1. education
2. school

AN INVESTIGATION OF A BULLYING PREVENTION
PROGRAM IN SCHOOL SETTINGS
A Proposal Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Science in Psychology
By
Scott Michael Charlton
February 2015
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
AN INVESTIGATION OF A BULLYING PREVENTION
PROGRAM IN SCHOOL SETTINGS
by
Scott Michael Charlton
Signed Certification of Approval Page is
on file with the University Library
Dr. Victor Luevano
Associate Professor of Psychology
Date
Dr. Annie Guichard
Associate Professor of Psychology
Date
Dr. Rosanne Roy
Associate Professor of Psychology
Date
Dr. Emily Branscum-Higuera
Lecturer of Psychology
Date
© 2015
Scott Michael Charlton
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DEDICATION
This work is for the victim. Though the bent scales of injustice may not be
equalized today, we will work for remedy. You are not alone. This work is dedicated
to the bully. The fear and anger that lead to such hurtful actions must be tormenting.
May you that harms others heal and find peace with our help. This work is dedicated
to the bully-victim. With calm perseverance there will be genuine connections with
others. Most of all, this work is dedicated to the defender. It takes courage and
strength to swim against the stream. May we find the defender within and protect
each other with zeal.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for a small portion of this work was provided through a California
State University grant. This work is possible because of the participation of the
schools sites and administrators, especially Karen Vail and Kevin Triance. Over
thirty students from CSU, Stanislaus supported this work through the assessment,
kick-off event, classroom meetings, and data entry. One source of significant support
was Adelin Ansari, who continued assessment and feedback for a year following the
current work. Dr. Branscum’s guidance throughout the intervention was most
helpful, but her inspiration has expanded my willingness to engage the juicy stuff that
life has to offer. Dr. Luevano has been continually supportive, collaborative, and
patient throughout the journey. Finally, I would like to thank Bruce and Colleen,
amazing parents, who have championed my efforts and moral philosophy.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication ...............................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................
v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures .........................................................................................................
ix
Abstract ...................................................................................................................
x
Literature Review....................................................................................................
1
Bullying Roles ............................................................................................
Bullying Defined .........................................................................................
Types of Bullying Behavior ........................................................................
Gender Differences .....................................................................................
Negative Effects of Bullying ......................................................................
Bullying Prevention ....................................................................................
Purpose and Hypothesis ..............................................................................
1
8
10
15
16
18
22
Method ....................................................................................................................
24
Participants ..................................................................................................
Materials and Variables ..............................................................................
Procedure ....................................................................................................
Data Analysis ..............................................................................................
24
26
27
29
Results .....................................................................................................................
30
Discussion ...............................................................................................................
35
Intervention .................................................................................................
Interpretation ...............................................................................................
Limitations and Future Directions ..............................................................
Applications ................................................................................................
35
36
38
40
vi
References ...............................................................................................................
41
Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire ........................................................... 62
Consent Letter ............................................................................................. 75
Parent Information Pamphlet ...................................................................... 76
Kickoff Event Script ................................................................................... 84
First Class Meeting Outline and Script ....................................................... 100
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1. Participants Assessed with BVQ by School Site and Year...............................
24
2. Gender of Participants Assessed with BVQ by Year........................................
25
3. A Comparison of the Likelihood of Reported Bullying Roles Before and
After Intervention....................................................................................................
31
4. A Comparison of Pre and Post Intervention Victimization Severity ................
32
5. A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 1 .......
33
6. A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 2 .......
34
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1. Bullying Circle ..................................................................................................
2
2. Program Implementation ..................................................................................
28
ix
ABSTRACT
Bullying is pervasive across schools in the United States. The bullying circle
describes the roles of bully, bystanders, defender, and victim. Bully-victims, students
who are both victims and bullies, are of special concern. Bullying consists of direct
and indirect behaviors that are mean and hurtful. Many problems are associated with
bullying and can be reduced with intervention. Two elementary school sites
instituted the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program which intervenes at individual,
classroom, school-wide, and community levels. Intervention consisted of an initial
assessment, kickoff event, classroom meetings, feedback sessions, and subsequent
assessment. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire was used to assess 496
participants pre-intervention and 483 participants post-intervention in grades 3
through 8. Participants in all grades received the kickoff event and classroom
meetings. Participants were less likely to be a victim (RR = 0.92), bully (0.97), or
bully-victim (0.97) after program implementation. Victimization severity was lower
after intervention (d = 0.09). Risk ratios further showed that participants were less
likely to join a bullying situation underway (0.97) and more likely to defend a student
being bullied (1.15). There was minimal support for gender differences pre
intervention, wherein girls were at more likely to have indirect victim roles (1.10),
while less likely to have direct victim roles (0.93). Additionally, boys were more
likely to be a joiner in a bullying situation (1.11). These gender differences
diminished post intervention.
x
LITERATURE REVIEW
The American public has become more concerned about bullying of school
children over the past decade (Dervin, 2011). Part of this increase in concern is due
to high profile media coverage of school bullying cases (Noronha, 2012). These
anecdotal cases begin to capture the seriousness of bullying in America. As a result,
there has been increased awareness and surveillance of bullying behavior in schools;
that is capturing the pervasiveness of bullying. Peleg-Oren, Cardenas, Comerford, and
Galea (2012) examined data from 45,000 students in the United States and discovered
that more than half of students reported being either a victim or bully in the previous
30 days.
Research on childhood aggression increased in the late 1960’s. This research
was generally conducted in natural environments, such as schools and child care
settings. Dan Olweus, a pioneering bullying researcher described the nature of
bullying and how to intervene. Olweus identified types of bullying behavior and the
roles of children in bullying situations. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
(OBPP) was developed using evidence-based practices (Olweus, 1997). OBPP has
been manualized for use in the United States (Olweus et al., 2007). The main goals
of OBPP are to establish contingencies that address bullying behavior and structure
an environment that enables students to pursue prosocial roles.
Bullying Roles
Bullying occurs as a group process and often involves several children who
assume specific roles within a given bullying situation. Olweus illustrates these roles
1
2
with the “bullying circle” (Juvonen & Graham, 2001). The bullying circle describes
the roles that children and adolescents have within a given bullying situation. The
major roles within the bullying circle are the bully, active and passive supporters,
disengaged onlookers, victim, and defenders (see Figure 1). The OBPP defines the
bullying roles with behaviorally descriptive terms, such as students who bully or
target.
Figure 1. Roles of students involved in bullying situations. Adapted with
permission from “Olweus Bullying Prevention Program Schoolwide Guide,” by Dan
Olweus, Copyright 2007 by the Hazeldon Foundation.
Group bullying strategies coexist with one-on-one bullying.
However, in
group bullying situations, the roles can influence power differentials. For instance,
when a bully recruits friends or acquaintances to assist bullying, that bully has more
3
social leverage and physical power over the victim. Empirical support for these roles
has been demonstrated by researchers (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Österman,
& Kaukiainen, 1996). The bullying roles are not fixed and can be utilized in
intervention and prevention programs (Sutton & Smith, 1999).
Bullying status is used to identify those who have been bullied, bullied others,
or participated in both over a period of time. Self-reported information is used to
identify bullying status and is a fair representation of the real experiences those
students (Theriot, Dulmus, Sowers, & Johnson, 2005). Status labels the patterns of
individuals’ role in the bullying circle.
Victim
The person who is the target of the aggression is the victim. The victim
experiences the direct and subsequent negative consequences of the bullying event.
These negative consequences stem from the aversive nature of aggression, which
includes physical harm and/or social consequences. Emotional responses that the
victims experience include fear, guilt, and shame (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005).
The victim, by definition, has less power than the bully. Individual social
factors are recognized by their peers. Victims are viewed by peers as unhappier and
deficient in social skills (Fox & Boulton, 2005). A wide range of socially
dysfunctional traits are also associated with those who experience victimization, such
as increased self-isolation and emotional volatility (Frizzo, Bisol, & Lara, 2012).
Victims may not utilize skills or elicit the aid of others to defend themselves because
of differences in social ability or standing.
4
Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, and Unger (2004) found that students
with high friendship nominations are not victims, but low peer nominations is not a
reliable predictor of victim status. The number of friendships may not predict
victimization, but quality friendships play an important role in helping students to
recover from the negative effects of bullying (Kendrick, Jutengren, & Stattin, 2012).
Bullied students without quality friendships and poor social abilities are of significant
concern, due to poorer outcomes (Glick & Rose, 2011).
Bully
The main, initial source of aggressive behavior is the bully. The bully can
either engage in the aggressive behavior themselves or choreograph assistants. These
assistants are also likely to be bullies (Farmer et al., 2010). The bully often has an
immediate peer group who serve as assistants. Students who bully also tend to
associate with controversial or deviant peers (Farmer et al., 2010). The bully’s
immediate friendship group includes those who also participate in aggressive
behavior (Mouttapa et al., 2004).
Caravita, Gini, and Pozzoli (2012) found that bullies are often strong leaders
and are well liked by teachers. Fellow students rate bullies high in popularity, even
though they do not want to associate with the bully themselves. This means that the
bully is often capable of gathering support from bystanders.
There are a host of problems faced by those who bully others. For example,
students who bully have an increased likelihood of future conduct problems and
alcohol use (Peleg-Oren et al., 2012). Adolescent students who have a history of
5
bullying others are also at far greater risk of school delinquency. Students who bully
others had higher levels of violence and other anti-social behavior ten years later
(Bender & Lösel, 2011). Additional conduct related problems, such as drug use and
rule violations, are higher for students who bully than non-involved peers (Radliff,
Wheaton, Robinson, & Morris, 2012).
The psychiatric diagnosis of Conduct Disorder has features associated with
bullying, namely the violation of others’ rights (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Caravita et al. (2012) showed that students with the bully role have higher
acceptance of moral transgression and higher emotional disengagement than their
peers. These moral belief systems make it more acceptable for the bully to continue
aggression and cause further victimization.
Bully-Victims
Students who have been bullied by others and have bullied others themselves
are considered bully-victims. Pellegrini, Bartini, and Brooks (1999) and Schwartz
(2000) termed these students “aggressive victims.” These aggressive victims will
often retaliate against the aggressor after the fact or aggress against a student
unrelated to their prior victimization (Swearer, Wang, Maag, Siebecker, & Frerichs,
2012). The connection between bullying and victimization events is not always clear
and may not have any reciprocal basis. However, learned aggression is typically
assumed in child samples and being bullied has been identified as a risk to being a
perpetrator (Berthhold & Hoover, 2000). Bully-victims often cite their own
victimization as part of the reasoning for their aggression (Schwartz, 2000).
6
Wienke Totura, Green, Karver, and Gesten (2009) demonstrated that bullyvictims tend have high rates of internalizing problems, like anxiety and depression.
