It is imperative, therefore, that practitioners should implement effective anti-bullying programs in their schools to protect students from bullying and its potential negative outcomes. From the perspective of international human rights law, the right to be safe at school and not be subjected to the aggression and victimization associated with bullying should be afforded to all children Olweus and Limber ; Convention on the Rights of the Child ; Universal Declaration of Human Rights There have been many previous attempts to establish what works in bullying intervention and prevention.
This report identified that evaluations conducted in Norway were significantly more likely to report desirable results in comparison to evaluations conducted in other locations Farrington and Ttofi The authors also reported the difference between evaluations conducted in Europe and elsewhere, but the difference in the odds ratio mean effect sizes was not statistically significant p.
More recent analyses have found that anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing both school-bullying perpetration and victimization, but these reviews are limited in various ways. For example, some previous systematic reviews have failed to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs i. Therefore, we cannot adequately quantify and judge the objective effectiveness of included anti-bullying programs. Some previous meta-analyses have over-restricted their analysis to include only randomized controlled trials i.
Often in school-based evaluation research, randomized controlled trials are not feasible and thus, high-quality non-randomized quasi-experimental designs are an appropriate alternative evaluation design. Furthermore, although forms of bullying may change with age, bullying behaviors have been reported in kindergarten-aged students and adolescents over the age of 16 UNESCO A recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs found overall that anti-bullying programs are effective Gaffney, Ttofi, and Farrington a.
This study included evaluations of many different anti-bullying programs from across the world. However, as you would expect, there was significant heterogeneity in the results see Gaffney et al. Thus, the objective of the present report is to explore some possible explanations for the variations in results between evaluations of anti-bullying programs.
We use the data collected for the aforementioned review and evaluated the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs according to moderator variables. The present report explores variables such as the location of the evaluation and the particular intervention program that was evaluated. We aim to establish the effectiveness of existing anti-bullying efforts globally, to better inform ongoing research and potential translation of existing programs between countries.
We also aim to identify and review existing anti-bullying programs that are widely disseminated or have been implemented across different settings and populations.
We suggest that the results of this analysis will be useful to researchers, policy makers, and practitioners e. In order to locate studies for our review, we conducted a series of extensive systematic searches of the literature.
Databases of unpublished reports e. The inclusion of unpublished studies should reduce any potential publication bias Easterbrook et al. In addition, studies both included and excluded by previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews i. In total, 49 studies that were included in a previous systematic review i. New searches were conducted for studies published from to the end of December To be included in the updated meta-analysis, primary studies were measured against a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria.
Namely, studies must 1 describe an evaluation of a school-based anti-bullying program that was implemented with school-age participants; 2 utilize an operational definition of school bullying that coincides with existing definitions e. Our searches of the literature produced approximately 20, reports that were screened for eligibility. Based on titles and abstracts, of these results were retained for further screening.
The majority of these studies were excluded for various reasons. Our initial wave of screening excluded studies that did not actually evaluate a specific anti-bullying program, studies that reviewed several anti-bullying programs, and 43 studies that did not report empirical quantitative data.
Following more in-depth screening of the methodologies and results of the remaining studies, studies were excluded because they 1 reported irrelevant outcomes; 2 did not have an adequate control group; or 3 did not meet the specified methodological criteria. For a detailed description of the screening process and how we determined which studies were included, please see Gaffney et al. Following screening, 83 studies published after were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review.
In total however, studies were eligible for inclusion in the present systematic review. This number includes 83 studies identified in the searches described here, five studies identified after searches were completed, and 53 studies that were included in the previous systematic review by Farrington and Ttofi However, only primary evaluations were included in our meta-analysis, as a number of studies were excluded for a number of different reasons.
For example, 10 studies lacked statistical information needed to estimate effect sizes , 26 reported outcomes of evaluations conducted with the same sample i. Included evaluations used one of three experimental methodologies: 1 randomized controlled trials; 2 quasi-experimental designs with before and after measures; and 3 age cohort designs. Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in experimental evaluations Weisburd et al.
Quasi-experiments are conceptually similar to randomized controlled trials but do not use random assignment. As such, the validity of results may be reduced so in our meta-analysis, we only included quasi-experiments that measured school bullying before and after the implementation of an intervention.
Age cohort designs involve students of a particular age assessed for relevant outcomes in the first year of the intervention and this data acts as a control for students in the same school and the same age tested after the intervention has taken place.
For detailed descriptions of these evaluations, please refer to Gaffney et al. From the evaluations, we estimated independent effect sizes for the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in reducing bullying perpetration and bullying victimization. The majority of effect sizes were corrected for the effect of clustering i. The Comprehensive Meta-analysis software was used to conduct our analysis of the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs.
