
lence. Investigations by the Secret Service
revealed that in two-thirds of the high-
profile cases of school shootings, the perpe-
trators had been chronic victims of bullying,
and revenge was a prominent motivation
(Dedman, 2000). Dan Olweus’s seminal re-
search on school bullying in Norway in the
early 1980s was prompted by several suicides
that were attributed to despair caused by
chronic victimization by bullies.

Such incidents may be rare, but bullying
is not. The largest national study in the
United States to date found that that 29.9%
of students in grades 6 through 10 reported

The Elementary School Journal
Volume 108, Number 5
© 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-5984/2008/10805-0002$10.00

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

“moderate or frequent” involvement in
bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). The number
of victims in elementary grades has been
estimated at twice that of secondary stu-
dents (Ross, 1996), which means that bully-
ing affects a very large number of students
in U.S. elementary schools. Bullying “may
be the most prevalent form of violence in
the schools and the form that is likely to
affect the greatest number of students”
(Batsche, 2002, p. 171). Most bullying oc-
curs in school rather than on the journey to
and from school and is particularly preva-
lent in areas with minimal adult supervision.
Playgrounds, hallways, and restrooms are
common locations for incidents of bullying,
although classrooms are not immune (Payne
& Gottfredson, 2004).

Defining Bullying
The generally accepted definition describes
bullying as a subset of aggression with
three components: (a) intent to harm, (b)
repetition, and (c) a power imbalance be-
tween the bully and the target or victim.
Bullying is distinguished from conflict by
unequal power between the persons in-
volved. Although this definition, originally
proposed by Olweus (1993), provides a
common basis for communicating about
the topic, it is not without limitations for
schools. First, intent is difficult to detect,
and the perpetrator can dismiss the charge
of bullying by claiming, “It was an acci-
dent. I didn’t mean it.” The repetitive na-
ture of bullying is undoubtedly a contribu-
tor to the harmful effects, but an action
toward a victim cannot be dismissed be-
cause it is a single (or initial) occurrence.
The key component of the definition is the
power imbalance. The bully uses his or her
power (which may be due to physical at-
tributes or social standing) against a
weaker student who is unable to defend
him/herself. Thus, Smith and Sharp (1994)
suggested a more concise definition: “a sys-
tematic abuse of power” (p. 2).

This common definition also creates the

impression that bullying is a dyadic en-
counter, involving two parties. However,
recognizing the important role played by
bystanders, Twemlow, Fonagy, and Sacco
(2004) proposed an alternate definition:
“bullying is the repeated exposure of an
individual to negative interactions directly
or indirectly inflicted by one or more dom-
inant persons. The harm may be caused
through direct physical or psychological
means and/or indirectly through encour-
agement of the process or avoidance by the
bystander” (p. 221).

Types of Bullying
In addition to a common definition, it is
now widely accepted that there are several
different types of bullying. Overt bullying
includes both physical and verbal bullying.
Examples are pushing, hitting, shoving,
name-calling, threatening, and malicious
teasing. Indirect bullying involves rela-
tional aggression, in which the harm is in-
flicted by damaging the target’s relation-
ships. For example, relational bullying
involves social exclusion, spreading ru-
mors, and demanding compliance as a con-
dition of friendship.

Relational bullying has been perceived
erroneously as less harmful than overt
forms of bullying and may be discounted
as normative female behavior (Harachi,
Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999). Relational bul-
lying is more strongly related to emotional
distress than is physical bullying (Hawker,
1998) and has been found to be uniquely
predictive of current (Casey-Cannon, Hay-
ward, & Gowen, 2001; Crick, 1996; Crick &
Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) and
future (Crick, 1996; Espelage, Mebane, &
Swearer, 2004) social and psychological
maladjustment, as well as depression in
adulthood (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Olweus,
1993). Victims of bullying indicated that so-
cial exclusion was the worst form of bully-
ing (Sharp, 1995), although teachers tend to
treat this as the least serious (Birkinshaw &
Eslea, 1998).

BULLYING 363

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Although physical bullying tends to de-
crease with age, relational bullying does
not (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002).
Moreover, relational bullying has been
found to increase in schools when direct
bullying decreases (Woods & Wolke, 2003).
Vail (2002) concluded that schools focus on
physical aggression and lack policies to
deal with relational aggression. For both
males and females, relational bullying has a
stronger link to depression than does direct
bullying; relational bullying and indirect
forms of bullying likely “cause the greatest
amount of suffering, while they have a
greater chance of going unnoticed by teach-
ers” (van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003,
p. 1312). Elementary school counselors
have a particular interest in enhancing stu-
dents’ interpersonal skills and helping stu-
dents develop positive friendship skills.
Counselors can apply their knowledge and
skills to reduce relational bullying and as-
sist victims.

My research has confirmed the relation
between victimization by relational bully-
ing and depressive symptoms in elemen-
tary students in a small Southwestern com-
munity. In a study of 116 Mexican American
students in grades 3 through 5, the only sig-
nificant predictor of depression was victim-
ization by relational bullying. Gender, grade
level, overt bullying, and acculturation status
had no effect (Bauman, 2006). I obtained sim-
ilar outcomes with middle school students in
an ethnically diverse school in a midsized
Southwestern city (Bauman, in press).

Yoon and Kerber (2003) found that 94
elementary teachers rated vignettes of
physical bullying as the most serious type
of bullying event, followed by scenarios of
verbal and relational bullying, in that or-
der. Participants rated each of six vignettes
(two each of physical, verbal, and relational
bullying) on a five-point scale for serious-
ness (not at all serious to very serious), the
degree of empathy for the victim (not at all
sympathetic to very sympathetic), and the
likelihood of intervening in the situation
(not at all likely to very likely). Note that

the authors used the term “empathy” for
this subscale, although the wording of the
item uses the term “sympathy.” Teachers
also had the least empathy for victims of
relational bullying and were least likely to
intervene in relational bullying incidents.
Jacobsen and Bauman (2007) used the same
questionnaire with a sample of 183 school
counselors in one state, with similar results.
School counselors rated the relational bul-
lying incidents as less serious than physical
or verbal bullying and had the least empa-
thy for victims of relational bullying. They
were more likely to intervene in verbal bul-
lying than in relational bullying and pro-
posed less serious consequences for bullies
using this tactic. However, counselors with
antibullying training rated relational bully-
ing as more serious than those without
such training, and female counselors rated
relational bullying as more serious than did
male counselors. Counselors who worked
in schools with antibullying programs in
place were more likely to intervene in ver-
bal and relational bullying incidents than
those who worked in schools without such
programs. When the results were com-
pared to those of the teachers in the Yoon
and Kerber sample, counselors obtained
higher scores on all variables (seriousness,
empathy for victim, willingness to inter-
vene) than teachers. School counselors are
likely to have training and skills to inter-
vene in incidents of school bullying.

Consequences of Bullying
The literature has consistently reported
negative consequences associated with bul-
lying. Both bullies and victims are more
likely to evidence social, emotional, behav-
ioral, and academic problems (Glew, Fan,
Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005) than their
uninvolved peers. Victims exhibit higher
rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and
low self-esteem, and these effects persist
into adulthood (Leff, Power, & Goldstein,
2004). Peer rejection, delinquent behavior,
criminality, violence, and suicidal ideation

364 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

have also been identified as outcomes of
bullying involvement (Marsh, Parada, Cra-
ven, & Finger, 2004). There is no question
that the problem is serious and worthy of
attention.

Cyberbullying
The proliferation of technology has pro-
vided students with new methods of bul-
lying. The term cyberbullying (coined by Ca-
nadian Bill Belsey) refers to this recent
development. “Cyberbullying involves the
use of information and communication
technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and
pager text messages, instant messaging, de-
famatory personal Web sites, and defama-
tory online personal polling Web sites, to
support deliberate, repeated, and hostile
behaviour by an individual or group, that
is intended to harm others” (Belsey, n.d.).
The scant research on this form of bullying
suggests that it is at least as prevalent as
more established methods. Kowalski et al.
(2005) reported that 25% of middle school
girls and 11% of boys had been cyberbul-
lied within the previous 2 months, and 13%
of girls and 9% of boys admitted cyberbul-
lying someone else. Of the bullied students,
63% were bullied by a schoolmate.

Dealing with Bullying
There is considerable evidence that schools
are not effective at combating bullying. For
example, Craig and Pepler (1997) found
that playground supervisors intervened in
only 4% of bullying incidents. Doll, Song,
and Siemers (2004) reported that students
do not tell teachers about bullying inci-
dents because they perceive teachers as “in-
ept, uncaring, or unable to protect them”
(p. 169). Atlas and Pepler (1998) observed
that teachers intervened in only 18% of bul-
lying incidents that occurred in their ele-
mentary and middle school classes, and
40% of elementary students and 60% of jun-
ior high students reported that teachers do
nothing when victims tell them about bul-
lying incidents (Hoover & Hazler, 1991).

Furthermore, 70% of teachers in one study
(Charach, Pepler, & Ziegler, 1995) believed
that teachers intervene “almost always” in
bullying situations, whereas only 25% of
the students agreed with their assessment.