Teachers rate these bully-victims as moody, having poor relationships, and more
learning difficulties than other students. Radliff et al. (2012) found that drug use and
delinquency are highest in bully-victims compared to bullies, victims, and those
described as noninvolved. The authors also found that bully-victims receive large
amounts of discipline at school and lack the quality of friendships of those in other
statuses. Unnever (2005) found that bully-victims are a distinct group from either
bullies or victims. Bully-victims have different early socialization experiences and
often experience more physical bullying. Disadvantageous psychological factors,
such as low self-control, are highest in children who have the status of bully-victim.
Camodeca, Goossens, Meerum Terwogt, and Schuengel (2002) argued that a
bullied student may react to their lack of control by bullying others. Bully-victims
rate higher in proactive and reactive aggression than victimized only peers. The
bully-victim is uneasy and unable to genuinely connect with others. Perren,
Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, Malti, and Hymel (2012) found that bully-victims find
bullying an acceptable tactic for peer negotiation. The bully-victim approves of the
violation of moral rules more than other students. These researchers suggest social
skills training to promote empathy and cooperation.
Bystanders
Peer approval is highly regarded by students and is therefore highly influential
(Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Peer support can offer a strong
7
rewarding mechanism for a variety of behaviors, including bullying. This support
comes from being accepted by specific peers and is demonstrated by continued
friendships and enhanced popularity (Olthof & Goossens, 2008).
There are two distinct categories of bystanders defined by the functional
relationship to bullying behavior; students who actively support or passively support
the bullying situation. The active supporters cheer on the bullying and encourage
aggression. Fanger, Frankel, and Hazen (2012) found that active supporters often
command the bully to use specific insults, reward the bully with praise, or mirror the
bully’s aggression. Bystanders in the passive support role do not support bullying the
victim nor do they intervene on the victim’s behalf. Salmivalli, Voeten, and
Poskiparta, (2011) found that active support in the presence of passive support is the
largest maintenance contingency of bullying behavior. These authors suggest that
passive support of bullying increases bullying behavior because of the seemingly
accepting attitude of bystanders.
Many students report no bullying perpetration or victimization. These noninvolved students have less problems in school than bullies or victims (Bender &
Lösel, 2011). The non-involved student can fulfill several roles in the bulling circle,
but most predominately serve as bystanders. These students’ attitudes and reactions
to bullying or defending in the classroom play a pivotal role in affecting the
likelihood of future bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011). The majority of the noninvolved students report wanting to help victims and are responsive to prosocial
change (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).
8
Defenders
The most altruistic bystander behavior is to defend against bullying using
positive and non-aggressive actions. The presence of defenders in classrooms is
associated with less bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011). Defending behavior occurs,
but is much less common than non-participation in bullying events. A defending
student makes a choice to defend that may include risk. The adoption of additional
risk, whether physical or social, for another student’s benefit exemplifies a fairly
advanced level of personal development and social responsibility (Shakoor et al.,
2012).
Defenders have high class ranking in terms of popularity and friendship,
ranking high with peers and adults (Caravita et al., 2012). Identifying defenders and
rewarding their actions are useful tactics to reduce bullying and increase peer support
for victims (Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vanderzee, Sink, & Birchmeier, 2009).
Peer
support is necessary because students without other defenders in their friendship
circle are less likely to continue to intervene on the behalf of victims (Farmer et al.,
2010).
Bullying Defined
A student is being bullied when another student, or several other students,
repeatedly says or does mean and hurtful things to him or her on purpose (Black,
Washington, Trent, Harner, & Pollock, 2010; Olweus, 1997). The characteristics that
define bullying are recurrent, hurtful actions and an imbalance of power between
9
victim and bully. This definition is useful to researchers to better identify the
behavior, but also to teach children and adults as part of bullying prevention efforts.
Bullying consists of behaviors that have harmful effects on those involved.
These effects include physical, social, and emotional consequences to the victims of
aggression (Turner, Exum, Brame, & Holt, 2013) and perpetrators (Camodeca &
Goossens, 2005). School avoidance and excessive absences are seen in students who
experience bullying victimization (Bender & Lösel, 2011). Bullying causes
additional harm to students not directly involved by negatively affecting the learning
environment (Skapinakis et al., 2011).
The repetitiousness of bullying is one factor that separates bullying from
isolated aggressive violence or other forms peer conflict. The experience of bullying
is not only an isolated event, but an ongoing situation. The duration of bullying is
critical to the deleterious aftereffects, typically the longer the duration the more
severe the effects. For example, being bullied weekly is associated with severe
outcomes, suicidal ideation, and attempts (Skapinakis et al., 2011).
The imbalance of power involved in bullying can come in many forms.
Physical power imbalances can be seen as differences in size or strength. Social
status, like popularity, can also determine power imbalance. Individual differences in
intelligence, ethnicity, and social skills can work to increase or decrease the power
differential between peers (Bettencourt & Farrell, 2013). Developmental or
psychological difficulties can also present an imbalance of power and increase the
risk of being bullied. For example, students with Autism Spectrum Disorders have
10
been shown to be bullied more than typically developing students (Chen & Schwartz,
2012).
Hanish and Guerra (2004) suggest that the ability to navigate potentially
dangerous situations and to defend oneself from aggressors is part of normal child
and adolescent development. However, some students have a reduced ability to
defend themselves from aggression, making them more vulnerable. Minority groups
and other special populations are of particular concern, as they have higher rates of
victimization and more severe effects than those in the majority (Fedewa & Ahn,
2012; Peskin, Tortolero, & Markham, 2006). Sexual minority students, such as
homosexual or transgendered students, are bullied with particularly severe effects
(Hightow-Weidman et al., 2011).
Group dynamics are another factor related with power imbalance, wherein the
size of the group or groups alone can create an imbalance of power. Forber-Pratt,
Aragon, and Espelage (2013) demonstrated that large groups engaged in bullying in
may be difficult to distinguish from gang activity in large schools. These schools with
known gang problems have higher rates of bullying separate from gang violence in
general. Gang violence may represent a different type of aggression than bullying, but
gang members are more likely to be bullies or bully-victims than students without
gang membership (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Goldweber, & Johnson, 2013).
Types of bullying behavior
There are a variety of ways school-age children are bullied. The aggressive
behaviors that bullies us varies in intensity, focus, and type. The description of
11
current and recent bullying behavior is of clinical importance to schools. School-wide
interventions and individual treatment can be more effective and efficient with a good
understanding of the types of bullying occurring in a given population (Marini, Dane,
Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006).
Two broad categories of bullying, direct and indirect, are useful to delineate
bullying and describe bullying behavior. Direct and indirect bullying are
differentiated by the time and proximal relationship between the aggressor and
victim. In direct bullying there is an immediate exchange between bully and victim.
Indirect bullying tends to be more prolonged and often involves a social group.
Direct and indirect bullying and victimization are moderately correlated and
often used together (Marini et al., 2006). Victims of bullying face a variety of types
of bullying behavior and are bullied with combinations of bullying type. Wang et al.
(2010) found that adolescent students who endure several types of bullying were at
the greatest risk of negative physical and psychological outcomes. Additionally,
students who report long-term bullying or multiple bullying types need the most
attention and resources.
Direct bullying
One of the most overt negative behaviors seen within school bullying is
aggressive violence. The use of physical contact, either to injure or coerce, is the most
easily identifiable type of bullying behaviors by teachers and students (Pellegrini &
Bartini, 2000). A single episode of aggressive violence is not considered bullying, nor
is a mutual affray. However, these single episodes can be part of a pattern that is
12
bullying and represent risk for future violence (Nansel, Overpeck, Haynie, Ruan, &
Scheidt, 2003).
Bullying that is overtly displayed by the aggressor toward the intended victim
is direct bullying. Direct bullying manifests as physical assaults, verbal threats or
insults with the victim present. Although direct bullying is typically overt, it is not
always observed by individuals other than the bully and victim (Barnes et al., 2012).
Students will often attempt to hide aggression from teachers and other adults at
school to avoid negative consequences.
Physical assault is typically against school rules. Physical aggression
represents serious risk of injury. Interestingly, the students who are most likely to
report injury are relational bullies, not physical victims (Dukes, Stein, & Zane, 2010).
These victims are intimidated by aggression and property violations. Serious
aggressive bullying behaviors are also possible and include physical violence and
sexual aggression. Sexual assaults are a form of direct bullying and represent a
significantly high level of conduct severity. Negative mental and physical effects are
often experienced long after childhood sexual assaults (Ullman & Brecklin, 2003).
Direct bullying does not require physical contact to be harmful. Yelling,
name calling, and threats are overt and occur directly from bully to victim.
Repetitious and negative name calling deeply impact some victims (Vicars, 2006).
Nishina, Juvonen, and Witkow (2005) demonstrated that verbal bullying resulted in
social difficulties and physical symptoms similar to bulling with physical violence.
Despite the saying that starts sticks and stones, words can hurt.
13
Indirect bullying
Bullying is not always immediate or overt. Indirect bullying uses an
intermediary, often social pressure, to cause harm to the victim (Huitsing & Veenstra,
2012). Spreading false rumors and excluding victims from play are common forms of
indirect bullying. Indirect bullying utilizes the complexity of interpersonal
relationships and social interaction, which is why indirect bullying is also referred to
as relational bullying (Elsaesser, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2013). Students who use
relational bullying, will often use tactics such as shaming, excluding, and rumors
(Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).
Indirect bullying is not always easy to observe and often takes place far from
adults who would intervene (Kahn, Jones, & Wieland, 2012). Indirect bullying is
difficult to measure by observation or teacher nomination because it is covert.
However, even when seen, teachers and administrators are less likely to intervene
with indirect bullying than direct bullying (Barnes et al., 2012).
Bullies and bully-victims who use relational bullying have greater internalized
problems (Hoglund, 2007) and beliefs that normalize bullying behavior than their
peers (Marini et al., 2006). These students are also likely to use direct bullying. This
is especially concerning because students who bully with relational strategies are
more likely to report carrying a weapon (Dukes et al., 2010).
Social exclusion is a method of indirect bullying that has an adverse effect on
psychological characteristics including social avoidance, emotion tolerance, and
empathy (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Even simple exclusions from games can
14
reduce self-esteem, belonging, and cause hurt feelings. Exclusion causes an
experience of suffering that closely relates with physical pain (Nordgren, Banas, &
MacDonald, 2011) and has long term health implications (Knack, Gomez, & JensenCampbell, 2011). Bernstein and Claypool (2012) demonstrated that even simulated
exclusion affects physical pain sensitivity. Research participants who were excluded
from games were more sensitive to experimentally induced pain, whereas exclusion
from future life events led to numbing.
Peer rejection and exclusion impact the classroom experience and attendance.
Buhs, Ladd, and Herald (2006) found that students who report peer rejection are not
as engaged in classroom activities and are less likely to attend school when compared
with their non-rejected peers. Additionally, classrooms with high rates of exclusion
have adversely affected attendance and student participation.
Students who are excluded from cooperative activities or have few friends
may be missing an important protective factor. Holt and Espelage (2007) showed that
social support from peers helps students overcome difficulties and ameliorate
psychological symptoms. Even moderate peer support appears to improve the
resulting problems faced by those students who have been bullied.