Gaffney et al. For the present report, the results will be presented only using the multiplicative variance adjustment model MVA; Farrington and Welsh This model of meta-analysis overcomes the problems associated with both the fixed-effects model i. We also translated odds ratio effect sizes to percentages to more effectively communicate the effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs.
A clear example is provided by Ttofi and Farrington , but this process involves assuming equal allocation of participants to experimental and control conditions in primary evaluations.
Following this logic, we were able to translate ORs to approximate percentage decreases in bullying behaviors. For the purpose of the present report, we coded each of the evaluations according to three moderators.
Firstly, the country in which the evaluation took place was recorded e. Secondly, for comparison, we coded the world region in which this country lies. For example, studies conducted in Italy, France, Spain, etc. Both the country and regional information of all was coded all except one country. Sapouna et al. Virtual-learning intervention program in both the UK and Germany. Therefore, this study was not included in either the UK or German evaluations but was included in regional analysis as a European study.
Thirdly, we also recorded the specific intervention program evaluated in each primary study. For example, some anti-bullying programs are widely disseminated and have been evaluated repeatedly in different locations and samples e. Of the evaluations included in our meta-analysis of school-based anti-bullying programs, the majority 80 for perpetration, 84 for victimization were conducted in one of 12 different countries i.
We also identified singular evaluations conducted in Austria Yanagida et al. We found that very few specific anti-bullying programs had been implemented and evaluated more than once using independent samples. Sixty-five different school-based bullying intervention and prevention programs were included in our meta-analysis, but only eight were repeatedly evaluated i. Moreover, of these programs, only four were evaluated more than twice across different locations with different evaluators i.
The following sections of this report outline the key features of these programs. These four studies are outlined in Table 1. The program is composed of three age-appropriate curriculum materials that focus on enhancing empathy, self-efficacy, and anti-bullying attitudes of bystanders. Classroom anti-bullying rules are also devised throughout lessons. The KiVa program also includes a virtual-learning element, with primary school students playing an anti-bullying computer game both during and between lessons.
Our systematic searches identified 16 potentially includable evaluations of the KiVa anti-bullying intervention i. Of these 16 studies, only four met our inclusion criteria and were included in our meta-analysis i. These studies presented the results of nationwide evaluations of the KiVa anti-bullying program using an age cohort design i. Additionally, Nocentini and Menesini reported the results of the implementation and evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program in Italy using a randomized controlled trial design.
The intervention involves actively engaging students in the development of a website to promote anti-bullying. In addition, a number of participating students are enrolled as peer-educators throughout the intervention.
Additionally, peer-educators hold workshops offline with participating students to highlight the key issues surrounding both school- and cyberbullying Palladino et al.
Classroom workshops target empathy and problem-solving skills Palladino et al. Our meta-analysis included four independent evaluations of the NoTrap! Menesini et al. Palladino et al. Finally, Palladino et al. This program aims to improve the school environment in order to reduce existing bullying problems and prevent further instances of bullying Olweus et al. The program includes elements at many levels, specifically, school, classroom, individual, and community levels Olweus et al.
Intervention components are guided by four key principles, namely, adults, both at school and home, should 1 show warmth and positivity towards students; 2 set strict limits and restrictions on unacceptable student behavior; 3 apply consistent and non-aggressive consequences; and 4 act as positive and authoritative role models Olweus and Limber , p. Olweus and Limber Olweus and Limber , p. Intensive training is also provided for staff, and regular staff discussion groups are held.
The intervention also targets specific individuals who are recognized as bullies and victims, and their respective parents. Individual-specific intervention strategies are also designed for students involved in bullying. Our meta-analysis of school-based anti-bullying programs included 12 independent evaluations of the OBPP intervention, largely implemented in Norway and the USA e.
The OBPP was largely evaluated using quasi-experimental designs with before and after measures, or age cohort designs. The OBPP can be implemented with children and adolescents of a range of ages. For example, Finn implemented and evaluated the program with elementary schoolchildren, Purugulla implemented the program with middle school students, and Losey and Yaakub et al. Several of the OBPP evaluations that were included in our meta-analysis were implemented with students from a range of grades e.
The Viennese Social Competence ViSC intervention program approaches bullying prevention from a socio-ecological perspective Bronfenbrenner ; Swearer and Espelage This intervention targets not only individual students but also includes teachers, parents, and school staff, from a social learning theory Bandura perspective. The ViSC program ensures that teachers have a shared responsibility to prevent bullying perpetration and victimization amongst students.