Of interest is a current study (Bauman
& Rigby, 2006) in which both teachers and
school counselors were surveyed using the
Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ;
Rigby, 2006) about their methods for han-
dling an incident of school bullying. The
HBQ contains 22 items in which respon-
dents indicate the likelihood of taking a
given action in response to the scenario
provided on a five-point scale (from “I def-
initely would” to “I definitely would not”).
Five subscales were identified using princi-
pal components analysis. The sample con-
sisted of 601 educators, 66% of whom were
school counselors. Of the 385 counselors,
48% worked in elementary or K–8 schools.
Statistically significant differences between
teachers and school counselors were de-
tected on four of the five subscales. Coun-
selors were more likely to say they would
work with the victim and would enlist
other adults (including parents) in the so-
lution. They were less likely than teachers
to ignore or dismiss the incident and less
likely to use punitive disciplinary strate-
gies. The only subscale on which there was
no difference was the Work with Bully sub-
scale. Teachers and counselors both indi-
cated they would work with (as opposed to
punish) the bully in order to resolve the
problem. These results point to the elemen-
tary school counselor as the logical person
in the school to take a leadership role in
efforts to reduce bullying.

Teachers and other school personnel
tend to overestimate their effectiveness in
bullying intervention (Holt & Keyes, 2004).
One noted U.S. researcher commented,
“Unfortunately, adults within the school
environment dramatically overestimate
their effectiveness in identifying and inter-
vening in bullying situations” (Susan Lim-
ber, quoted in Crawford, 2002, p. 65).
Teachers’ lack of intervention “plays a crit-

BULLYING 365

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ical role in sanctioning the bullying behav-
ior that occurs in schools, either intention-
ally or unintentionally” (Newman-Carlson
& Horne, 2004, p. 260).

Effectiveness of Antibullying
Programs
Smith and Ananiadou (2003) reviewed the
evaluation research on antibullying pro-
grams. Olweus conducted the largest
project in Bergen, Norway, in the early
1980s. His comprehensive school-wide pro-
gram addressed bullying at multiple lev-
els—the entire school, the classroom, and
the individual. At the school level, the Ol-
weus program called for a questionnaire to
be administered to students to determine
the prevalence of bullying, a school confer-
ence day on bullying, increased supervi-
sion on playgrounds, meetings with staff
and parents, and the formation of teachers’
groups to focus on improving overall
school climate (Olweus, 1993). At the class-
room level, student involvement in devel-
oping classroom rules against bullying was
followed by regular classroom meetings to
discuss bullying problems, role-playing ac-
tivities and the use of literature related to
bullying, and the use of cooperative learn-
ing strategies. When bullying did occur, Ol-
weus’s model called for “serious talks” (p.
64) with involved students and their par-
ents, help from “neutral” students, help
and support for parents, and, if none of
those actions was successful, changing the
class or school of involved students. In fact,
the program was part of a national antibul-
lying campaign, which may have also af-
fected outcomes. Results of the program
revealed a 50% decrease in student self-
reported bullying.

However, shortly thereafter, another
Norwegian researcher (Roland, 1989) eval-
uated a similar program in another part of
the country, with very different outcomes.
He found increased bullying among boys
during the years of program implementa-
tion. One explanation of the marked differ-

ence in results is that Olweus and his team
were directly involved in the program,
whereas Roland provided materials but no
other support. A large-scale study con-
ducted in Sheffield, England, with many
similarities to the Olweus program, had
positive results: an average of 17% more
students reported not being bullied, and
7% fewer students reported bullying others
after the 2-year program. One finding from
this research is particularly noteworthy: the
best outcomes were obtained in schools
with the strongest commitment to the pro-
gram, which typically had a designated
staff member coordinating the program,
and strong administrative support. Ele-
mentary school counselors are ideally
suited to be that designated staff member
and to enlist administrative support.

Other programs, in England, Canada,
Germany, and Belgium reported mixed re-
sults, with only modest effects after the ini-
tial successful intervention in Bergen. One
large-scale study was conducted in the
United States in rural South Carolina
schools. The Olweus model was used, with
additional materials and community in-
volvement. Again, results were mixed; 25%
fewer students in the experimental schools
reported bullying other children after the
2-year intervention, whereas those in con-
trol schools reported increased bullying.
However, there was no significant differ-
ence between experimental and control
schools in the number of students being
bullied, measured by student self-report
(Smith & Ananiadou, 2003).

Twemlow and his colleagues tested a
violence-prevention program directed at
reducing bullying and other forms of vio-
lence in two inner-city elementary schools
in the Midwest (Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco,
Gies, Evans, et al., 2001). The program is
based on a model of bullying as a triadic
interaction of bully, victim, and bystander.
School staff is usually in the bystander role
in this model. The intervention included
four elements: zero tolerance for bullying
and other violence, a specific discipline

366 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

plan based on modeling of appropriate be-
haviors, a specialized physical education
curriculum to teach self-regulation, and a
mentoring program using older children
and adults. Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies,
Evans, et al. (2001) proclaimed a “dramatic
reduction in disciplinary referrals” in the
experimental school, with no change in the
control school. Suspension rates in the ex-
perimental school also declined signifi-
cantly in contrast to the control school,
where no change was detected. It is impor-
tant to note that there was a significant
increase in academic performance in the
experimental school, as measured by scores
on an achievement test, whereas scores in
the control school did not change. School
counselors who are seeking a rationale for
implementing an antibullying program
might note that academic performance im-
proved when bullying decreased.

The Expect Respect program was devel-
oped with support from the Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia (Mer-
aviglia, Becker, Rosenbluth, Sanchez, &
Robertson, 2003). The project was based on
Olweus’s model and included classroom
curriculum, staff training, policy develop-
ment, parent education, and support ser-
vices. School counselors received addi-
tional training in order to provide
responsive services to students involved in
bullying. Initial evaluation, based on sur-
veys of students and staff, yielded disap-
pointing results. Only 19% of students in
the intervention group were able to identify
bullying behaviors at posttest. An increase
in student reports of bullying behaviors
was attributed to heightened awareness as
a result of the program. Despite these lim-
ited results, researchers learned that stu-
dents expected the adults at school to tell
them to ignore bullying behaviors, and the
proportion of students who endorsed that
response increased postintervention. Only
7% of staff indicated that they would re-
spond by telling students to ignore the in-
cident. School counselors must remember
this finding: one element of a successful

program is convincing students that the
adults are committed to action and trained
to help.

A more recently developed program,
Steps to Respect, reported more encourag-
ing results. In the second year of implemen-
tation, data revealed reductions in bullying,
victimization, and destructive bystander
behaviors (Frey, Edstrom, & Hirschstein,
2005). This program is another school-wide
intervention that focuses on clear antibul-
lying policies and procedures, training for
adults, and the support of socially respon-
sible behavior. The program includes class-
room curricula and coaching for children
involved in bullying.

Vreeman and Carroll (2007) reviewed
research on school-based interventions to
reduce bullying and found 26 studies that
used control and intervention groups and
an evaluation of measured outcomes that
had been published in English. Of 10 stud-
ies evaluating curricular interventions, six
showed no decline in bullying. The other
four, although finding a decrease in bully-
ing overall, detected increased bullying in
certain populations or when using specific
measures. The only study that showed
clear improvement did not measure inci-
dents of bullying; children’s responses to a
hypothetical bullying situation was the out-
come measure. Of the 10 studies evaluating
whole-school or systemic interventions,
seven reported positive outcomes. The dis-
crepant results of Olweus and Roland de-
scribed above were included in this group
of studies. Four studies examined the ef-
fects of interventions with targeted groups
of children (two for aggressive children
and two for victims of bullying). Only one
study of third-grade children showed pos-
itive outcomes. Participants in the other
studies were older (sixth through eighth
grade). Finally, a study of a single program
placing social workers in high-risk schools
in England found decreased bullying at the
elementary level only, and an intervention
using mentors with 28 fourth-grade stu-
dents reported less bullying and aggression

BULLYING 367

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

postintervention for program students than
a control group who did not have mentors.
The implications for elementary school
counselors from this review are that curric-
ulum alone is unlikely to reduce bullying,
that whole-school approaches addressing
the problem at a systemic level are most
likely to have positive outcomes when the
staff is committed and involved, and that
interventions targeted at specific groups of
children are most likely to reduce bullying
with younger children.

An excellent summary of research on
school-based bullying prevention pro-
grams can be found in Samples (2004). I
encourage elementary counselors to be in-
formed about research results, because
schools often select a program based on
name recognition, cost, or other factors
without regard for effectiveness research.
As Juvonen and Graham (2004) observed,
prevention programs are frequently cre-
ated by professional curriculum developers
rather than by experts in bullying preven-
tion and intervention research. A school
counselor can assist decision makers in tak-
ing into account all relevant variables, in-
cluding research results and the local com-
munity context, to make an informed
selection of a program with a high likeli-
hood of success.