Cyberbullying
A modern method of bullying behavior that takes advantage of electronic
networking and social media is cyberbullying. Several highly publicized cases of
cyberbullying that resulted in the suicide of the victim provide case evidence and
15
highlight the need for community response (Fagan & Huet, 2007). Cyberbullying
appears later in childhood than traditional forms of bullying, peaking in adolescence.
Cyberbullying has an important relationship to the bullying that is happening
in school or the community (Erentaitė, Bergman, & Žukauskienė, 2012). There is
often a continuation of the coercive bullying relationship that began at school
involved in the later cyberbullying. Kowalski, Morgan, and Limber (2012) found that
students who were bullied by traditional methods are more likely to be also
victimized by cyberbullying than non-involved peers.
Cyberbullying occurs online, but this does not equate to a lack of oversight by
parents or school officials. Many schools have a mandate to follow up on aggressive
behavior that is initiated within the school or is affecting students (Willard, 2011).
School social workers, resource officers, and local police often have the tools to
intervene with cyberbullying bullies and victims (Slovak & Singer, 2014). Common
interventions include actions against bullies and emotional support for victims.
Gender Differences
Putallaz et al. (2007) found that gender is one of several demographic factors
related to types of bullying behavior. Self and teacher reports of bullying behavior
documented that boys are more likely to engage in direct bullying than girls. Girls
appear to use indirect bullying about the same as boys. Similarly, Smith, Rose, and
Schwartz-Mette (2010) found equivalent levels of self-reported indirect bullying
between genders. Despite similar experiences, these students were more accepting of
indirect bullying by girls than boys, whereas direct bullying had low acceptance by
16
both genders. Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie (2007) reported that students,
school personnel, and family members typically held a stereotypical perspective that
girls are more likely to use indirect bullying than boys. This nation-wide sample of
11,033 students supports that indirect bullying for boys and girls is similar, while
physical aggression and direct bullying may be slightly higher in boys.
Gender differences also occur in the role of defender. Girls are more likely to
defend others experiencing bullying victimization (Crapanzano, Frick, Childs, &
Terranova, 2011). This is especially true for younger girls (Caravita et al., 2012).
Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, and Salmivalli (2011) found that the defender-victim dyad
are typically same gender pairs, but girls were more frequent and likely defenders.
Idsoe et al. (2012) identified gender differences related to bullying
victimization frequency and severity of psychiatric symptoms related to Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Despite boys being twice as likely to be
victimized daily, girls tend to have more avoidant and intrusive symptoms related to
PTSD. While not highly researched or easy to detect, gender nonconformists seem to
have the worst reports of bullying victimization outcomes, depressive symptoms, and
diagnoses (Roberts, Rosario, Slopen, Calzo, & Austin, 2013).
Negative Effects of Bullying
Bullying is hurtful; the resulting negative effects from bullying can last into
adulthood (Allison, Roeger, & Reinfeld-Kirkman, 2009). Storch, Brassard, and
Masia-Warner (2003) identified how early victimization produces patterns of fear and
avoidance, resulting in higher rates of future mental health and academic problems.
17
Poor school performance, as demonstrated by achievement tests and grade point
average, is evidenced in children who are bullied (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, &
Toblin, 2005). These deficits can be exacerbated and further compounded by added
stressors in the child’s life (Schwartz, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2013).
Cornell, Gregory, Huang, and Fan (2013) demonstrated that students not
involved in bullying are affected when bullying is perceived as common or not
responded to by adults. Schools with more negative perceptions about bullying on
campus had worse school attendance and academic performance.
Bender and Lösel (2011) demonstrated that students who bully others are
more likely to have higher school delinquency, more violent behavior, and higher
levels of antisocial traits. Many of these behaviors at school and antisocial traits in
bullies are associated with conduct problems that continue into adulthood (Kokkinos
& Panayiotou, 2004). Idsoe, Dyregrov, and Idsoe (2012) found that victims and
students who bully others daily are each more likely to have avoidant symptoms
within the clinical range than non-involved peers. Students who identified as both
victim and bully had more severe symptoms.
One of the most negative effects related to bullying is suicidal ideation and
attempts in children. Dickerson Mayes et al. (2014) found that bullying victimization
was a common element in the relatively few cases of suicidal ideation in children
without psychiatric disorders. Meltzer, Vostanis, Ford, Bebbington, and Dennis
(2011) found that adults who were bullied as children were twice as likely to attempt
suicide compared with those not bullied. This experience of bullying was more
18
impactful than other suicide related factors, such as depression and other mental
illnesses.
Kaminski and Fang (2009) found an association between peer victimization
and suicide in United States samples. The presence of victimization within the last
year predicted suicidal ideation and behavior beyond other variables related with
suicide. History of frequent bullying victimization is related to suicide attempts in
adult females and suicide completions in adult males (Klomek et al., 2009). Bullyvictims have worse outcomes of those in any status; their rate of suicidal ideation is
three to four times more likely than the non-involved (Heikkilä et al., 2013).
Bullying Prevention
Teachers, administrators, and other professionals often have an ambiguous
definition of bullying (Arora, 1996). Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007)
demonstrated that untrained school staff are often hesitant to intervene and seldom
intervene with both the victim and bully. Additionally, students and teachers likely
underreport bullying when unware and untrained. Successful child and adolescent
prevention programs overcome hesitancy and inefficacy with training, repeated
assessments, and clear behavioral contingencies (Durlak & Wells, 1997).
Bullying prevention programs have shown the largest effect in reducing direct
bullying (Brown, Low, Smith, & Haggerty, 2011). The effects of bullying prevention
programs on indirect and overall bullying are typically small (Black et al., 2010).
One potential reason for this small effect on overall bullying is an initial increased
reporting of bullying behavior and a reduction of actual bullying. Amundsen and
19
Ravndal (2010) found fewer student problems, such as substance abuse and school
delinquency, among late adolescent students who participated in a bullying
prevention program in elementary school compared to students without early bullying
prevention.
A widely utilized bullying prevention program is the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program (OBPP). Olweus found that reducing the complex and pervasive
problem of bullying in school-age children had to encompass and integrate multiple
intervention domains. The OBPP uses four domains to reach students and reduce
bullying: individual, classrooms, school wide, and community. Intervention in the
individual domain consists of the contingencies of speaking with staff, negative
consequences for bullies, positive consequences for defenders, and phone calls to
parents/guardians. Classroom meetings and the kickoff event are key components of
the classroom and school wide domains, respectively. The community domain is
inclusive to the other domains. Families, guardians, and other community members
are encouraged to be involved at every level.
Assessment
Accurate assessment is a crucial aspect of intervention. The standard
behavioral measurement technique in studies that involve children is observation.
Observation can account for detailed descriptions of environmental and contextual
variables (Atlas & Pepler, 1998). However, observational assessment has limitations
with large population sizes and has high costs for use in school-wide assessments.
Peer nominations are often used to asses power imbalances between students, but are
20
also time and resource intensive (Green, Felix, Sharkey, Furlong, & Kras, 2012).
Bullying assessments that utilize self-report questioners are more practical for use in
school-wide assessments.
The Bully Victim Questionnaire (BVQ) developed by Olweus is one of the
standards in bullying assessment and has demonstrated internal reliability and validity
(Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006). The BVQ offers a practical method for
obtaining a descriptive bullying data, including bullying type and frequency in school
settings. Additionally, the BVQ assesses location of bullying victimization. The
frequent bullying locations are important for school staff to know because these areas
are ripe for intervention. Bullying hotspots are most likely to be in the hallways,
lunchrooms, and playground areas (Vaillancourt et al., 2010). School administrators
and teachers can make adjustments to the positioning of supervisors or staff around
these hot spots.
School-wide Implementation
A committee of caring individuals directs and manages OBPP
implementation. Ideally, the committee is a blended mix of teachers, administrators,
parents, and community members. Regular committee meetings are used to plan,
schedule, and even modify implementation to fit the needs of the students. One of the
most important goals of the committee is to adapt bullying consequence
contingencies to preexisting conduct codes. Ttofi and Farrington (2012) found that
the best consequences for bullying are consistent applied with corrective instruction,
but are not harsh or zero tolerance.
21
A kickoff event is held after the initial assessment to educate students about
the bullying prevention program. The kickoff event is a large assembly, held to
signal to students that the school is actively working to counteract bullying. During
this assembly the students are taught what bullying is and is not. The school rules
about bullying are taught and rehearsed. Additionally, the contingencies and
consequences for both bullies and victims are explained. This information can be
conveyed in a fun and interactive manner with the aid of college students, civic
groups, or other community members.
Classroom Meetings
Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) found that student attitudes about bullying and
classroom norms are strong predictors of bullying behavior. Student and teacher
attitudes that were accepting of bullying reinforced aggression, while prosocial
attitudes reinforced defending behavior. Successful classroom interventions will need
to take advantage of pre-existing behaviors that support prosocial behavior, while
working to extinguish bullying and peer aggression.
Weekly class meetings are included to encourage dialogue with students and
teach prosocial skills. One of the goals of class meetings is to model and develop
conflict resolution strategies. Class meetings can be challenging to implement, but
have been shown to reduce bullying in the classroom and improve students’ selfconcept (Edwards & Mullis, 2003; Sorsdahl & Sanche, 1985). Student and teacher
relationships can also be improved through class meetings resulting in increased trust,
better communication, and improved cooperation (Emmett, Monsour, Lundeberg, &
22
Russo, 1996). There can be wide applicability to class meeting including crisis
support. Bullock and Foegen (2002) showed how teachers successfully utilized class
meetings to provide emotional stability and reassurance to students after tragedies.
Class meetings can also involve language arts learning to address bullying.
Narrative strategies that address bullying have been developed (Teglasi, Rahill, &
Rothman, 2007). Incorporating stories and class discussion with concepts about
bullying can be useful, especially for younger children.
The classroom meeting leader, typically the teacher, educates students and
encourages positive student interaction. Concepts such as the bullying circle or how
to disagree without being disagreeable are taught in early meetings. Specific
information from the school-wide assessments allows leaders to establish goals for
class meetings. Students are encouraged to be active participants and are involved in
identifying problems or defining discussion topics over the course of OBPP.
Purpose and Hypotheses
The implementation of the OBPP has the expressed goal of reducing bullying
behavior on campus. One way to conceptualize this change is to have prosocial
movement around the bullying circle, bullies become bystanders, bystanders become
defenders, and so on. As a result of OBPP implementation there will be fewer bullies
and victims. This effect will be evidenced by a reduced risk for participants to have
the role of victim, bully, and bully-victim. Additionally, victims will be bullied with
less severity after OBPP implementation. Furthermore, participants will be at less
23
risk of having a joiner role, while more likely to have the role of defender after OBPP
implementation.
Gender differences in bullying type and bullying role will be also be explored.
Males will be at higher risk for having a direct victim role than females. Females will
be at higher risk of having indirect victim role. Girls will be at greater odds to be a
defender and at less odds to be a joiner than boys.