The aim of the ViSC program is to reduce aggressive and bullying behaviors and also to create social and intercultural competencies within the school environment Gradinger et al. In other words, experts train teachers, who in turn train their students Gradinger et al. The first semester of the program incorporates school-level intervention components, implemented with teachers and school staff.
Participants are trained in how to recognize and tackle bullying scenarios and implement preventative measures at the school- and class-levels. Participating students also complete 13 lessons that follow a student-centered approach. Lessons one to eight focus on bullying behaviors and require students to actively work together to develop ways to prevent aggressive behavior in their respective classes. In the remaining five lessons, students work together on a class project to achieve a positive common goal and practice their social skills Atria et al.
Our systematic review included five evaluations of the ViSC program, implemented in Austria Gradinger et al. One evaluation i. This result is not surprising in light of the large number of studies included in our meta-analysis, and the wide array of countries and intervention programs represented.
Therefore, the aim of the present report is to explore variations in the effectiveness of intervention programs between countries and regions and specific anti-bullying programs. Table 2 presents the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs across 22 different countries for bullying perpetration outcomes.
Table 2 shows that, amongst international locations where more than one evaluation was conducted, evaluations carried out in Greece were the most effective in significantly reducing bullying perpetration, followed by Norway, Italy, the USA, and Finland. When singular evaluations were included, the anti-bullying program implemented in the former Czechoslovakia had the largest effect size for bullying perpetration, followed by Ireland. Effect sizes for bullying perpetration across all 22 countries included in our meta-analysis are represented graphically in Fig.
Forest plot of weighted mean odds ratios for bullying perpetration outcomes across 22 different countries. Odds ratios are shown on a logarithmic scale. Table 2 also summarizes the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs across 21 different countries for bullying victimization outcomes.
Amongst international locations where more than one evaluation was conducted, evaluations conducted in Italy were the most effective in significantly reducing bullying victimization, followed by Spain, Norway, the USA, and Finland.
Additionally, evaluations conducted in Germany and the UK were significantly effective. When singular evaluations were included, the anti-bullying program implemented in Austria had the largest effect size for bullying victimization, followed by Switzerland. Effect sizes for bullying victimization across all 21 countries included in our meta-analysis are represented graphically in Fig.
Forest plot of weighted mean odds ratios for bullying victimization outcomes across 21 different countries. In addition to exploring the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs conducted in individual countries, we also estimated effect sizes for different regions. Table 3 shows the weighted mean effect sizes across seven different geographical regions for school-bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes.
The majority of studies were conducted in either Europe, North America, or Scandinavia. We also estimated a weighted mean effect size for studies conducted in Europe including Scandinavia. In regard to school-bullying perpetration outcomes, evaluations conducted in North America were the most effective, followed by Scandinavian studies, and then European studies.
For school-bullying victimization outcomes, evaluations conducted in Scandinavia were the most effective. Evaluations conducted in Europe were the second most effective, followed by North American studies. When weighted mean effect sizes were estimated for European and Scandinavian countries collectively, they were significantly more effective in reducing bullying victimization outcomes than North American studies.
However, the effect size in North American studies for bullying perpetration outcomes was not significantly different from the weighted mean for European and Scandinavian studies. Table 4 summarizes the effectiveness of specific anti-bullying programs in reducing school-bullying perpetration and victimization. Eight programs i. The same programs, with the exception of the fairplayer.
The effectiveness of these programs varied greatly. Overall, there were 12 evaluations of the OBPP included in our analysis, which includes one evaluation conducted in Malaysia. In relation to school-bullying perpetration outcomes, overall the OBPP was the most effective intervention program. In addition, evaluations of the OBPP in Norway and in the USA were the most effective individually, in comparison with other included anti-bullying programs.
Other programs were also significantly effective in reducing school-bullying perpetration behaviors, including KiVa, Second Step, and Steps to Respect, although their effect sizes were markedly lower in comparison to the OBPP. Positive effect sizes i. Surprisingly, negative effects were found for two anti-bullying programs, the fairplayer manual and ViSC, although these effects were not statistically significant. In relation to school-bullying victimization outcomes, NoTrap!
Our analysis found that other anti-bullying programs were also significantly effective in reducing school-bullying victimization, including Steps to Respect and KiVa. The OBPP intervention program was the third most effective anti-bullying program for reducing victimization. Our analysis also found negative effects of the Second Step program in relation to victimization.