Barriers to Effective Antibullying
Interventions
By 2005, 18 states had adopted formal bul-
lying legislation (Greene & Ross, 2005). Al-
though 13 of those include a definition of
bullying, none includes all three elements I
discussed (intent, repetition, and power im-
balance). In fact, none of the laws mentions
the power imbalance, considered by ex-
perts to be a defining characteristic of bul-
lying. Only eight states require school em-
ployees to report acts of bullying. Most
states require or recommend that school
employees receive training about district
bullying policies, or bullying prevention,
but only Georgia penalizes schools for non-

compliance with its antibullying law. The
most common component of state legisla-
tion is that districts are to establish antibul-
lying policies. Thus, state legislation is not
likely to produce major changes in schools’
efforts to reduce bullying, but it does per-
haps raise awareness and signal educators
that expectations exist for increased atten-
tion to bullying in schools.

Despite public proclamations by most
constituencies (e.g., community and na-
tional leaders, administrators, teachers,
parents, school counselors, and students)
that bullying is not acceptable and that chil-
dren have the right to be safe (both physi-
cally and psychologically) at school, there
are many ways in which cultural practices
contradict that belief. As one anonymous
teacher responding to the Bauman and
Rigby (2006) survey stated, “we are not ad-
dressing the whole problem. Children re-
flect the values and behavior they see in
their homes, on television, in video games,
and in the behaviors of famous personali-
ties and world leaders.” Social learning is a
powerful process, and when children see
role models (e.g., parents and other adults,
including teachers) use bullying and intim-
idation tactics, they use these approaches to
getting their own needs met and solving
problems. Another respondent to the ques-
tionnaire observed, “As long as teachers
model bullying and encourage bullying as
an accepted mode of discipline through
peer pressure, it will continue.”

Racism and discrimination toward
many oppressed groups (sexual minorities,
homeless, etc.) are other pervasive exam-
ples that model elements of bullying. There
are also attitudes that are still widely (al-
though perhaps more privately) held that
bullying is a normative experience and that
victims somehow deserve the treatment
they receive (Vernberg & Gamm, 2003).
Within schools and school districts, there
may be a lack of administrative support for
antibullying measures. Some comments
from participants in the survey of teachers

368 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and counselors (Bauman & Rigby, 2006) are
illustrative:

• I have found administrators who are
responsible for working with bullies
feel the behavior is “not that bad” or a
“right [sic] of passage” and therefore
they do not take reports of bullying
seriously.

• Our school refuses to participate in
[state’s] Safe2Tell program. I think the
principal is afraid of the number of
calls that will be made. The problem is
that the administration only believes
that the target needs to write a state-
ment about the incident. This robs the
target of his or her confidentiality.

• I do the best I can, but I have no ad-
ministration support. Bullies are left
to roam free, as are their parents. The
principal is afraid of bullies and can-
not stand up to them.

• I took [program] training. My district
did not pay for me to attend, nor do
they support my actions in trying to
stop bullying. It’s very frustrating.

As schools take steps to address the
problem of bullying, disagreements about
appropriate strategies to take are likely. In
addition, teachers and other staff (includ-
ing lunchroom and playground monitors)
may lack training. Time and money must
be devoted to antibullying efforts if they
are to succeed, but those are in short sup-
ply. And, in an educational environment so
heavily influenced by the No Child Left
Behind Act, educators may view antibully-
ing efforts as distractions from academic
pursuits. In the next section, I discuss the
critical role of school counselors in over-
coming these obstacles.

Implications for Practice
Many experts advise that antibullying pro-
grams are more likely to show positive ef-
fects when there is an identified person in
the school to take a leadership role. Clarke
and Kiselica (1997) urged “school counsel-
ors to become effective catalysts and advo-
cates for systemic change” (p. 322). The
counselor becomes a change agent in anti-

violence and antibullying programs (Twem-
low, Fonagy, Sacco, Gies, & Hess, 2001). Her-
nández and Seem (2004) also commented on
the leadership role in advocacy and imple-
mentation efforts. School counselors have
unique skills that make them particularly
well suited to a leadership role. Contempo-
rary school counselors already are school
leaders, consultants to other staff and to the
larger community, classroom educators, par-
ent educators, and individual and group
counselors. They can collect and use data and
are instrumental in establishing and main-
taining a positive school climate. They are
consensus builders and facilitators of task
groups. Who better to assume responsibility
and leadership in bullying reduction?

As a catalyst for change, the school
counselor must obtain administrative sup-
port for antibullying efforts. Hopefully, the
principal or superintendent will already be
aware of the need to take action, and the
counselor can provide the leadership nec-
essary for designing and implementing in-
terventions at the school or district level.
School counselors must be armed with per-
suasive information, noting that bullying at
school decreases academic success by dis-
tracting students and/or increasing school
absenteeism and dropout rates (Clarke &
Kiselica, 1997). A sizable majority of stu-
dents who Hazler, Hoover, and Oliver
(1992) surveyed experienced academic dif-
ficulties as a result of bullying. Buhs, Ladd,
and Herald (2006) found that children who
are victimized by social exclusion have re-
duced academic achievement. Such evi-
dence is important when academic perfor-
mance of students is the yardstick for
accountability. School counselors also must
be familiar with the literature on antibully-
ing programs in order to assemble an effec-
tive case for their choices. For example,
Smith and Ananiadou (2003) cited persua-
sive evidence that the optimal age for in-
tervention is between 5 to 6 and 8 to 9,
which suggests that kindergarten and the
early elementary grades are logical places
to focus. Elementary school counselors’

BULLYING 369

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

knowledge of child development allows
them to tailor interventions to these grades.

An important initial step in establishing
an effective program is the formation of a
steering committee that works as a team to
develop the program. The school counselor
is familiar with all constituencies (students,
teachers, other staff, parents, administra-
tors, and community members) and has es-
tablished relationships with key individu-
als in those groups. Facilitating and
coordinating the work of such a group uses
the school counselor’s expertise. Many
school counselors already have formed ad-
visory committees and thus have experi-
ence assembling and leading a team dedi-
cated to program improvement.

Counselors are able to provide training
for staff, students, and parents about bul-
lying. O’Moore (2000) proposed the essen-
tial content of teacher training: an under-
standing of what constitutes bullying, the
extent of bullying, signs of victimization
and bullying, the effects of bullying, causes
of bullying behavior, and preventive strat-
egies as well as strategies to deal with bul-
lying incidents. She also described the neces-
sary components of an effective antibullying
policy. School counselors who can give teach-
ers and other staff specific suggestions will
establish credibility and earn respect from
these colleagues.

Another key training need is for adult
monitors/supervisors of unstructured time,
such as lunch and recess. These personnel
must have training in order to implement
programs and policies, although it is some-
times assumed that their mere presence de-
ters bullying. Data clearly show otherwise,
and the school counselor can empower these
individuals with not just antibullying train-
ing but skills to provide organized activities
(such as noncompetitive games) for children
to engage in, reducing the time and opportu-
nities for bullying.

As noted above, teachers often lack in-
formation and hold attitudes and beliefs
that are contrary to those of antibullying
programs. With their excellent communica-

tion skills, counselors can design teacher
training to address faculty concerns, and
counselors know which staff members may
need additional encouragement to partici-
pate. They can also work with teachers who
need additional assistance. Many models
include a classroom meeting component,
and some teachers might feel uncomfort-
able or unequipped to manage open discus-
sions of bullying. If the school counselor
cofacilitates these meetings with the
teacher until the teacher feels confident
about conducting the meetings alone, the
teacher has the support and modeling to
become effective in this role.

The elementary school counselor needs
to help others understand that some widely
used strategies are not recommended for
bullying situations. For example, peer me-
diation and other conflict-resolution pro-
grams are intended to assist peers in con-
flict to resolve a dispute. Because of the
power imbalance in bullying, this can be
terrifying and/or harmful to the victim,
who is unlikely to have the confidence to
confront the bully with his or her concerns
and may fear retaliation. Although peer
mediation programs are useful in resolving
conflicts, bullying is different from conflict
between peers, and the school counselor
must emphasize this. Another approach
that is often suggested but that is ill-
advised is to form self-esteem-building
groups for bullies. First, the evidence is
strong that most bullies do not lack self-
esteem, so the efforts are misplaced. More
important, bringing together like-minded
students who bully others can have the un-
intended effect of reinforcing their negative
behaviors (see Dishion, McCord, and Pou-
lin [1999] and Poulin, Dishion, and Burras-
ton [2001] for research on the iatrogenic
effects of group counseling with youth with
negative behaviors).

School counselors also should be
knowledgeable about the types of bullying
and insist that policies, programs, and in-
terventions target more than physical bul-
lying. Because verbal and relational bully-

370 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ing are often more difficult to detect,
counselors must develop a reputation for
both trustworthiness and effectiveness so
that students will report incidents of such
bullying to them. Research has been un-
equivocal in finding low rates of reporting
to adults at school (e.g., Doll et al., 2004),
and the counselor should be one person in
the school to whom students can report
safely. The increase in cyberbullying neces-
sitates that the school counselor educate
everyone, including students and parents,
about how to deal with this form of bully-
ing, which is unlikely to diminish without
strong intervention.