24
METHOD
Participants
Two schools participated in implementing the OBPP. One elementary school
(K-6) and one combined elementary and middle school (K-8). Both schools are in the
same school district in northern California. Participants in grades three through eight
were assessed as part of a bullying prevention program. Kindergartners, first and
second graders were not assessed, but received classroom meetings and attended
kickoff events. All students at school on the day of the event or assessment
participated as no parents opted out and all participants assented. Age, name,
individual identifiers, and other demographics were not collected to provide
anonymity to students and comply with school practices. Grade and gender of the
students were collected with the BVQ (see Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1
Participants Assessed with BVQ by School Site and Year
Grades
Site 1
Site 2
Year
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
2011
28
34
41
32
135
2012
0
28
35
36
99
2011
42
51
41
56
100
72
362
2012
43
47
49
54
88
103
384
Note: Third graders at site 1 were not assessed post-intervention due to errors in
printing.
25
Table 2
Gender of Participants Assessed with BVQ by Year
School Year
Boys
Girls
Total
2011-2012
243
253
496
2012-2013
223
258
483
26
Materials and Variables
The Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire (BVQ) is a 39 item measure used to
collect self-reported information about bullying and victimization occurrences (see
Appendix A). Early questions include grade, gender, and number of good friends.
Bullying victimization (questions 4 – 13) and perpetration (questions 24 – 33) are
rated on a five point frequency scale, from no bullying in the past several months to
several times per week. A sample of indirect bullying is “Other students left me out
of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends, or completely ignored
me” (question 6). A sample of direct bullying is “I was threatened or forced to do
things I didn’t want to do” (question 10). Other questions identify location of
bullying, student attitudes about bullying, and the schools response to bullying.
Inclusion criteria for having a role of bully or victim required a response of
greater than only once or twice. Participants that indicated victimization at rates
equal or greater than 2 to 3 times per month in questions 4 – 13 were classified as a
victim for any bullying; questions 6 and 8 for indirect bullying; and questions 5, 7,
and 9 – 12 for direct bullying. Participants that indicated perpetration at rates equal or
greater that 2 to 3 times per month in questions 24 – 33 were classified as a bully for
any bullying; questions 26 and 28 for indirect bullying; and questions 25, 27, and 29
– 32 for direct bullying. The role of bully-victim required an indication of both
victimization and perpetration equal or greater than 2 to 3 times per month for
questions 4 – 13 and 24 – 33. Joiners are participants who indicated they could join
bullying a student they didn’t like (yes or yes maybe on question 36). Defenders are
27
participants that indicated they usually react to someone being bullied by trying to
help the bullied student (question 37).
Victimization severity scales were constructed by averaging responses from
victims on three scales. The total bullying scale is the mean of victimization items
(questions 4 – 12), except for the write in question (question 13). The indirect
bullying scale is the mean score of items associated with indirect bullying (questions
6 and 8). The direct bullying scale consist of the mean score of items associated with
direct bullying (questions 5, 7, and 9 – 12). Unanswered questions were excluded
from the averaging.
Procedure
Program implementation followed a general pattern of assessment, initial and
ongoing intervention, and reassessment (see figure 2). Participants’ parents/guardians
were sent a passive consent letter (see appendix B) and information pamphlet (see
appendix C) that describes the OBBP, including assessment, events, and classroom
meetings. No parents opted out of the assessment, events, or classroom meetings.
Participants in grades three through eight were assessed with the BVQ two to three
months after the school year began. Proctors for the assessments were trained
students from California State University, Stanislaus (CSUS). Participants were
assessed in their classrooms, during the course of a normal school day. Participants
were informed of the purpose of the assessment and that participation was voluntary.
Participants were also informed there was no penalty or reward for completing the
assessment. Assent was confirmed verbally, by asking participants if they are willing
28
to begin. Any protests were to be treated as dissension, in which participants were to
be instructed to continue to sit at their desks and engage in non-participatory tasks
like reading or drawing. However, no protests occurred.
Parent Information
Assessment 1
(2011)
Summary Reports
Kick-off Event
Classroom
Meetings
Assessment 2
(2012)
Summary Reports
Classroom
Meetings
Figure 2. Flow chart representing the steps of the procedure. Program implementation
incorporated assessment, feedback, intervention, and ongoing classroom meetings.
Descriptive information about bullying behavior as reported in the BVQ was
given to each school site in the form of summary reports. Summary reports include
location, type, and frequency of victimization. Overall trends or high percentages of
bullying were flagged to signal school intervention. The school administrators used
these reports at their discretion.
A kickoff event was held at both schools in February of 2012. The kickoff
event was coordinated with each school’s principal. Students from CSUS performed
29
skits that incorporated core concepts of the OBPP, including bullying roles, the
school rules about bullying, and the consequences for bullying (see Appendix D).
Skits were made grade-appropriate and relevant by grouping them as follows:
kindergarten through third grades, fourth through sixth grades, and seventh through
eighth grades. At the end of the event, the students were given pencils and wrist
bands that were imprinted with “Be a Buddy Not a Bully.”
CSUS students initialized classroom meetings for teachers and students by
leading the first meeting (see Appendix E). Teachers were given an outline of rules
and rationale of the classroom meetings. CSUS students discussed the purpose of
class meetings, established meeting norms, and provided information about bullying.
Additional topics of negotiation, defending, and class meeting goals were introduced.
Teachers were expected to continue classroom meetings through the school year.
Data Analysis
The data obtained from the BVQ were analyzed to identify the risk of having
a bullying role (victim, bully, bully-victim, joiner, and defender), before and after
OBPP implementation. Identifying the absolute risk of the bullying roles pre and post
intervention with chi square comparisons indicates program effectiveness.
Additionally, victims’ mean score on each victimization scale, before and after OBPP
implementation, was compared using independent samples t tests.
Gender differences in bullying role were analyzed, similarly to pre and post
intervention comparisons, with absolute risk ratios and chi square tests. Gender
differences were analyzed separately by year.
30
RESULTS
There were fewer participants with a victim role post intervention than preintervention (see Table 3). This difference was significant for indirect victimization
and approached significance for any type of victimization. Similarly there were
fewer bullies post intervention. This difference was significant for indirect bullying
and marginally significant for any type of bullying. There is also marginal support
for fewer participants with a bully-victim role post intervention.
There were less participants with a supporter role post-intervention than preintervention, but this difference was not significant (see Table 3). There was no
significant difference between the ratio of participants noticing bullying postintervention (317 noticed/151 did not notice) compared to pre-intervention (343
noticed/149 did not notice), χ2 = 0.44, p = .51. Furthermore, participants that noticed
bullying were not at significantly greater odds of having a defender role postintervention than pre-intervention (again see Table 3).
31
Table 3
A Comparison of the Likelihood of Reported Bullying Roles Before and After
Intervention
Pre
Post
Risk Ratio [95% CI]
χ2
Any
186/496
154/483
0.92 [0.84,1.01]
3.41a
Direct
142/496
126/483
0.97 [0.89,1.04]
0.78
Indirect
130/496
94/483
0.92 [0.86,0.98]
6.42**
Any
41/496
26/483
0.97 [0.94,1.00]
3.19a
Direct
15/496
14/483
1.00 [0.98,1.02]
0.13
Indirect
21/496
10/483
0.98 [0.96,1.00]
3.74*
Any
35/496
22/483
0.97 [0.94,1.01]
2.79a
Supporter
44/493
30/468
0.97 [0.94,1.01]
2.14
Defender
238/343
233/317
1.15 [0.91,1.47]
1.37
Victim
Bully
Bully-Victim
Notes: ap <.10, *p < .05, **p < .01. Pre and Post columns are the ratio of
participants with that bullying role to the sample population. Risk ratios less
than one indicate less risk post intervention. Bullying roles are inclusive.
32
The mean scores of victims’ reported bullying type pre and post-intervention
were compared using t tests. Participants that reported no bullying in each type of
bullying were excluded from analysis. Bullying victimization severity was not
significantly less post intervention than pre intervention for total bullying, direct
bullying, and indirect bullying, ps = .22, .71, .28 respectively (see Table 4).
Table 4
A Comparison of Pre and Post Intervention Victimization Severity
Pre
Post
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t (df)
Cohen's d [95% CI]
Total
1.79
0.78
1.72
0.77
1.22(715)
0.09[-0.06,0.24]
Direct
1.76
0.78
1.74
0.76
0.37(601)
0.03[-0.13,0.19]
Indirect
2.31
1.00
2.22
0.95
1.09(552)
0.09[-0.74.0.26]
33
Gender differences in bullying roles was largely not statistically significant for
both assessment 1 (see Table 5) and assessment 2 (see Table 6). However, in
assessment 1 male participants were at statistically greater odds to be a bullying
supporter than female participants. There was marginal support that male participants
were at greater odds of having a direct victim role than females in assessment 1.
These differences did not carry over to assessment 2.
Table 5
A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 1
Female
Male
Risk Ratio [95% CI]
χ2
Any
95/252
91/243
1.00 [0.87,1.14]
0.01
Direct
64/252
78/243
1.10 [0.98,1.23]
2.72a
Indirect
73/252
57/243
0.93 [0.84,1.04]
1.94
Any
17/252
24/243
1.04 [0.98,1.09]
1.60
Direct
5/252
10/243
1.02 [0.99,1.06]
1.91
Indirect
10/252
11/243
1.01 [0.97,1.04]
0.10
Bully-Victim
14/252
21/243
1.03 [0.98,1.09]
1.73
Supporter
11/240
33/208
1.11 [1.05,1.17]
13.10**
Defender
129/180
108/162
0.85 [0.62,1.17]
1.00
Victims
Bullies
Notes: a = p < .10, **p < .01. Female and Male columns are the ratio of students
with that bullying role to the sample population. Risk ratios greater than one
indicate that male participants have a greater proportion in the role than female
participants. Risk ratios less than one indicate that female participants have a
higher proportion in that role than male participants.
34
Table 6
A Comparison of Genders on Bullying Role and Type for Assessment 2
Female
Male
Risk Ratio [95% CI]
χ2
Any
79/258
74/223
1.04 [0.92,1.17]
0.36
Direct
64/258
61/223
1.04 [0.93,1.15]
0.40
Indirect
52/258
41/223
0.98 [0.90,1.07]
0.24
Total
14/258
12/223
1.00 [0.96,1.04]
0.01
Direct
7/258
7/223
1.00 [0.97,1.05]
0.08
Indirect
3/258
7/223
1.02 [0.99,1.05]
2.30
Bully Victims
11/258
11/223
1.01 [0.97,1.05]
0.12
Supporter
12/252
18/215
1.04 [0.99,1.09]
2.52
Defender
130/177
103/140
1.01 [0.69,4517]
0.01
Victims
Bullies
Notes: Female and Male columns are the ratio of students with that bullying role
to the sample population. Risk ratios greater than one indicate that male
participants have a greater proportion in the role than female participants. Risk
ratios less than one indicate that female participants have a higher proportion in
that role than male participants.