Evaluations of the ViSC program also had a negative effect on bullying victimization, although this effect was not statistically significant. Overall, the results of our meta-analysis are consistent with previous findings and show that school-based anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization. Our meta-analysis included evaluations of anti-bullying programs from a wide range of countries and specific intervention programs, far more than in any previous meta-analysis e.
We conclude that school-based anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing both school-bullying perpetration and victimization globally and across different school-based programs.
We also identified regional differences in the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs. Evaluations conducted in North America i. However, no clear pattern of statistically significant differences between regional effect sizes was identified in our analysis. While the results of our further analysis in relation to the location of evaluations are interesting, the findings are limited in explaining why heterogeneity occurs between mean effect sizes. The current report highlights that anti-bullying programs are effective and are largely effective worldwide.
The majority of anti-bullying programs were evaluated in regions where the prevalence of bullying is already comparatively low, for example, Europe and North America. Our systematic review further highlights the lack of existing anti-bullying programs in areas where UNESCO report worryingly high levels of bullying, such as sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.
The lack of a clear pattern in relation to the regional effectiveness of anti-bullying programs may be explained by several factors. Firstly, there are a large number of potential confounding factors that could be influencing the overall results. When comparing the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in a meta-analysis such as this, other moderators need to be considered.
For example, previous analyses have found that anti-bullying programs are more effective with older participants i. The relationships between participant age and overall effectiveness are not consistent, with prominent researchers disagreeing with this finding e.
Other potential confounding variables include the type of measurement, the specific intervention components, or the evaluation methodology used. Previous research has indicated that there are cultural differences in bullying behaviors amongst adolescents e.
Therefore, an anti-bullying program that is designed to reduce these behaviors should reflect these differences. This program was originally designed and implemented in Norway, and it is therefore not surprising that the OBPP program was more effective in reducing both perpetration and victimization when evaluated in Norway, compared to evaluations in the USA see Table 4. These differences could be attributed to different evaluation methodologies see Gaffney et al.
Moreover, when the OBPP was evaluated in six Malaysian secondary schools, with a sample size of approximately students, the program was not significantly effective in reducing school-bullying victimization Yaakub et al. This may be a result of the different manifestations of school-bullying victimization in Eastern societies. As previously stated, researchers e. This may explain why in Malaysia, the OBPP was seemingly ineffective at reducing bullying victimization.
Future research is needed to better explore the potential factors that may explain heterogeneity observed between mean effect sizes of anti-bullying evaluations. For example, such research could incorporate the type of intervention implemented, the age of participants, the sample size, timeframe of measurement i. We also explored the effectiveness of the four most widely disseminated anti-bullying programs that were included in our review i. For the purpose of this analysis, we only included programs that had been evaluated on three or more independent occasions.
The OBPP was the most effective in reducing school-bullying perpetration. In relation to victimization outcomes, the NoTrap!
Again, these results may have been influenced by the particular evaluation methods used see Weisburd et al. As the effectiveness of these programs also varied, it may be possible, by exploring these different components, to better inform future research, practice, and policy decisions. This approach to anti-bullying programs was first introduced and implemented by Dan Olweus in Norway i.
Other programs i. In relation to effectiveness, our meta-analysis suggests that the whole-school approach was not always the most effective.
Moreover, the non-whole-school program NoTrap! This suggests that, while school bullying may very well be a complex social peer-group phenomenon, the whole-school approach might not be effective for every individual student. This observation is consistent with previous research. For example, in the context of the KiVa anti-bullying program, Kaufman et al. This study found that high-trajectory for victimization participants i.
The universal approach commonly includes school- and class-level components that focus on raising awareness about bullying-related issues. It may be the case that, by raising awareness, and focusing on highlighting bullying issues amongst students, the effect sizes may be influenced by a social desirability bias.
This might explain why greater reductions are seen for whole-school programs for bullying perpetration in comparison to decreases for bullying victimization. However, this finding was not widely accepted by other researchers in the field who champion the peer-led approach to bullying prevention e.
In the four most widely disseminated programs, the peer group was involved in intervention activities in various ways. For example, the OBPP program involved actively working with participants to engage bystanders in order to encourage them to prevent, or respond accordingly to, bullying situations in their daily lives.
In comparison, the NoTrap! The NoTrap! It may be that the anonymity and protection of an online environment encourages participants to truly open up about bullying victimization, whereas in classroom settings, they may feel uncomfortable about disclosing their experiences. Previous research has shown that a number of factors, including trust and perceived privacy, can influence disclosure in online settings, in relation to sensitive issues Joinson et al. Furthermore, the overlap between offline and online bullying perpetration and victimization will increase amongst adolescents, as the Internet has become a part of our daily lives rather than an abstract place where different social norms apply Rooney, Connolly, Hurley, Kirwan, and Power Previous studies have shown that the greatest risk factor for cyberbullying is school bullying Baldry et al.