School counselors have training in as-
sessment and know how to use data to
make decisions. It is imperative that data
regarding prevalence, types, and location
of bullying are collected prior to implemen-
tation to guide program design. Then, sim-
ilar data can be collected and analyzed after
implementation to monitor effectiveness of
interventions. This evaluation step cannot
be overemphasized, because schools can
use the data both to demonstrate program
effectiveness (if the data warrant) or to
make programmatic adjustments to align
the program more closely to school circum-
stances. Skeptical staff and administrators
who see data that demonstrate how the
program is making a difference, and for
whom, are more likely to support the pro-
gram.

In addition, elementary school counsel-
ors are already delivering guidance curric-
ulum in classrooms, and working with stu-
dents to teach skills and behaviors to
combat bullying is a natural extension of
this role. Addressing the role of the by-
stander and promoting altruism among
students who witness bullying should be a
part of classroom lessons. Most incidents of
bullying are witnessed by others, whose
behavior can encourage or discourage the
bully. Hopefully, teachers will work with
the counselor to reinforce skills and maxi-
mize teachable moments. The counselor
might also wish to assemble a library of

children’s books dealing with bullying.
These can be provided to teachers who are
seeking stories to read to classes and to
individual children for whom identifying
with characters in books can be helpful.

Most antibullying programs include
components of individual and/or group
counseling for bullies and victims. The
school counselor already provides these
services. Counselors may wish to investi-
gate strategies, such as the No Blame ap-
proach (Robinson & Maines, 1997) and the
Method of Shared Concern (Pikas, 2002), to
engage students in generating and imple-
menting solutions (Cowie, 2004). The work
of Evelyn Field in Australia provides a
model for working with victims to develop
necessary social skills (Field, 2003). Young
(2002) described a program of bullying pre-
vention and intervention using the brief
solution-focused counseling model, which
many school counselors use. This approach
is another that counselors can employ in
their work with individuals and groups.

Working to reduce bullying is consis-
tent with the American School Counselor
Association national model (2003), which
promotes classroom guidance, individual
planning, responsive services, and system
support. Classroom guidance is an impor-
tant component of antibullying efforts, and
working with children individually and in
small groups is a responsive service. Edu-
cating staff, collecting data, and consulting
with teachers and parents are all services
that fall under system support. By leading
school antibullying efforts, counselors will
not only use their leadership and skills to
reduce this serious problem, but they will
enhance their professional status by em-
ploying a nationally recognized model of
school counseling services.

To summarize, the school counselor is
ideally suited for a central role in a school’s
antibullying efforts. To ensure that counsel-
ors are prepared for such roles, Fernandez
(2000) urges counselor education programs
to provide more than generic training in
program development and planning and to

BULLYING 371

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

offer training that prepares counselors to
address the pervasive and damaging prob-
lem of school bullying.

Suggestions for Future Research
Data on effectiveness of antibullying pro-
grams are mixed and difficult to interpret.
There is a need for standard measures of
prevalence rates, common definitions, and
rigorous research designs. Leff et al. (2004)
provide an excellent review of outcome
measures that will assist researchers in se-
lecting appropriate instruments. School
counselors can collaborate with university
scholars to design their evaluations to in-
clude a comparison or control group and
valid and reliable measures. Particularly in
the United States, where bullying research
is relatively recent, many more studies are
needed to determine what works and for
whom and under what conditions.

In addition to program evaluation stud-
ies, the next step in research will be to de-
termine which program elements are re-
sponsible for positive outcomes. With
overall program evaluation, it is impossible
to know which components are effective
and which are not. For example, the Ol-
weus study in Bergen included a variety of
program interventions. A single interven-
tion might have produced rates similar to
the whole program; although that is un-
likely, the results do not show which inter-
ventions are essential and which are extrane-
ous. Some schools may choose to implement
interventions successively and evaluate the
effects of each. One clear target of a single
intervention would be training playground
and cafeteria monitors in what bullying is,
how to detect it, and how to respond. Coun-
selors can also train monitors to organize and
encourage noncompetitive games to reduce
the number of children who are not engaged
in any structured activity. The school coun-
selor can collect data before such training is
provided (disciplinary incidents, suspen-
sions, injuries taken to the school nurse, at-
tendance, etc.) and again when the trained

monitors have been employed for a reason-
able period of time to detect any significant
changes.

Additional research should be con-
ducted at counselor education programs
that provide antibullying training as part of
the curriculum. Graduates can be surveyed
and/or observed to evaluate the effect of
such training.

Summary
School bullying is a significant and wide-
spread problem with harmful conse-
quences for all students. There is consensus
on the definition of bullying and the vari-
ous types of bullying, and many programs
have been developed to prevent and reduce
its occurrence in schools. The evidence of
program effectiveness is far from conclu-
sive, and is even disappointing, although
whole-school approaches seem to have the
best prognosis. School counselors are the
staff members who are best equipped to
advocate for concerted efforts to address
the problem and to be leaders in program
design, implementation, delivery, and eval-
uation. In short, counselors can contribute
to the academic success of all students by
taking a central role in school and district
antibullying efforts.

Note

Correspondence regarding this article
should be addressed to the author at the De-
partment of Educational Psychology, College
of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ 85721-0069; phone: 520-626-7308; e-mail:
sherib@u.arizona.edu.

References

American School Counselor Association. (2003).
The ASCA National Model: A framework for
school counseling programs (2d ed.). Alexan-
dria, VA: Author.

Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of
bullying in the classroom. American Journal
of Educational Research, 92, 86–99.

372 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Batsche, G. M. (2002). Bullying. In G. G. Bear,
K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Children’s
needs II: Development, problems, and alterna-
tives (pp. 171–180). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.

Bauman, S. (2006). Victimization and depression in
Mexican American middle school students: Ef-
fects of gender, age, and acculturation. Manu-
script under review.

Bauman, S. (in press). Effects of gender, grade,
and acculturation on overt and relational
victimization and depression in Mexican
American elementary school students. Jour-
nal of Early Adolescence, 28.

Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2006, July 6). Educator
responses to student bullying. Paper presented
at the biannual conference of the Interna-
tional Society for Social and Behavioral De-
velopment, Melbourne, Australia.

Belsey, B. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved May 23,
2006 from http://www.cyberbullying.ca

Birkinshaw, S., & Eslea, M. (1998, September).
Teachers’ attitudes and actions toward boy v. girl
and girl v. boy bullying. Paper presented at
the annual conference of the developmental
section of the British Psychological Society,
Lancaster University [On-line]. Available:
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psy-
chol/bully/files/birkin.htm

Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006).
Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes
that mediate the relation between peer
group rejection and children’s classroom en-
gagement and achievement? Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 98, 1–13.

Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, C.
(2001). Middle-school girls’ reports of peer
victimization: Concerns, consequences, and
implications. Professional School Counseling,
5, 138–148.

Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995).
Bullying at school: A Canadian perspective.
Education Canada, 35(1), 12–18.

Clarke, E. A., & Kiselica, M. (1997). A systemic
counseling approach to the problem of bul-
lying. Elementary School Guidance and Coun-
seling, 31, 310–326.

Cowie, H. (2004). Peer influences. In C. E. Sand-
ers & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications
for the classroom (pp. 137–158). London:
Elsevier.

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observa-
tions of bullying and victimization in the
school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psy-
chology, 13, 14–59.

Crawford, N. (2002). New ways to stop bullying.
APA Monitor on Psychology, 33(9), 64–67.

Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression,
relational aggression, and prosocial behav-
ior in the prediction of children’s future so-
cial adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–
2327.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational
and overt forms of peer victimization: A
multiinformant approach. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s
treatment by peers: Victims of relational and
overt aggression. Development and Psychopa-
thology, 8, 367–380.

Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A.
(2002). Relationally and physically aggres-
sive children’s intent attributions and feel-
ings of distress for relational and instrumen-
tal peer provocations. Child Development, 73,
1134–1142.

Dedman, B. (2000, October 15). School shooters:
Secret service findings. Chicago Sun Times
[On-line]. Available: http://www.secretser-
vice.gov/ntac/chicago_sun/find15.htm

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999).
When interventions harm: Peer groups and
problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54,
755–764.

Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Class-
room ecologies that support or discourage
bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer
(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-
ecological perspective on prevention and inter-
vention (pp. 161–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.

Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. M.
(2004). Gender differences in bullying: Mov-
ing beyond mean level differences. In D. L.
Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in
American schools: A social-ecological perspective
on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–35).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fernandez, M. S. (2000). School violence: Impli-
cations for school counselor training pro-
grams. In D. S. Sandhu & C. B. Aspy (Eds.),
Violence in American schools: A practical guide
for counselors (pp. 371–392). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.

Field, E. M. (2003). Bully busting: How to help
children deal with teasing and bullying. Lane
Cove, NSW, Australia: Finch.

Frey, K., Edstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M.
(2005). The Steps to Respect program uses a
multilevel approach to reduce playground
bullying and destructive bystander behav-
iors. In D. L. White, M. K. Faber, & B. C.
Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of persistently safe
schools 2005 (pp. 47–56). Washington, DC:

BULLYING 373

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

George Washington University, Hamilton
Fish Institute.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., &
Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial
adjustment, and academic performance in
elementary school. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.