35
DISCUSSION
Implementation of the bullying prevention program coincided with a
reduction of bullying involvement. Participants were less likely to have a victim,
bully, or bully-victim role after program implementation. Participants’ reports reflect
an increased awareness and compliance with non-aggression, but not a greater
willingness to defend others being bullied. OBPP shifted students away from the
negative roles, evidenced by fewer bullies and victims after intervention. However,
there were not more defenders, suggesting further intervention is required to promote
the defender role.
Differences in bullying roles between genders were largely rejected. There
was minimal support that boys are more likely to report being victims of direct
bullying, while girls showed a trend to be indirectly bullied more than boys. Boys
were more willing than girls to join in bullying a student they did not like preintervention.
Intervention
The assessment, kick-off event, and initial classroom meetings were
implemented largely according to plan. There was not a single protest from any
participant. The reading of each assessment item to grades three and four provided an
interaction that the participants reported enjoying. Participants also seemed to enjoy
the kick-off event and classroom meetings. Printing errors occurred for one grade, in
one school for Assessment 2, but did not appear to cause distress to participants.
36
One barrier to program implementation was found in developing a robust and
diverse committee. The committee’s main purpose is to facilitate program adoption
and encouragement in the community domain. As such, there was limited community
involvement from businesses, families, and community organizations. These
community alliances are designed to support students and school staff. Community
involvement expands preventative factors outside of schools’ influence (Holt,
Raczynski, Frey, Hymel, & Limber, 2013). Committee responsibilities were
primarily handled by the school principal and implementation team during staff
meetings. Capital resources would alleviate this barrier by providing funding for
advertisement, additional events, and hiring support staff.
Interpretation
The lack of a control group or staggered interventions does not allow cause to
be attributed directly to intervention. Additionally, statistical power was reduced in
order to ensure the level of anonymity needed to comply with educational code.
Therefore, paired t-tests and repeated measure ANOVAs were not appropriate. There
are many natural variables between school sites: size, location, administrators, and
number of grades, but these variables were not explored at this time.
The effect sizes, though small, are indicative of a clear change in bullying
behavior, especially when considering that approximately six percent of the entire
population moved out of the victim role, from 38% to 32%. Similarly, about three
percent moved out of the bully role after intervention, from 8% to 5%. While not
captured by the BVQ, students verbalized to teachers and staff how they felt about
37
bullying and what steps can be taken when bullying happens. Objective school-wide
changes in responses on the BVQ indicate changes in the system, a changing tide of
norms. Students know not to bully, are less likely to bully, and as a result there are
fewer victims. However, student’s decisions about defending victims has yet to
improve.
The effect of this intervention may be smaller than interventions using like
protocols implemented more robustly, namely at the classroom level. Olweus and
Limber (2010) demonstrated a dose response curve at multiple intervention sites. The
effect of this intervention may be minimized by an overestimating bias in self-report
of bullying after intervention. Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrom, and Snell (2009) found that
behaviorally observed rates of bullying and aggression decrease at a greater rate than
self-reported bullying. One reason for higher reports is an increase in awareness by
students. Additionally, these researchers found that students’ beliefs about program
effectiveness are reinforced by continuing adult efforts.
The lack of gender differences found is similar to the findings of Crapanzano
et al. (2011). These authors suggest the largest difference between genders is that
boys are more likely to stay in the same bullying role from year to year, while girls
bullying role is more variable.
Bevans, Bradshaw, and Waasdorp (2013) analysis of self-report bullying
behavior supports the two factor model of direct and indirect bullying. However,
these authors suggest that bias underscores the larger amounts of direct bullying boys
experience and the more indirect bullying that girls experience. Some specific
38
behaviors such a pushing and shoving are much more common in boys and spreading
rumors is more common in girls, but aggregate out in the two factor model.
Limitations and Future Directions
Low and Van Ryzin (2014) discovered that prosocial attitudes among school
staff and students strengthen intervention effects. However, negative attitudes or a
school climate that has a high acceptance of aggression does not negate effectiveness.
Changing staff and student attitudes and behavior takes time and the current
intervention was limited in scope and duration. Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott's
(2012) meta-analysis of several bullying prevention programs reveals that increasing
prosocial bystander engagement takes additional interventions above and beyond
current bullying prevention programs.
Data for adherence to classroom meetings and following through on
behavioral contingencies were not recorded, but both school sites reported difference
among teachers. Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, and Dill (2008) demonstrated
that adherence to bullying prevention programs drives outcomes, yet is highly
variable. Teachers often report partial and zero adherences. These researchers
demonstrated that the primary barrier to adherence was preexisting teacher attitudes.
Additionally, the most helpful and adherent teachers had the best defending students.
Teachers are five times more likely to implement evidence based programs when
trained specifically on adherence (Hanley et al., 2009).
Cyberbullying is likely to be more commonplace as electronic social
networking and internet access continue to grow. Computer based assessments are
39
available (Verlinden et al., 2014), including an electronic version of the BVQ, that
address cyberbullying. Cyberbullying will most likely be reduced and prevented with
elements of the OBPP; however further research on overlapping prevention is needed
(Low & Espelage, 2013). Cyberbullying will likely respond to bullying prevention
programs when addressed by parents/guardians, educators, and communities (Smith
et al., 2008).
It seems clear that the role of defender needs more attention. Defenders need
to be supported in their use of advanced moral and prosocial skills. Defensive tactics
and community skills can be taught and practiced in classroom meetings, but effects
take several rounds of intervention to become palpable (Azad & Amiri, 2012).
Empathy is an established motivator for defenders (Nickerson & Mele-Taylor, 2014)
and may be increased through training (Frey et al., 2009). Continued contingency
management and support systems will create an environment wherein practiced
defenders will act. Additional research is needed to further assess and understand the
development of defenders.
School-based counseling services are a likely ally in bullying response and
prevention. McElearney, Adamson, Shevlin, and Bunting (2013) found that school
counseling is an effective resource to support victims, bullies, and bully-victims.
Stadler, Feifel, Rohrmann, Vermeiren, and Poustka (2010) identified support from
teachers and school staff as a protective factor against peer victimization, especially
for middle and high school students and students with mental illness. Counseling at
school will support these students and foster those protective child-adult connections.
40
Applications
The primary application of the current research is to provide validation for
bullying prevention programs in primary schools. The current implementation of
OBPP provides a model of community based intervention for bullying, specifically a
collaborative partnership between universities and public schools. Public schools are
often resource limited and unable to fund comprehensive intervention programs.
Schools benefit by having trained intervention teams, as future professionals gain
valuable experience.
REFERENCES
42
REFERENCES
Allison, S., Roeger, L., & Reinfeld-Kirkman, N. (2009). Does school bullying affect
adult health? Population survey of health-related quality of life and past
victimization. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 1163–
1170. doi:10.3109/00048670903270399
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington D.C.
Amundsen, E. J., & Ravndal, E. (2010). Does successful school-based prevention of
bullying influence substance use among 13- to 16-year-olds? Drugs:
Education, Prevention & Policy, 17, 42–54. doi:10.3109/09687630802095591
Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining bullying: Towards a clearer general understanding
and more effective intervention strategies. School Psychology International,
17, 317–329. doi:10.1177/0143034396174002
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The
Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–99.
doi:10.1080/00220679809597580
Azad, N. E., & Amiri, S. (2012). Effectiveness of Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program on Iranian boys. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical
Psychology, 18, 175–183. doi: 10.1014/2013-23146-001
Barnes, A., Cross, D., Lester, L., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., & Monks, H. (2012). The
invisibility of covert bullying among students: Challenges for school
43
intervention. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 206–226.
doi:10.1017/jgc.2012.27
Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus
Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005
Bender, D., & Lösel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency,
violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 21, 99–106. doi:10.1002/cbm.799
Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Social exclusion and pain sensitivity:
Why exclusion sometimes hurts and sometimes numbs. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 185–196. doi:10.1177/0146167211422449
Berthhold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization
among intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology
International, 21, 65–78. doi:10.1177/0143034300211005
Bettencourt, A. F., & Farrell, A. D. (2013). Individual and contextual factors
associated with patterns of aggression and peer victimization during middle
school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 285–302. doi:10.1007/s10964012-9854-8
Bevans, K. B., Bradshaw, C. P., & Waasdorp, T. E. (2013). Gender bias in the
measurement of peer victimization: An application of item response theory.
Aggressive Behavior, 39, 370–380. doi:10.1002/ab.21486
44
Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Dill, E. J. (2008).
Teacher adherence and its relations to teacher attitudes and student outcomes
in an elementary school-based violence prevention program. School
Psychology Review, 37, 533–549.
Black, S., Washington, E., Trent, V., Harner, P., & Pollock, E. (2010). Translating the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program into real-world practice. Health
Promotion Practice, 11, 733–740. doi:10.1177/1524839908321562
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer
victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school
staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361–382.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Goldweber, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2013). Bullies,
gangs, drugs, and school: Understanding the overlap and the role of ethnicity
and urbanicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 220–234.
doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9863-7
Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a
school-randomized controlled trial of steps to respect: A bullying prevention
program. School Psychology Review, 40, 423–443.
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 engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 1–13. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1
45
Bullock, C., & Foegen, A. (2002). Constructive conflict resolution for students with
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 289–295.
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and
sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
46, 186–197. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x
Camodeca, M., Goossens, F. A., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Schuengel, C. (2002).
Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to
proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332–345.
doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00203
Caravita, S. C. S., Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2012). Main and moderated effects of
moral cognition and status on bullying and defending. Aggressive Behavior,
38, 456–468. doi:10.1002/ab.21447
Chen, P.-Y., & Schwartz, I. S. (2012). Bullying and victimization experiences of
students with autism spectrum disorders in elementary schools. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 200–212.
doi:10.1177/1088357612459556
Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of
teasing and bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105, 138–149. doi:10.1037/a0030416
Crapanzano, A. M., Frick, P. J., Childs, K., & Terranova, A. M. (2011). Gender
differences in the assessment, stability, and correlates to bullying roles in
46
middle school children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 677–694.
doi:10.1002/bsl.1000
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies
of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. doi:10.1037/00223514.85.5.894
Olweus, D., Limber, S., Crocker Flerx, V., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M.
(2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Schoolwide Guide. USA:
Hazelden.
Dervin, D. (2011). 2010: The Year of the Bully. Journal of Psychohistory, 38, 337–
345.
Dickerson Mayes, S., Baweja, R., Calhoun, S. L., Syed, E., Mahr, F., & Siddiqui, F.
(2014). Suicide ideation and attempts and bullying in children and
adolescents: Psychiatric and general population samples. Crisis: The Journal
of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 35, 301–309.
doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000264
Dukes, R. L., Stein, J. A., & Zane, J. I. (2010). Gender differences in the relative
impact of physical and relational bullying on adolescent injury and weapon
carrying. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 511–532.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.001
47
Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for
children and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 25, 115–152.
Edwards, D., & Mullis, F. (2003). Classroom meetings: Encouraging a climate of
cooperation. Professional School Counseling, 7, 20–28.