Therefore, it may be that moving from the classroom to online peer-led forums may be a way in which practitioners can improve intervention programs to better reduce bullying victimization. This may also be a practical and cost-effective method, to get students actively involved in anti-bullying work while also highlighting key issues.
While this intervention focused on peer-led online forums in conjunction with peer-led offline anti-bullying activities , the OBPP, KiVa, and ViSC programs each included the involvement of both parents and teachers.
As previously stated, the involvement of teachers and parents is a key feature of the ecological, whole-school approach to anti-bullying programs. In both the KiVa and OBPP programs, parents received leaflets or letters at home that provided them with information about bullying and about the intervention program. Parents were also invited to information nights held at participating schools.
Hot-spot supervision involves identifying locations within the school premises where bullying occurs frequently and increasing teacher presence in these areas. These elements are missing in the NoTrap! Our meta-analysis provides practitioners with useful insights into the effectiveness of anti-bullying interventions in a number of countries worldwide. Our results show that the effectiveness of school-based interventions for bullying perpetration and victimization varies between locations, and this should be something practitioners should take into account.
Effectiveness also varies across different intervention programs, and particular components of anti-bullying programs have differential effectiveness in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization. The results of the present report lead to many recommendations and implications for teachers, schools, and practitioners who deal with school bullying amongst children and adolescents. Previous evaluations of the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in the same country, region, or culturally similar setting, as these factors may influence effectiveness.
The location and population for which the program was developed and evaluated initially, and whether this impacts previous measures of its effectiveness and its particular approach to tackling bullying.
A pre-intervention survey to explore the specific manifestations of bullying in their respective schools, to evaluate whether or not one particular program may address these issues better than another. Existing research reports and meta-analyses that assess specific intervention components and their effectiveness.
That whole-school anti-bullying campaigns can be effective, but they may not be the best strategy to combat bullying victimization; additional intervention components may also be needed. That comprehensive anti-bullying programs should include intervention elements at multiple levels, including the school, class, parent, peer, and individual level.
Targeted interventions are needed to help individual children that are particularly vulnerable to bullying victimization. A pre-intervention survey to explore the specific manifestations of bullying in their respective schools to evaluate which components are the most effective, and practical, methods of reducing bullying victimization and perpetration.
That online forums, moderated by trained students, may be an efficient and cost-effective way to tackle bullying victimization. That hot-spot supervision and specific strategies for dealing with bullying scenarios when it occurs are effective methods for preventing school-bullying perpetration and victimization.
Practitioners should take a number of factors into consideration when choosing an anti-bullying program. It is important to initially evaluate the nature, presence, and frequency of bullying in the relevant school. Bullying behaviors will not necessarily manifest in the same way in different countries, regions, communities, or schools, and thus may impact the effectiveness of any intervention program implemented.
For example, the cross-national Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children HBSC study showed that greater income inequality predicted higher levels of bullying perpetration and victimization Elgar et al.
Therefore, implementing a program developed in a region with low-income inequality may not have the same level of effectiveness in an area of greater income inequality, as the causal roots of bullying are different.
Email address: mail nedopusti. Helpline activities became part of the federal helpline consulting project ChildHelpLine providing consulting in difficult life situation for children and parents, with deep regional penetration and raising consultants' level of awareness.
The SIC contribution to the project covers online environment issues including bullying, sexting, consulting on safety issues, and so on.
The hotline performs assessment of reported content and initiates notice and takedown procedures about illegal content. The youth panel is a project aiming at active youth participation in awareness-raising and promotion of a positive online environment, popularising ICT and involving youth in discussions about the development of the digital world. As a project, the youth panel operates on a central and regional basis, thus involving regional youth in awareness-raising and discussion processes also.
As bullied children grow older, their social and emotional lives tend to be less content than people who were not bullied. Bullied children tend to become less mentally stable when they get older, compared to their non-bullied counterparts.
A study of roughly 18, kids in Europe tracked how bullying, or the lack thereof, affected them later in life. Bullying also causes people to become more anti-social. At age 50, bullying victims are less likely to be living with a spouse or a partner; less likely to have spent time with friends recently; less likely to have friends or family to lean on if they got sick. Anti-bullying programs are not as distinguished and effective as they could be, and sometimes have the opposite effect they were intending.
In fact, anti-bullying programs can lead to children getting bullied more often.
0コメント