Greene, M. B., & Ross, R. (2005, September). The
nature, scope, and utility of formal laws and
regulations that prohibit school-based bully-
ing and harassment. In D. L. White, M. K.
Faber, & B. C. Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of
persistently safe schools 2005 (pp. 91–100).
Washington, DC: George Washington Uni-
versity, Hamilton Fish Institute.

Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D.
(1999). United States. In P. K. Smith, Y.
Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Cata-
lano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school
bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 279–
295). London: Routledge.

Hawker, D. (1998, September). Bullying and vic-
tims’ distress: Psychological bullying hurts
most. Paper presented at the annual confer-
ence of the Developmental Section of the
British Psychological Society, University of
Lancaster, England [On-line]. Available:
http://www.eclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psy-
chol/bully/files/hawker.htm

Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1992).
What do kids say about bullying? Executive
Educator, 14, 20–22.

Hernández, T. J., & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe
school climate: A systemic approach and the
school counselor. Professional School Counsel-
ing, 7, 256–262.

Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’
attitudes towards bullying. In D. L. Espelage
& S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American
schools: A social-ecological perspective on pre-
vention and intervention (pp. 121–140). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoover, J., & Hazler, R. J. (1991). Bullies and
victims. Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling, 25, 212–220.

Jacobsen, K., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in
schools: School counselors’ responses to
three types of bullying incidents. Professional
School Counseling, 11, 1–9.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2004). Research-based
interventions on bullying. In C. E. Sanders &
G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the
classroom (pp. 229–255). London: Elsevier.

Kowalski, R., Limber, S., Keith, M., Kerr, S.,
Singer, L., Spearman, J., Tripp, L., & Vernon,
L. (2005, August). Electronic bullying among
school-aged children and youth. Poster pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-

can Psychological Association, Washington,
DC.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., & Goldstein, A. B. (2004).
Outcome measures to assess the effective-
ness of bullying-prevention programs in the
schools. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer
(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-
ecological perspective on prevention and inter-
vention (pp. 269–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.

Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., &
Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A re-
ciprocal effect model elucidating the com-
plex nature of bullying, psychological deter-
minants, and the central role of self-concept.
In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bully-
ing: Implications for the classroom (pp. 63–109).
London: Elsevier.

Meraviglia, M. G., Becker, H., Rosenbluth, B.,
Sanchez, E., & Robertson, T. (2003). The Ex-
pect Respect project: Creating a positive el-
ementary school climate. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 18, 1347–1360.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan,
W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S.
youth. Journal of the American Medical Associ-
ation, 285, 2094–2100.

Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. (2004). Bully
Busters: A psychoeducational intervention
for reducing bullying behavior in middle
school students. Journal of Counseling and De-
velopment, 82, 259–267.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we
know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.

O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teaching
training to counter bullying and victimisa-
tion in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 99–
111.

Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2004).
Schools and bullying: School factors related
to bullying and school-based bullying inter-
ventions. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye
(Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom
(pp. 159–176). London: Elsevier.

Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the
shared concern method. School Psychology In-
ternational, 23, 307–326.

Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Burraston, B. (2001).
3-year iatrogenic effects associated with ag-
gregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive-
behavioral prevention interventions. Applied
Developmental Science, 5, 214–224.

Rigby, K. (2006). Educators’ response to bullying
scale. Unpublished questionnaire. Adelaide:
University of South Australia.

374 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MAY 2008

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Crying for
help: The No Blame approach to bullying. Bris-
tol: Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.

Roland, E. (1989). A system-oriented strategy
against bullying. In E. Roland & E. Munthe
(Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective
(pp. 143–151). London: Professional Devel-
opment Foundation.

Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing:
What school personnel, other professionals, and
parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association.

Samples, F. L. (2004). Evaluating curriculum-
based intervention programs: An examina-
tion of preschool, primary, and elementary
school intervention programs. In C. E. Sand-
ers & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications
for the classroom (pp. 203–227). London:
Elsevier.

Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt?
The effects of bullying on the personal well-
being and educational progress of secondary
school students. Educational and Child Psy-
chology, 12(2), 81–88.

Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature
of school bullying and the effectiveness of
school-based interventions. Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189–209.

Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School
bullying: Insights and perspectives. London:
Routledge.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C.
(2004). The role of the bystander in the social
architecture of bullying and violence in
schools and communities. Annals of the New
York Academy of Science, 1036, 215–232.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies,
M. L., Evans, R., & Ewbank, R. (2001). Cre-

ating a peaceful school learning environ-
ment: A controlled study of an elementary
school intervention to reduce violence.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 808 –
810.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies,
M. L., & Hess, D. (2001). Improving the so-
cial and intellectual climate in elementary
schools by addressing bully-victim-bystander
power struggles. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Caring class-
rooms, intelligent schools: The social emotional ed-
ucation of young children (pp. 162–181). New
York: Teachers College Press.

Vail, K. (2002). How girls hurt. American School
Board Journal, 189, 14–18.

Van der Wal, M. F., de Wit, C. A. M., & Hirasing,
R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health among
young victims and offenders of direct and
indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312–1317.

Vernberg, E. M., & Gamm, B. K. (2003). Resis-
tance to violence prevention interventions in
schools: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 125–138.

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

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content
of anti-bullying policies inform us about the
prevalence of direct and relational bullying
behaviour in primary schools? Educational
Psychology, 23, 381–401.

Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Ele-
mentary teachers’ attitudes and intervention
strategies. Research in Education, 69, 27–34.

Young, S. (2002). Solutions to bullying. Stoke-on-
Kent: Nasen.

BULLYING 375

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:01:40 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bullying in Middle Schools: Prevention and Intervention

Author(s): Amy Milsom and Laura L. Gallo

Source: Middle School Journal , January 2006, Vol. 37, No. 3 (January 2006), pp. 12-19

Published by: Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23044293

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Middle School Journal

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23044293

This We Believe in Action

Bullying in Middle Schools:
Prevention and Intervention

This We Believe Characteristics

• An inviting, supportive, and safe environment

• Curriculum that is relevant, challenging, integrative, and exploratory

• Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity

By Amy Milsom & Laura L. Gallo

fared hides behind the school building for
an hour, hoping Tom has forgotten about
him and walked home already. Maybe this
will be the first night he will make it home
without being pushed or taunted, fared
slowly leaves his hiding spot, gripping his
backpack as tight as he can. As he gets
farther away from school, his stomach
begins to unknot. He is relieved that he will
make it home tonight without incident.
Just then, Tom appears around the corner
with a smirk on his face, ready to fight.

A main characteristic of a bully is his or her need
to gain control over another (Kaiser & Rasminsky,
2003). Bullies can gain control over others through
physical force or threats, verbal teasing, and
exclusion from peers (Beale & Scott, 2001).
Argenbright and Edgell (as cited in Beale & Scott)
described four specific types of bullies. Physical
bullies often hit, kick, or shove others. Verbal bullies
use words to harm others through name-calling,
insulting, making racist comments, or harsh teasing.
Relational bullies often focus on excluding one
person from their peer group and usually do so
through verbal threats and spreading rumors.
Finally, reactive bullies are individuals who are often
both bully and victim. Typically victims first, they
respond to victimization with bullying behavior.
While both boys and girls engage in and are victims
of bullying, research has shown differences in their
bullying behaviors. For example, boys engage in

bullying more frequently than girls (Nansel et al.,
2001; Seals & Young, 2003). Also, boys are more
likely to engage in physical or verbal bullying,
while girls often revert to relational bullying
(Nansel et al., 2001).

Bullying in United States Middle Schools
Bullying among students in other countries
(particularly Norway, Australia, and England) has
been studied extensively for the past 30 years, but
recently researchers in the United States have also
begun to examine bullying and victimization in
schools. Studies show that bullying tends to peak in
late childhood/early adolescence, making prevention
and intervention efforts in middle school crucial.

All students have a right to physically and psychologically safe classrooms
and hallways.

Amy Milsom is an assistant professor of counseling and educational development at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
E-mail: asmilsom@uncg.edu

Laura L. Callo is a school counselor at Linn Mar High School in Marion, Iowa.

This We Believe in Action

Bullying in Middle Schools:
Prevention and Intervention

Amy Miisom & Laura L. Gallo

All students have a right to physically and psychologically safe classrooms
and hallways.

PHOTO BY DOUG MARTIN

12 Middle School Journal · January 2006

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Before designing effective prevention and inter
vention programs, however, school personnel must
understand the scope of bullying in the United
States as well as characteristics of bullies and victims.

Oliver, Hoover, and Hazier (1994) examined
bullying by administering surveys to students in
grades 7 through 12 from schools in three
Midwestern states. Overwhelmingly, participants
reported they felt victims of bullying actually
brought on the bullying. Less than half believed
bullying was done in an attempt to teach a lesson.
Students also believed bullies to be more popular
than victims. Interestingly, Oliver, Hoover, and
Hazier (1994) found students believed most teasing
they witnessed had been done with no malicious
intent, but that victims perceived the teasing
as bullying.