Elsaesser, C., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2013). The role of the school
environment in relational aggression and victimization. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42, 235–249. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9839-7
Emmett, J. D., Monsour, F., Lundeberg, M., & Russo, T. (1996). Open classroom
meetings: Promoting peaceful schools. Elementary School Guidance &
Counseling, 31, 3–10.
Erentaitė, R., Bergman, L. R., & Žukauskienė, R. (2012). Cross‐contextual stability
of bullying victimization: A person‐oriented analysis of cyber and traditional
bullying experiences among adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 53, 181–190. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00935.x
Fagan, K. & Huet, E. (2007). Cyberbullying's tragic toll. San Francisco Chronicle.
Retrieved from http://www.sfchronicle.com
Fanger, S. M., Frankel, L. A., & Hazen, N. (2012). Peer exclusion in preschool
children’s play: Naturalistic observations in a playground setting. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 58, 224–254. doi:10.1353/mpq.2012.0007
Farmer, T. W., Petrin, R. A., Robertson, D. L., Fraser, M. W., Hall, C. M., Day, S. H.,
& Dadisman, K. (2010). Peer relations of bullies, bully-victims, and victims:
48
The two social worlds of bullying in second-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal, 110, 364–392. doi:10.1086/648983
Fedewa, A. L., & Ahn, S. (2012). The effects of bullying and peer victimization on
sexual-minority and heterosexual youths: A quantitative meta-analysis of the
literature”: Corrigendum. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8.
doi:10.1080/1550428X.2012.653768
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z.
(2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the
impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 636–649.
doi:10.1002/pits.20404
Forber-Pratt, A. J., Aragon, S. R., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). The influence of gang
presence on victimization in one middle school environment. Psychology of
Violence. doi:10.1037/a0031835
Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying:
Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
75, 313–328. doi:10.1348/000709905X25517
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed
reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive
bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101, 466–481. doi:10.1037/a0013839
49
Frizzo, M. N., Bisol, L. W., & Lara, D. R. (2012). Bullying victimization is
associated with dysfunctional emotional traits and affective temperaments.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 1, 48–52. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.046
Glick, G. C., & Rose, A. J. (2011). Prospective associations between friendship
adjustment and social strategies: Friendship as a context for building social
skills. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1117–1132. doi:10.1037/a0023277
Green, J. G., Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., & Kras, J. E. (2012).
Identifying bully victims: Definitional versus behavioral approaches.
Psychological Assessment, advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0031248
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and
bullies: developmental continuity or developmental change? Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 50, 17–38. doi:10.1353/mpq.2004.0003
Hanley, S., Ringwalt, C., Vincus, A. A., Ennett, S. T., Bowling, J. M., Haws, S. W.,
& Rohrbach, L. A. (2009). Implementing evidence-based substance use
prevention curricula with fidelity: The role of teacher training. Journal of
Drug Education, 39, 39–58. doi:10.2190/DE.39.1.c
Heikkilä, H.-K., Väänänen, J., Helminen, M., Fröjd, S., Marttunen, M., & KaltialaHeino, R. (2013). Involvement in bullying and suicidal ideation in middle
adolescence: A 2-year follow-up study. European Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 22, 95–102. doi:10.1007/s00787-012-0327-0
Hightow-Weidman, L. B., Phillips, G. I., Jones, K. C., Outlaw, A. Y., Fields, S. D., &
Smith, J. C. (2011). Racial and sexual identity-related maltreatment among
50
minority YMSM: Prevalence, perceptions, and the association with emotional
distress. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 25, S39–S45.
doi:10.1089/apc.2011.9877
Hoglund, W. L. G. (2007). School functioning in early adolescence: Gender-linked
responses to peer victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 683–
699. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.683
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies,
victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984–994.
doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3
Holt, M. K., Raczynski, K., Frey, K. S., Hymel, S., & Limber, S. P. (2013). School
and community-based approaches for preventing bullying. Journal of School
Violence, 12, 238–252. doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.792271
Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a
social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 494–509.
doi:10.1002/ab.21438
Idsoe, T., Dyregrov, A., & Idsoe, E. C. (2012). Bullying and PTSD symptoms.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 901–911. doi:10.1007/s10802012-9620-0
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized. USA: Guilford Press.
51
Kahn, J. H., Jones, J. L., & Wieland, A. L. (2012). Preservice teachers’ coping styles
and their responses to bullying. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 784–793.
doi:10.1002/pits.21632
Kaminski, J. W., & Fang, X. (2009). Victimization by peers and adolescent suicide in
three US samples. The Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 683–688.
doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.04.061
Kendrick, K., Jutengren, G., & Stattin, H. (2012). The protective role of supportive
friends against bullying perpetration and victimization. Journal of
Adolescence, 35, 1069–1080. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.014
Kevin Fagan and Ellen Huet. (2013). Cyberbullying’s tragic toll. San Francisco
Chronicle (10/1/2007), A1.
Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Niemelä, S., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T.,
… Gould, M. S. (2009). Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide
attempts and completed suicides: A population-based birth cohort study.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 254–
261. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e318196b91f
Knack, J. M., Gomez, H. L., & Jensen-Campbell, L. A. (2011). Bullying and its longterm health implications. In G. MacDonald & L. A. Jensen-Campbell (Eds.),
Social pain: Neuropsychological and health implications of loss and
exclusion. (pp. 215–236). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association.
52
Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and victimization
among early adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders.
Aggressive Behavior, 30, 520–533. doi:10.1002/ab.20055
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. P. (2012). Traditional bullying as a
potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33,
505–519. doi:10.1177/0143034312445244
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the Revised
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.
doi:10.1348/000709905X53499
Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2013). Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from
non-physical bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family
predictors. Psychology of Violence, 3, 39–52. doi:10.1037/a0030308
Low, S., & Van Ryzin, M. (2014). The moderating effects of school climate on
bullying prevention efforts. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 306–319.
doi:10.1037/spq0000073
Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct and
indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with
adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32,
551–569. doi:10.1002/ab.20155
McElearney, A., Adamson, G., Shevlin, M., & Bunting, B. (2013). Impact evaluation
of a school-based counselling intervention in Northern Ireland: Is it effective
53
for pupils who have been bullied? Child Care in Practice, 19, 4–22.
doi:10.1080/13575279.2012.732557
Meltzer, H., Vostanis, P., Ford, T., Bebbington, P., & Dennis, M. S. (2011). Victims
of bullying in childhood and suicide attempts in adulthood. European
Psychiatry, 26, 498–503. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.11.006
Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004).
Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39,
315–335.
Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Haynie, D., Ruan, W., & Scheidt, P. (2003). Relationships
between bullying and violence among US youth. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine, 157, 348–353.
Nickerson, A. B., & Mele-Taylor, D. (2014). Empathetic responsiveness, group
norms, and prosocial affiliations in bullying roles. School Psychology
Quarterly, 29, 99–109. doi:10.1037/spq0000052
Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my
bones, but names will make me feel sick: The Psychosocial, somatic, and
scholastic consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37–48. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_4
Nordgren, L. F., Banas, K., & MacDonald, G. (2011). Empathy gaps for social pain:
Why people underestimate the pain of social suffering. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 100 120–128. doi:10.1037/a0020938
54
Noronha, C. (2012). Amanda Todd: Bullied teen shared story, then committed
suicide. Christian Science Monitor, N.PAG.
Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2008). Bullying and the need to belong: Early
adolescents’ bullying-related behavior and the acceptance they desire and
receive from particular classmates. Social Development, 17, 24–46.
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.
doi:10.1007/BF03172807
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and
dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x
Peleg-Oren, N., Cardenas, G. A., Comerford, M., & Galea, S. (2012). An association
between bullying behaviors and alcohol use among middle school students.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 761–775.
doi:10.1177/0272431610387144
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of
sampling aggression and victimization in school settings. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 360–366. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.360
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and
aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216–224.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.216
55
Perren, S., Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E., Malti, T., & Hymel, S. (2012). Moral
reasoning and emotion attributions of adolescent bullies, victims, and bully‐
victims. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 511–530.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02059.x
Peskin, M. F., Tortolero, S. R., & Markham, C. M. (2006). Bullying and victimization
among Black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 467–484.
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of schoolbased bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention
behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.
Putallaz, M., Grimes, C. L., Foster, K. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dearing,
K. (2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple
perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523–
547. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.003
Radliff, K. M., Wheaton, J. E., Robinson, K., & Morris, J. (2012). Illuminating the
relationship between bullying and substance use among middle and high
school youth. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 569–572.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.01.001
Roberts, A. L., Rosario, M., Slopen, N., Calzo, J. P., & Austin, S. B. (2013).
Childhood gender nonconformity, bullying victimization, and depressive
symptoms across adolescence and early adulthood: An 11-year longitudinal
study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
52, 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2012.11.006
56
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Victims and their
defenders: A dyadic approach. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 35, 144–151. doi:10.1177/0165025410378068
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to
social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms,
and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 28(3), 246–258. doi:10.1080/01650250344000488
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations
between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in
classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676.
doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.597090
Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181–192.
doi:10.1023/A:1005174831561
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in
the peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 425–435. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.425
Schwartz, D., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2013). The
link between harsh home environments and negative academic trajectories is
57
exacerbated by victimization in the elementary school peer group.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 305–316. doi:10.1037/a0028249
Shakoor, S., Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet‐Morin, I., Andreou, P., Happé, F., …
Arseneault, L. (2012). A prospective longitudinal study of children’s theory of
mind and adolescent involvement in bullying. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 53, 254–261. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02488.x
Skapinakis, P., Bellos, S., Gkatsa, T., Magklara, K., Lewis, G., Araya, R., …
Mavreas, V. (2011). The association between bullying and early stages of
suicidal ideation in late adolescents in Greece. BMC Psychiatry, 11.
doi:10.1186/1471-244X-11-22
Slovak, K., & Singer, J. B. . (2014). School social workers’ responses to victims and
perpetrators of cyberbullying: Results from a national survey. School Social
Work Journal, 39, 1–16.
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination,
stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A
multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383.
doi:10.1037/a0015250
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.14697610.2007.01846.x
58
Smith, R. L., Rose, A. J., & Schwartz-Mette, R. A. (2010). Relational and overt
aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender
differences and associations with peer acceptance. Social Development, 19,
243–269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00541.x
Sorsdahl, S. N., & Sanche, R. P. (1985). The effects of classroom meetings on selfconcept and behavior. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 20, 49–56.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent
bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations:
Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41, 283–293. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009
Stadler, C., Feifel, J., Rohrmann, S., Vermeiren, R., & Poustka, F. (2010). PeerVictimization and Mental Health Problems in Adolescents: Are Parental and
School Support Protective? Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41,
371–386. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0174-5
Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of
peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study
Journal, 33, 1–18.
Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the
participant role approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97–111.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:2<97::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-7
Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Maag, J. W., Siebecker, A. B., & Frerichs, L. J. (2012).
Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general
59
education. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 503–520.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.001
Teglasi, H., Rahill, S., & Rothman, L. (2007). A Story-Guided Peer Group
Intervention for Reducing Bullying and Victimization in Schools. In J. E.
Zins, M. J. Elias, & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Bullying, victimization, and peer
harassment: A handbook of prevention and intervention. (pp. 219–237). New
York, NY US: Haworth Press.
Theriot, M. T., Dulmus, C. N., Sowers, K. M., & Johnson, T. K. (2005). Factors
relating to self-identification among bullying victims. Children and Youth
Services Review, 27, 979–994. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.024
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Bullying prevention programs: The
importance of peer intervention, disciplinary methods and age variations.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 443–462. doi:10.1007/s11292-0129161-0
Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying victimization
and adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 53–59. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005
Ullman, S. E., & Brecklin, L. R. (2003). Sexual assault history and health-related
outcomes in a national sample of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
27, 46–57. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00006
Unnever, J. D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct
groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153–171. doi:10.1002/ab.20083
60
Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., …
Cunningham, L. (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student
reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 25, 40–54.
Verlinden, M., Veenstra, R., Ringoot, A. P., Jansen, P. W., Raat, H., Hofman, A., …
Tiemeier, H. (2014). Detecting bullying in early elementary school with a
computerized peer-nomination instrument. Psychological Assessment, 26,
628–641. doi:10.1037/a0035571
Vicars, M. (2006). Who are you calling queer? Sticks and stones can break my bones
but names will always hurt me. British Educational Research Journal, 32,
347–361. doi:10.1080/01411920600635395
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents
in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Wienke Totura, C. M., Green, A. E., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2009). Multiple
informants in the assessment of psychological, behavioral, and academic
correlates of bullying and victimization in middle school. Journal of
Adolescence, 32, 193–211. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.04.005
Willard, N. (2011). School response to cyberbullying and sexting: The legal
challenges. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2011(1),
75–125.
APPENDICES
62
APPENDIX A
OLWEUS BULLY/VICTIM QUESTIONNAIRE
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
APPENDIX B
CONSENT LETTER
76
APPENDIX C
PARENT INFORMATION PAMPHLET
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
APPENDIX D
KICKOFF EVENT SCRIPT
KINDERGARTEN – 3rd GRADE SKITS
SKIT 1
Synopsis: Three kids are playing jump rope on the playground. A girl wanted to join
in but the bully and henchmen told her to go away. Sadly, she walks away and the
defender comforts her. They walk to tell the yard duty to tell her what had happened.
Later the yard duty discusses the bullying incident with the Principal.
Kids 1 – 3: singing a jump rope song. Cinderella dressed in yellow went upstairs to
kiss a fellow; made a mistake and kissed a snake. How many doctors does it take? 1,
2, 3, 4...
Victim: walks up to group, stands around. Can I have a turn?
Kids 1 – 3: ignore the victim and sing: Ice cream soda Cherry on top. Who’s your
girlfriend I forgot A, B, C, D . . .
Victim: Can I have a turn now?
Bully: No, I already told you yesterday that you can’t play. You’re not our friend.
Henchman: Yea!
Passive supporter: hangs head and looks uncomfortable
Victim: walks away rejected, sniffling
Defender: sees the victim crying, runs up to him/her. What happened?
Victim: They don’t want to play with me; they said I’m not their friend!
Defender: Let’s go tell the yard duty.
Victim: I don’t want to, I’m scared.
Defender: I’ll go with you
85
Victim: Ok
Victim and Defender: walk up to yard duty.
Victim: Megan, Nikki, and Amanda won’t let me jump rope with them. I keep asking
to play and they tell me to go away, I’m not their friend.
Yard Duty: Well that’s not nice of them. I am sorry this happened to you. I will go
talk to them and I will let the principal know what happened. Someone will follow up
with you about this. Why don’t you and hector go play on the upper field for a while?
Victim and Defender: walk to field.
Victim: Thanks for helping me.
Defender: You’re welcome. I was following the rule “We will help others when we
see bullying.” Do you want to play ball with me?
Yard Duty: approaches the bully group. I heard that you bullied Moua. You know
the rules about bullying. We will not bully others. Because this happened, you will
need to give me the jump ropes and sit on the bleachers for the rest of recess. Also, I
will be telling Principal Julie what happened here and she will follow up with you.
Blows whistle to indicate the end of recess.
Yard Duty: Hi Principal Julie. I need to share with you a bullying incident that
happened on the playground at recess. Hector and Moua came to me to tell me that
Moua was bullied by Megan, Nikki, and Amanda. I think Megan was the main one
bullying. I had them sit out the last few minutes of recess and told them they would
be hearing from you.
Principal: Thank you Yard Duty. I will follow up with hector and let them know
what a good job he did. I will also talk with Moua to make sure she feels safe. I will
also speak with Megan, Nikki, and Amanda to see what consequences should follow.
SKIT 2
Synopsis: This is a non-bullying scene. It is after recess and the yard duty has blown
the last whistle. All the kids form a line and when the yard duty is not looking 2 kids
cut the line and the kids who witness the cutting mistook it for bullying. The yard
duty with the help of another kid explains why this was not a bullying incident and
then sends the two cutters to the end of the line.
86
In beginning of this scene the kids are playing on the playground. 3 students are
playing hopscotch and 3 are playing jump rope, 4 students are playing four
squares. Yard duty doesn’t blow her whistle until 15 sec. in.
Yard Duty: blows her whistle, Kids, it’s time to go back to class!
Some kids rush to form a line, while others ignore the whistle and keep on playing.
Everyone manages to line up. The kid in the middle can’t stay still and starts playing
with the kid in front of him/her.
Kid 1: stop playing with my hair or I’m going to tell.
Kid 1: Yard duty, he’s playing with my hair.
Yard duty: Hector, stop playing with her hair and keep your hands to yourself.
The kid stopped and kept his/her hand behind his/her back. Attention is now focused
on the 2nd kid in line.
Kid 2: psssttttt to kids 4 and 5. The yard duty isn’t looking, come to the front. You
can cut me!”
Kid 4 and Kid 5: hesitate
Kid 2: Come on! She’s not looking!
Kid 1: You can’t cheat, you’re cutting.
Kid 3: Stop cutting that’s not fair, we were here first. I think you’re bullying us. I’m
going to tell. Yard duty they’re bullying us by cutting.
Yard duty: Who’s cutting?
Kid 3: The two of them.
Yard duty: Nikki and Hector, I’ve never seen you two cut before this isn’t like you
guys at all. Megan, this is not bullying it is cutting. Megan, can you explain to
Marybel why this is cutting and not bullying?
Kid 1: This is not bullying because Nikki and Hector didn’t do it on purpose to hurt
us.
Yard duty: Good job Megan! Do you see the difference now?
87
Kid 3: Yes, I do.
Yard duty: Nikki and Hector, even though this is not bullying it is still wrong. You
two need to go to the back of the line.
All of the Kids: Yay! Yard duty rules! Thank you yard duty!
SKIT 3
Synopsis: In this scene the teacher is helping another student with math. The rest of
the kids are supposed to complete a math worksheet by their selves. However, this is
not the case. The bully and follower bully a student because he is hyper. Defender
saw what was happening and told the teacher about it. The teacher discusses bullying
with the bully and followers and then sends them to the principal’s office.
Everyone is working on their math worksheet quietly except for one kid. The kid keeps
on humming, picking on an eraser, and rocking. The kid hums loud enough for others
to hear but not loud enough for the teachers to hear.
Bully: Why can’t you ever stay still? You’re so dumb? You’re nothing but a dummy!
You’re going to get in trouble.
Victim: ignores them and keeps on going
Follower 1: Yeah dummy stay still and stop.
Follower 2: Oooo you’re going to get in trouble. You’re distracting all of us.
Victim: gets irritated; throws pieces of the eraser at the bully and the followers.
Follower 3: You need to be more like us, and stop being dumb. You need to listen to
the teacher.
Victim: I am listening to the teacher.
Followers: No you’re not!
Bully: sticks out his/her tongue. Hyper dummy.
Victim: curls up and covers his/her face.
Defender: Stop being so mean to her. That’s not right. Raises hand. Teacher they’re
being mean to her.”
88
Teacher to victim: What’s wrong?
Victim: removes hand from face, and point to the followers and bully. They called
me dumb and said that I was going to get in trouble.
Teacher: I’m so sorry that this has happened to you. I will talk them and Principal
Julie will follow up with you. Moua, I want to thank you for helping out Christina.
You did an awesome job and I want you to keep up the great work!
Teacher: walks over to bully and followers, I know what you guys have been up
to. What are our school rules about bullying?
Bully and followers stayed quiet so the teacher asks again.
Teacher: What are our school rules about bullying?
Bully: The school rules say that we will not bully others.
Follower 1: We will try to help students who are bullied.
Follower 2: We will try to include students who are left out.
Follower 3: If we know that somebody is being bullied, we will tell an adult at school
and an adult at home.
Teacher: I’m glad that you guys were able to remember the school rules but I’m
disappointed that none of you followed it. Remember that it doesn’t matter who you
are, the rules apply to everyone.
Bully: But Christina was really annoying and we just can’t help it
Teacher: There are no excuses for bullying and bullying is bullying. We treat
everyone the same no matter what they’re like. Here are the referrals; I’m sending all
of you to Principal Julie’s office.
GRADE 4 – GRADE 6
SKIT 1
Synopsis: Cyberbullying - Three girls are hanging out at home talking amongst
themselves about the clothes a girl was wearing at school. They log onto Facebook
and send the victim a message regarding her appearance. One girl will be the bully,
one will be the henchmen, and the other will be the defender. At home the victim
reads the message. The victim’s mom finds out and calls the school. The next day
89
before school starts the defender goes to the victim and tries to comfort her. The
principal then comes and talks to them about the situation.
Bully: Did you see what Megan was wearing today?
Henchmen: That shirt she was wearing was so ugly and dirty.
Defender: I thought it looked nice.
Bully: Well you’re wrong, it was hideous!
Henchmen: We should tell her something on Facebook.
Bully: That’s a great idea, quick bring me my laptop Henchmen brings laptop.
Defender: We should just leave her alone.
Bully: Oh shut up and be quiet, we do what I say… logs on Facebook…found her
home page. Now what to say…hmmm…oh I know, “you should try getting some
new clothes ‘cause what you were wearing today was just plain ugly and dirty. You
looked like a homeless person.”
Defender: C’mon now…just leave her alone, she doesn’t deserve it.
(On the other side of the stage)
Victim: Oh I have a new message from Moua I wonder what she said? “You should
try getting some new clothes ‘cause what you were wearing today was just plain ugly
and dirty. You looked like a homeless person.” Starts crying.
Dad: walks in. What’s wrong Megan?
Victim: This girl from school told me I was wearing an ugly shirt and that I look like
a homeless person.
Dad: She did what? I’m going to call your school right now!