In their national study of 15,686 students in
grades 6 through 10, Nansel and associates (2001)
reported nearly 30% of students indicated more
than occasional involvement as a bully and/or
victim of bullying. Males were more frequently
involved as both bullies and victims, as were
students in grades six through eight (compared to
those in grades nine and ten). In addition, Hispanic
students reported slightly higher involvement as
bullies than White or African American students,
while African American students reported being
bullied less frequently than both White and
Hispanic students. Finally, more students from rural
areas reported bullying than did individuals from
suburban and urban areas.

Nansel and associates (2001) also examined the
frequency of various types of bullying as well as
psychosocial adjustment of students who bully or
who are bullied. Verbal bullying was most prominent
for both males and females, with students being
recipients of negative comments about their
appearance in addition to being recipients of sexual
comments and being targets of rumors. Interestingly,
negative comments about race or religion were
rarely reported. More males than females reported
being victims of physical bullying, indicating they
had been hit, slapped, and pushed. With regard to
psychosocial adjustment, Nansel and associates
(2001) found positive correlations between bullying
behavior and fighting, alcohol use, smoking, and
ability to make friends. Poor academic achievement
and poorer perceived school climate were also
associated with being a bully. For middle school
males, loneliness was also positively correlated with
being a bully. Negative correlations were found

between victims and both alcohol use and the

ability to make friends. Also, being a victim was
positively correlated with fighting.

As part of a larger study, Casey-Cannon, Hayward,
and Gowen (2001) conducted a qualitative investiga
tion of the experiences and perceptions of relational
bullying among middle school girls (ages 13 and 14)
from Northern California. The majority of partici
pants reported experiencing either overt (i.e.,
physical or verbal) or relational bullying. Participants
also reported emotional reactions including sadness,
anger, and rejection. Behavioral responses included
ignoring the bully, approaching an adult for help,
being assertive, and bullying back (i.e., reactive
bullying). Other consequences included losing
friends, negative thinking, and changing schools.
[Editor’s Note: To read a related article dealing with
relational and verbal bullying, see Lane, 2005.]

between victims and both alcohol use and the

ability to make friends. Also, being a victim was
positively correlated with fighting.

Poor academic achievement and poorer
perceived school climate were also
associated with being a bully.

Most recently, Seals and Young (2003) gathered
data addressing the prevalence of bullying among
students in grades seven and eight. The 454
participating students represented urban, suburban,
and rural school districts, and most were African
American and White. Twenty-four percent of
students reported either bullying or being bullied.
Males were involved in bullying (as bullies and
victims) significantly more often than females, and
significantly more seventh grade students than
eighth grade students were involved as well. Nearly
14% of students reported being called mean names,
and others reported being hit or kicked, being teased,
or being threatened. Most incidents of bullying
occurred at lunch or recess, but many occurred on
the way to or from school as well as in class.

Consequences for Bullies and Victims
Bullies and victims are both at risk for negative
future outcomes. Kaiser and Rasminsky (2003)
reported that as bullies go through adolescence
they are more at risk for severe problems such as
delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, and dropping
out of school. In addition, both bullies and victims
have been found to be more depressed than students

Consequences for Bullies and Victims
Bullies and victims are both at risk for negative
future outcomes. Kaiser and Rasminsky (2003)
reported that as bullies go through adolescence
they are more at risk for severe problems such as
delinquency alcohol and drug abuse, and dropping
out of school. In addition, both bullies and victims
have been found to be more depressed than students

Middle School Journal · January 2006 1 3

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

who are not involved in bullying (Seals & Young,
2003). Depression associated with bullying and
victimization can lead to academic problems, self
defeating behaviors, and interpersonal problems
(Seals & Young, 2003). Finally, victims are particularly
at risk if there is no emotional support provided or if
the bullying behavior is severe and prolonged. These
victims are more likely to suffer from academic
problems, absenteeism, loneliness, and loss of
friends (Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Given schools’
increasing concern about helping students succeed
academically (i.e., No Child Left Behind), and given
connections between bullying and potential for low
academic performance or dropping out of school,
addressing the problem of bullying is essential.

Attending to the needs of victims is as
important as intervening with bullies and
assessing school climate.

Prevention and Intervention Strategies
for Bullying
Many recommendations have been made with
regard to how to approach the problem of bullying,
and most researchers agree that effective programs
are comprehensive (Espelage & Swearer, 2003),
targeting students, schools, families, and the
community. Attending to the needs of victims
(Roberts & Coursol, 1996) is as important as inter
vening with bullies and assessing school climate
(Hanish & Guerra, 2000). Clarke and Kiselica (1997)
indicated that “bullying will continue to be tolerated
in schools until there is a philosophical shift among
school personnel in how they view and respond to
coercive behavior” (p. 319). Orpinas, Home, and
Staniszewski (2003) found that many schools try to
prevent bullying by using packaged programs that
lack support from teachers and do not meet the
specific needs of the school. They recommended
securing cooperation from key personnel as an
important first step in successful intervention.
Many researchers have provided suggestions for
important components of bully prevention and
intervention programs, but few have actually
collected data with regard to program effectiveness.
The following is a discussion of two successful bully
prevention programs.

Bullybusters—A Drama
Beale and Scott (2001) presented an anti-bullying
program initiated by the counseling and drama staff
in a middle school. They initially conducted surveys
concerning student and teacher perceptions regarding
bullying and found that teachers were generally
unaware of bullying behaviors whereas students
believed bullying to be a significant concern. The
drama teacher wrote a play, Bullybusters, to educate
students about how to deal with bullies. The authors

believed psychoeducational drama allowed students
to learn vicariously through the actors and allowed
for modeling positive attitudes and behaviors.

Beale and Scott (2001) indicated the Bullybusters
program was first presented to sixth graders and
then later implemented in elementary schools. The
drama helped clarify the universality of student
experiences. The actors (students) performed realistic
and common bullying situations with which other
students could identify. An important part of the
program was the discussion that followed; students
were able to process their own feelings and discuss
alternative ways of handling bullying situations.

Every attempt was made to involve important
stakeholders in the Bullybusters program (Beale &
Scott, 2001). The school principal reinforced concepts
by speaking to students upon completion of the
program and explaining the school’s zero tolerance
policy. In an effort to secure a long-term commitment
to bully prevention, supporting materials (e.g.,
information about types of bullying, strategies for
dealing with bullies) were provided to teachers so
they could reinforce concepts throughout the school
year. Teachers were also encouraged to explore
student reactions to the drama through class
discussions. In the hope that students would actively
participate in the school’s efforts to decrease bullying,
teachers involved students in the creation of

classroom anti-bullying rules and asked them to sign
an anti-bullying pledge (by signing the pledge
students agreed not to bully, to look out for bullying
behavior, and to report bullying behavior). Finally,
administrators and teachers made efforts to involve

parents, providing information through newsletters
and outlining steps they could take to help their
child deal with bullying. Students also performed
the Bullybusters program at Parent-Teacher
Association (PTA) meetings.

Beale and Scott (2001) reported positive results,
including a 20% reduction in the number of bullying
incidents at the middle school level. Teachers reported

believed psychoeducational drama allowed students
to learn vicariously through the actors and allowed
for modeling positive attitudes and behaviors.

Beale and Scott (2001) reported positive results,
including a 20% reduction in the number of bullying
incidents at the middle school level. Teachers reported

14 Middle School Journal · January 2006

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

being more aware of bullying and having more
students reporting incidents of bullying to them.
They attributed success of the program to a variety
of components, including initial data collection, a
school-wide approach involving all personnel and
including the adoption of consistent policies,
increased supervision, the use of the Bullybusters
play, and the follow-up classroom discussions.

Elementary school model
Because Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003)
believed effective programs must be school-specific,
they conducted a study in an elementary school
using a program developed collaboratively by school
personnel rather than using a pre-packaged model.
The goal of this program was to provide information
about bullying to students, develop awareness and
skills in teachers, and promote a safe school climate.
The program began with a committee comprised of
teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, school counselors,
and principals.

To explore the problem of bullying, Orpinas,
Home, and Staniszewski (2003) indicated the
committee conducted needs assessments and held

focus groups with students. Results of these efforts
were presented to teachers at the beginning of the
next school year, and a joint effort was made to
develop a comprehensive plan to address main areas
of concern (student behavior and school climate in
general). Teachers generated five core values (respect,
responsibility, honesty, readiness to learn, and
personal best) to target through a character
education program. A focus on decreasing verbal
bullying became their main goal, and target areas for
change included educating students, preparing
teachers, and modifying school climate.

School staff used a variety of activities to address
the target areas. They first worked on creating
positive environments in their buildings through the
development of new values and norms with matching
rules and consequences. For example, during
guidance lessons the school counselor provided
opportunities for students to practice complimenting
each other. Also, teachers intentionally reinforced
positive behavior, taught students conflict resolution
skills, and established a rule whereby students were
required to offer two positive comments for every
negative comment directed at another individual.
Teachers also participated in a 20-hour training
program on bullying and aggression prevention,
then educated students about bullying through a
cooperative learning curriculum.

Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) reported
positive results and identified “strong commitment
of teachers” (p. 438) as critical to the success of the
program. The results of the study showed a significant
reduction in self-reported aggression for younger
children and an overall reduction in victimization

for students in all grades (K-5). Overall, the program
was successful in achieving the goal of reducing
verbal bullying (name-calling and teasing). While
Orpinas, Home, and Staniszewski (2003) clearly
indicated the program was developed to meet the
needs of one particular school, they believed the
process used to develop the program could be
beneficial to other schools.

To explore the problem of bullying, Orpinas,
Home, and Staniszewski (2003) indicated the
committee conducted needs assessments and held

They attributed success of the program to a
variety of components including initial
data collection, a school-wide approach,
increased supervision, the use of the
Bullybusters play, and the follow-up
classroom discussions.

Recommendations for Middle School
Personnel

Middle school personnel can learn from the success
of these programs. What stands out about both
programs is how the schools approached bully
prevention comprehensively based on their unique
needs. Others have supported similar concepts, with
the idea that effective bullying prevention and
intervention programs target not only the classroom,
but also the school environment, students, parents,
and the community (U.S. Department of Education,
1998). Newman-Carlson and Home (2004), however,
reported finding a decrease in bullying with teacher
training alone (training content focused on recog
nizing bullying, intervening, assisting victims, and
prevention). Teachers who voluntarily participated
in the bullying training program filed significantly
fewer bullying-related disciplinary reports upon
completion of the training program and also reported
feeling more confident in their abilities to intervene
with bullies than did teachers who did not participate
in the training. It is unclear if the school might have
found even greater decreases in bullying had they
implemented a more comprehensive program
involving school support staff, parents, and students.

Recommendations for Middle School
Personnel

Middle School Journal · January 2006 15

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Nevertheless, more research needs to be conducted
to more clearly identify bullying intervention
components that have the greatest impact on
decreasing bullying among school-age students. In
the meantime, however, middle school personnel
should consider approaches that have proven
effective and work to implement programs that will
best meet their school’s unique needs.

School-wide considerations

Bully prevention/intervention programs work when
schools have clear and consistent policies and rules
(Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Hazier, 1996; Olweus, 1991,
1999; Rigby, 2002; Sullivan, 2000). Indicating that “a
widespread perception among students that bullying
can take place without intervention or interruption
has serious consequences for the bully, bystander,
and victim” (p. 19). Unnever and Cornell (2003)
believed bullies are more likely to continue engaging
in bullying behavior when they feel no one will
intervene and there will be no consequences for
them. Acknowledging that bullying occurs and that
it will not be tolerated (as communicated by allowing
students to act out the Bullybusters drama) is an
important start in helping students to recognize a
school’s commitment to protecting them from
bullies. After communicating this awareness, school
personnel are encouraged to develop policies that
include clear definitions of bullying, outline policies
for reporting inappropriate behavior, and list possible
ramifications of bullying (Sullivan, 2000). School
personnel must then follow through by enforcing
the policies fairly and consistently. Examples of clear
policies are evident in the two programs discussed
previously. After the Bullybusters drama, the school
principal met with students during an assembly to
review the school’s zero-tolerance policy. Teachers
also talked with students during classes, clarifying
the behaviors the school considered as bullying and
discussing acceptable student behavior in response
to bullying (e.g., telling a teacher as opposed to
hitting back). In the elementary model, students
were provided with a conduct code that included
specific school expectations and consequences for
breaking rules. This code was reviewed with students
and parents each year. Additionally, incentives (such
as a special lunch) were provided for students
demonstrating positive behaviors.

Sullivan (2000) suggested bullying policies be
developed with input from administrators, teachers,
student representatives, parents, and community
members. As a way of encouraging continued

attention devoted to bullying concerns, Olweus
(1999) recommended schools consider establishing a
formal committee comprised of representatives from
these stakeholder groups to work on writing the
policies and coordinating any related activities
throughout the school year. One consideration
might be to include a teacher representative from
each grade level team. By conducting a needs
assessment during the spring, schools can identify
both the scope of their bullying problem and target
areas for intervention as well as provide information
to assist in the revision of policies for the following
school year (Olweus, 1999). Input from students,
teachers, and parents addressing the frequency and
location of bullying as well as the type of bullying
experienced would be important to gather (Clarke &
Kiselica, 1997; Sullivan, 2000). Orpinas, Home, and
Staniszewski (2003) did just this, and upon realizing
that student fights often resulted from name-calling,
they decided to work towards decreasing the
amount of verbal bullying among students. Finally,
an evaluation of the prevention/intervention
activities should be conducted each year to provide
feedback to the committee for policy revision (Rigby,
2002; Sullivan, 2000)

School-wide policies will not be effective if staff
members are not made aware of the problem or are
unfamiliar with anti-bullying policies and their
responsibilities in enforcing the policies (Clarke &
Kiselica, 1997; Rigby, 2002). By increasing teacher
knowledge of bullying and helping them recognize
how they can intervene, Newman-Carlson and
Home (2004) were able to decrease bullying in a
middle school. Olweus (1999) recommended using
an inservice day at the beginning of each year to
review relevant policies. They stressed, however, that
follow-up support for teachers throughout the
school year is also important. Because many
instances of bullying occur out of classrooms (e.g.,
playground, cafeteria), Olweus emphasized the
importance of including all school staff (i.e., bus
drivers, cafeteria staff, paraprofessionals) in this
training. Similarly, schools are encouraged to consider
providing increased supervision during non-class
times (Beale & Scott, 2001; Clarke & Kiselica, 1997;
Olweus, 1991, 1999; Sullivan, 2000).

Classroom considerations

Because teachers spend the greatest amount of
time with students during the day, Hazier (1996)
believed them to be vital to the success of any
bullying prevention/intervention program.

16 Middle School Journal • January 2006

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The establishment of classroom-specific rules
(consistent with school policy) for bullying has been
supported as an effective component of a school
wide program (Olweus, 1991, 1999). Effective
classroom management and modeling of desirable
behaviors can provide a basis for enforcing these
rules. Teachers must not ignore or dismiss student
reports of bullying if their goal is to prevent or
decrease bullying behavior. They must take every
report seriously.

Holding regular discussions with students to
review and/or revise classroom rules as well as to
discuss the classroom climate is also recommended

as an effective method for helping students take
ownership in bullying prevention and intervention
(Olweus, 1999; Sullivan, 2000). For example, class
room teachers can build in a weekly class meeting
during which they allow students to discuss what is
and is not working in their class (e.g., too many
students interrupting others). After this discussion,
the teacher and students might jointly modify
classroom rules as necessary. Weekly classroom
meetings might also reveal school-wide areas for
revision. For example, if during the weekly class
meeting students report lots of name-calling in the
hallways, teachers would want to monitor hallways
to determine whether or not more supervision is
needed in that area.

Students must develop an awareness of bullying,
or more specifically, an awareness of which behaviors
the school classifies as bullying, if they are to
effectively help enforce school and classroom rules.
Instructional methods and activities can be used to

help increase students’ understanding of bullying in
addition to providing opportunities for them to
expand their social circles and practice new behaviors.
For example, information about bullying can be
taught through cooperative learning methods
(e.g., small group projects), which can also facilitate
students’ successful interactions with others (Hazier,
1996; Olweus, 1991). Additionally, teachers can
utilize literature addressing bullying in an effort to
expose students to the various types of bullying as
well as consequences for both bullies and victims
(Olweus, 1991). Upon hearing stories about bullying,
students might recognize they are not alone, might
learn new coping mechanisms, or might realize
how harmful their behaviors are to others. Finally,
students can learn alternatives to bullying by
participating in role-play opportunities designed
to provide them practice for new behaviors
(Olweus, 1991).

Student considerations

Both victims and bullies can benefit from developing
skills and receiving support both prior to and after
incidents of bullying (Olweus, 1999; Rigby, 2002).
Teachers may consider collaborating with school
counselors to develop classroom guidance or small
group units addressing the skill areas described
below. Following are recommended intervention
areas for victims and bullies.

Victims. School personnel and other adults must
clearly communicate to victims of bullying that they
are not at fault and do not deserve the bullying they
experience. Victims can often benefit from interven
tions designed to increase their self-esteem (Kaiser &
Rasminsky, 2003; Roberts & Coursol, 1996; Rigby
2002). Interventions in this area can help students
identify personal strengths and accomplishments,
thereby instilling feelings of pride and confidence.
By building self-esteem, victims are better able to
shield themselves from future bullying.

Furthermore, researchers have found that victims
of bullying who developed assertiveness skills
experienced reductions in bullying (Hazier, 1996;
Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Rigby,
2002; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). When victims
respond assertively, bullies will be more likely to
stop bullying or find another, less assertive victim.
Victims can practice assertiveness skills through role
play activities to develop confidence in their abilities
to respond assertively to a variety of situations.
Victims can also benefit from these types of role-play
activities because they provide opportunities for
generating a variety of reactions or responses for
potential future encounters with bullies (Hazier,
1996; Sullivan, 2000).

Holding regular discussions with students to
review and/or revise classroom rules as well as to
discuss the classroom climate is also recommended

Student considerations

Victims. School personnel and other adults must
clearly communicate to victims of bullying that they
are not at fault and do not deserve the bullying they
experience. Victims can often benefit from interven
tions designed to increase their self-esteem (Kaiser &
Rasminsky, 2003; Roberts & Coursol, 1996; Rigby,
2002). Interventions in this area can help students
identify personal strengths and accomplishments,
thereby instilling feelings of pride and confidence.
By building self-esteem, victims are better able to
shield themselves from future bullying.

The establishment of classroom-specific rules
for bullying has been supported as an effective
component of a school-wide program.

Improving social skills can decrease a victim’s
chances of being bullied (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997;
Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Rigby,
2002; Roberts & Coursol, 1996). Effective social skills
training can help students develop relationships
with peers, which may decrease the likelihood of
them being targeted in the future. Kaiser and
Rasminsky (2003) recommend that social skills
interventions include activities that address

Middle School Journal · January 2006 1 7

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

friendship skills, such as how to approach a group of
people and how to develop empathy.

In addition to teaching students skills in an
attempt to help them be less easily targeted for
bullying, school personnel must provide support to
victims of bullying. Teachers and other school
personnel should strive to prevent bullying, but in
the event bullying does occur, they must prepare
victims with coping skills (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser &
Rasminsky, 2003; Rigby, 2001). School personnel
might also want to consider implementing support
groups for bullying victims (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997;
Lane, 2005; Macklem, 2003; Roberts & Coursol,
1996). Groups can provide victims with opportunities
to develop many of the skills addressed above while,
at the same time, communicating to these students
that others in the school are there to help them.

friendship skills, such as how to approach a group of
people and how to develop empathy.

Rather than assume a student is intentionally
being cruel, school personnel can approach
intervention from a developmental
perspective by providing education.

Bullies. A variety of skills are recommended for
bullies to help them learn new ways of interacting
with others. Teaching empathy to bullies has been
recommended as an important component of any
anti-bullying effort (Hazier, 1996; Kaiser &
Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Sullivan, 2000,).
Empathy training should include interventions
designed to generate awareness of perspective taking.
Additionally, Macklem (2003) recommended
specifically helping bullies learn to label emotions in
themselves and others and to become more aware of

others’ points of view.
Promoting self-control is another important

component of bully prevention. Skills in self
regulation, anger management, and conflict
resolution (Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2001, 2002;
Sullivan, 2000) have been identified as important in
helping bullies learn both to think before they act
and to change their behaviors. Ideally, students must
learn to calm themselves down to generate alternatives
to their gut reaction to hit or insult another student.
Behavioral rehearsal (e.g., role-play) can provide
students opportunities for practice and feedback.

Similar to victims, bullies can also benefit from
social skills training (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003;

Macklem, 2003; Rigby, 2002). Rigby (2002) believed
bullies do not know how to behave in ways that
elicit positive reactions from other students.
Essentially, bullies often lack the social skills to get
what they want in acceptable ways. Helping bullies
develop friendship-making skills may serve to
eliminate their aggressive behavior toward others
(Macklem, 2003).

Finally, just as victims need adult support, bullies
can also benefit from it. Hazier (1996) suggested that
rather than immediately discipline bullies, school
personnel talk with them to explore their reasons for
acting as they did. For example, punishing a student
for insulting another student about his ethnicity
when that student has observed all adults in his life

doing the same thing is less effective than talking
with the student, explaining what is and is not
acceptable at school, and providing alternatives. In
other words, rather than immediately assume a
student is intentionally being cruel (although that
may sometimes be the case), school personnel can
approach intervention from a developmental
perspective by providing education.

Parent considerations

Parents can provide schools with much support
during the development and implementation of
bullying prevention/intervention programs.
Providing information to all parents about school
policies is critical to gaining parental support.
Many researchers have recommended schools seek
parental input during the development of school
policies (Olweus, 1991, 1999; Sullivan, 2000), and
communicate with parents when their child has
either engaged in bullying or been a victim of
bullying (Olweus, 1991). Finally, Olweus (1999)
recommended developing a pamphlet with
information about bullying, related school
policies, and available interventions that could
be sent home to parents each year.

Conclusion

Understanding the scope of bullying and character
istics of bullies and victims is helpful for middle
school personnel in learning how to develop
effective interventions for bullying in schools.
Comprehensive bully prevention programs have
proven to be successful in helping reduce the
aggressive behaviors of children, and teacher
training appears to be an important component
of those programs. Overall goals of bullying

others’ points of view.
Promoting self-control is another important

Similar to victims, bullies can also benefit from
social skills training (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003;

Parent considerations

Conclusion

18 Middle School Journal · January 2006

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

prevention/intervention programs should be to
increase teacher awareness of bullying, develop clear
policies that outline consequences for bullying, and
provide skill training and support to both bullies
and victims. Middle school personnel are encouraged
to assess the unique needs of their schools and work
collaboratively to design and implement programs
that will help create and reinforce safe environments
for all students.

References

Beale, Α. V., & Scott, P. C. (2001). Bullybusters: Using
drama to empower students to take a stand against
bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 4,
300-306.

Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, K. (2001).
Middle-school girls’ reports of peer victimization:
Concerns, consequences, and implications. Professional
School Counseling, 5, 138-147.

Clarke, Ε. Α., & Kiselica, M. S. (1997). A systemic counsel
ing approach to the problem of bullying. Elementary
School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 310-326.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on
school bullying and victimization: What have we
learned and where do we go from here? School
Psychology Review, 32, 365-384.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, Ν. G. (2000). Children who get
victimized at school: What is known? What can be

done? Professional School Counseling, 4, 113-119.
Hazier, R. J. (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence:

Interventions for bullying and victimization. Washington,
DC: Taylor & Francis.

Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. S. (2003). Challenging behavior in
young children: Understanding, preventing, and responding
effectively. Boston: Pearson.

Lane, B. (2005). Dealing with rumors, secrets, and lies:
Tools of aggression for middle school girls. Middle School
Journal, 36(3), 41-47.

Macklem, G. L. (2003). Bullying and teasing: Social power in
children’s groups. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J.,
Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying
behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and associa
tion with psychosocial adjustment, fournal of the
American Medical Association, 285, 1094-2100.

Newman-Carlson, D., & Home, A. M. (2004). Bully
busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing
bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 82, 259-267.

Oliver, R., Hoover, J. H., & Hazier, R. (1994). The perceived
role of bullying in small town Midwestern schools.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 416-420.

Orpinas, P., Home, A. M., & Staniszewski, D. (2003).
School bullying: Changing the problem by changing
the school. School Psychology Review, 32, 431-444.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school
children: Basic facts and effects of a school based inter

vention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp,
411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olweus, D. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Boulder,
CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado
at Boulder.

Rigby, K. (2001). Stop the bullying: A handbook for teachers.
Markham: Pembroke.

Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Roberts, W. B. Jr., & Coursol, D. H. (1996). Strategies for
intervention with childhood and adolescent victims of

bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 30, 204-213.

Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization:
Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level,
ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38,
735-747.

Sullivan, K. (2000). The anti-bullying handbook. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). The culture of
bullying in middle school. Journal of School Violence,
2(2), 5-27.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Preventing bullying:
A marmai for schools and communities. Washington, DC:
Author.

Using Middle School Journal fot Professional Development

To get great ideas for using this article for staff

development visit www.nmsa.org and click on
“Professional Development” then “Using MSI for
Professional Development,” January 2006 issue.

Middle School Journal · January 2006 19

This content downloaded from
��67.83.208.117 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:59:42 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

p. 12

p. 13

p. 14

p. 15

p. 16

p. 17

p. 18

p. 19

Issue Table of Contents

Middle School Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3 (January 2006) pp. 1-59

Front Matter

The Editor Reflects: The Ends Cannot Determine the Means: But “This We Believe in Action” Can Help [pp. 2-2]

This We Believe in Action

Harry Potter Casts His Spell in the Classroom [pp. 4-11]

Bullying in Middle Schools: Prevention and Intervention [pp. 12-19]

Using Personal Memoirs of Early Adolescence To Prepare for Teaching in the Middle Grades [pp. 20-29]

Integrating Literacy, Math, and Science to Make Learning Come Alive [pp. 30-37]

Lessons on Effective Teaching From Middle School ESL Students [pp. 38-45]

NMSA in Action [pp. 46-47]

þÿ�þ�ÿ��W��h��a��t�� R��e��s��e��a��r��c��h�� S��a��y��s��:�� T��h��e�� E��v��i��d��e��n��c��e�� f��o��r�� t��h��e�� C��o��r��e�� C��u��r��r��i��c��u��l��u��m�� P��a��s��t�� a��n��d�� P��r��e��s��e��n��t�� [��p��p��.�� 4��8��-��5��4��]

Research into Practice: Empowering Adolescents Through Critical Literacy [pp. 55-59]

Back Matter

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00