The next day before school starts
Defender: goes up to the victim. I’m sorry for what Moua said, I tried to stop her but
she wouldn’t listen to me. Don’t pay any attention to what she says. She’s just mad
that you’re prettier than her.
Victim: Thank you! I’m glad to know who my true friends are.
90
Principle: walks up to Victim and Defender. I heard what happened. Thank you
Amanda for following the school rule: “We will try to help students who are bullied.”
I want you to know that I am going to follow up with the other students involved. Do
you feel safe to be around them?
Victim: Yea, I’m okay. Especially since Amanda let me know that we are still
friends.
Principal: Glad to hear that. You girls have a great day. Megan, I will be checking in
with you in a little while to make sure everything is still okay.
SKIT 2
Synopsis: Non-bullying. During recess a group of kids are playing soccer. One kid
gets mad that someone scored a goal on him. He kicks the ball over the fence so that
no one can play anymore. The kids then move on to play a different game.
Kid 1: Let’s go play soccer for recess, I’ll go get the ball and meet you all on the
field. Goes to get ball while the rest go to the field
Kid 2: Yes! You got the best ball we have! Now let’s get the game started.
Kid 3: Since we have 12 people, let’s play 6 vs. 6.
Kid 4: Ok, I’ll be goalie.
Kid 5: I’m going to score so many goals on you!
Kid 4: I don’t think so. I’m the best goalie here.
(Game starts, play for 20 seconds)
Kid 5: Goalllll!! Ha-ha
Kid 4: You got lucky.
A couple plays later, 15 seconds later
Kid 5: Goalllll!! I told you I’m going to be scoring lots of goals
Kid 4: You won’t score anymore goals on me.
Right away Kid 5 scores another goal
91
Kid 5: Goallll!!!
Kid 4: gets angry and kicks the ball over the fence. Now no one will play anymore!
Kid 1: What the heck, I had to check out that ball. You have to go tell yard duty.
Kid 4: Sorry! I just get so mad when Kaoshoua shows off.
Kid 2: I guess we have to play something else now. Go tell yard duty and we will
meet you at the hoops.
They all go play basketball
SKIT 3
Synopsis: This scene is an ADHD child (Provocative Victim) who acts very
obnoxious and continues to jump in the middle of others conversations at the wrong
time. This child is looking for friends and is very friendly but often does not know
how to interact so not to annoy other students. There are a group of children on their
lunch break talking outside talking in a circle.
Child 1: Oh my gosh you guys will never guess what I did this weekend
Child 2: Really…something exciting?
Child 1: Yes, very exciting but you guys have to guess.
Provocative victim: runs up just to catch the words “you guys have to guess.” Have
to guess what guys?
Child 3: roles his/her eyes and says. What Amanda did this weekend?
Provocative victim: Oh, oh, I want to guess…Um let me see did you go to
Disneyland, or did you go to….hmm…
Child 1 interrupts loudly: No I went to my cousin’s house in San Francisco and we
went on a boat ride. Anyway, the boat was so much fun…we
Provocative victim: jumps in abruptly and loudly. I went on a boat one time and it
was so much fun…
Child 3: No one cares!
Child 1: staring at provocative victim. What did you do this weekend?
92
Child 3: Probably nothing interesting because you have no friends… because you are
a loser.
Child 1: Whispers to the friend closest to her. Let’s go talk over here, where Nikki
won’t bother us.
Provocative victim: Whatever! Who cares about going to San Francisco anyway? I
go to SF all the time. AND, I have lots of friends just so you know.
Children 2 & 3: Ha, yea right.
Child 1: Why are you even over here right now?
Provocative victim: Well…umm…I thought you guys were my friends.
Child 1: Well you were wrong…you are a pest and we aren’t your friends.
Children 4 & 5 look shocked and see that these comments are really hurting the
provocative victim.
Child 4: Hey guys, you are being mean and really excluding Nikki. Hey Nikki, I will
be your friend.
Child 1: You will? Whose friend are you, mine or these losers? Pointing to the
provocative victim.
Child 4: puts head down and does not answer.
Child 1: Just get out of here!
Victim runs off in tears as the other children laugh except for child 4, who follows
after the victim.
Child 4: Let’s go tell the teacher. They shouldn’t treat you like that. Bullying isn’t
right.
Victim: I’m afraid.
Child 4: It is ok. I will go with you.
Both children go into their classroom and find their teacher.
93
Child 4: Nikki is being made fun of. The other kids are calling her names and being
mean to her.
Teacher: That’s not right. Do these children always talk to you that way?
Victim: Yes, they are never nice to me! They always call me names, and make fun of
me.
Child 4: She wasn’t doing anything. She was just trying to talk to all of us.
Teacher: It’s not your fault .These children are bullying you. They will be sent to the
principal and will get in trouble. Bullying is never ok!
GRADE 7 – GRADE 8
SKIT 1
Synopsis: Reverse Bullying. The bully asks basketball star (victim) to the 8th grade
dance. The victim politely declines her invitation, yet the bully is not willing to take
“no” for an answer. She becomes angry and begins to call him “gay.” The next day at
school, the bully and her group of friends (henchmen) target him in front of
onlookers, throwing him dirty looks, whispering to each other, and giggling. The
victim tells his coach about the harassment, and Coach explains to him that this is an
instance of bullying. The coach talks to the victim, bully, and henchmen.
Bully: (female) standing on one side of the stage, expectantly waiting.
Henchmen: (also female) are standing a few paces back watching.
Victim: (male) walks onto stage near the bully dribbling a basketball and carrying a
water bottle.
Bully: Hi Hector. How was practice?
Victim: Hey Marybel, pretty good. Coach was in a good mood since we beat our
rivals last night.
Bully: Well that’s good . . . the game last night was pretty fun, it was so exciting
when you made that shot at the buzzer. You’re like the most popular guy at school
now.
Victim: Oh, yeah. Chuckles uncomfortably
94
Bully: So . . . the 8th grade dance is coming up, and I think we should go together!
You’re the most popular guy in school right now, and I’m obviously popular, we
would make the perfect couple!
Victim: Uh . . . I’m sorry, I can’t.
Bully: What?!?! Why not?? Are you already going with someone else?
Victim: No.
Bully: Well then why won’t you go with me? Are you going to be out of town?
Victim: No
Bully: I don’t get it. Looking more and more agitated.
Victim: Look, I just don’t want to go to the dance with you okay? I’m sorry. I’ll see
you tomorrow. Turns and walks away
Bully: shouts after the victim. Yea well you’re just gay!
Victim: turns around. What?
Bully: Anyone who would turn down a chance to go to the dance with me must be
gay.
Victim: shakes his head and walks off
Bully: stomps over to her henchmen and whispers to them.
. . . Next day . . .
Bully and Henchmen standing around in a group. Disengaged Onlookers are
standing nearby.
Victim: walks by with a basketball under his arm.
Bully and Henchmen throw Victim dirty looks, whisper to each other, and giggle.
Bully: Hey Hector. Where’s your boyfriend!?
Henchmen snicker
Victim glances at the group, shakes his head, and walks off.
95
Bully and Henchmen resume whispering, giggling, and snickering
. . . Later in the day . . .
Victim: Hey coach, you got a second?
Coach: Absolutely, what’s up bud? You enjoying the stardom?
Victim: Eh, not really.
Coach: looks quizzically at Victim.
Victim: Well, after I made that shot, the next day this girl decided she wanted to go
to the 8th grade dance with me. I told her no, as nicely as I could, but now she’s all
mad at me. Which I guess I could understand, but she won’t stop calling me gay, and
she and all her friends keep whispering about me and laughing. It’s getting pretty
annoying. She was yelling about my “boyfriend” in the hall earlier, everyone heard.
Coach: Well, son, it’s not acceptable for her to bully you like that.
Victim: Bully me? But she’s a girl and I’m a guy, how can she bully me?
Coach: By calling you names, harassing you, and making fun of you in front of
others, is she hurting you?
Victim: Well yea, I guess.
Coach: And she’s doing this on purpose because you wouldn’t go to dance with her?
Victim: Yea.
Coach: Well, bullying occurs when someone, on purpose, hurts someone else
physically or emotionally by embarrassing them and making them feel bad in front of
others. Remember her doing the same thing to Kyle a couple of weeks ago?
Victim: Yea.
Coach: And remember our rules against bullying.
Victim: How could I forget? Rule #1: We will not bully others.
Coach: Right. So, you also know that I will follow up with Marybel about this and I
will check back in with you after a while to make sure it has stopped.
96
Victim: Thanks, Coach.
SKIT 2
Synopsis: Non-bullying. Boy 1 and Girl are standing in the hall discussing the movie
they are going to go see that evening. Boy 2 walks up and invites Girl to the same
movie. Boy 2 realizes that Boy #1 has already asked Girl out and becomes agitated.
Boy 1 and Boy 2 start to get worked up and eventually come to blows. A teacher
breaks up the fight and sends them both to the principal’s office.
Girl is standing in the hallway talking to Boy 1. Boy 2 walks up.
Boy 2: Hi Scott. What’s going on??? glares at Boy 1.
Girl: Oh we’re just talking about the new movie that’s coming out tonight.
Boy 2: Oh yea? I heard that’s supposed to be good. Do you want to go see it with
me?
Girl: Umm, Scott and I are already going to see it tonight. motioning to Boy 1. But
you could come with us, we could get a whole group together.
Boy 1: Hector isn’t coming with us!
Girl: looks surprised.
Boy 2: Wait a second; you’re going to a movie with him???
Girl: Uh, well I was . . .
Boy 2: Shouting at Boy 1. You aren’t going to a movie with her!
Boy 1: Try and stop me!
Boy 2: Dude, I’ve been trying to ask her out for a week!
Boy 1: Well I just did!
Boy 2: lunges for Boy 1, they begin to fight.
Teacher: runs up and breaks up the fight. What’s going on here!?!
Boy 2: This jerk just asked out my girl!
97
Boy 1: She said yes! . . . And she isn’t “your” girl!
Boy 1 and Boy 2: lunge at each other again.
Teacher: separates them once again. That’s it you two, the principal’s office. Now!
Teacher marches off with Boy 1 and Boy 2.
SKIT 3
Synopsis: Cyberbullying/Drug Use. A group of students pass around a bottle of
prescription medicine. The victim chooses not to partake. As a result, she is called
“Saint” and “Goody Two Shoes.” That night, the bully posts multiple status updates
on Facebook that degrade the victim and sends the victim threatening text messages.
The victim is torn between wanting to fit in and doing the right thing. The next day,
the victim comes to school looking distraught. The defender asks what is wrong and
they discuss the situation. The defender encourages the victim to tell his/her Mom and
offers to go with her.
Victim, Bully, Henchmen, and Disengaged Onlookers are standing around outside
during recess.
Henchman 1: passes a bottle of pills to the bully.
Bully: Sweet!
Henchman 1: My brother said he’ll keep giving them to me as long as I do his math
homework.
Bully: takes a pill and passes the bottle to Henchman 2.
Henchman 2: Well then you better keep doing it!
Henchman 2: takes a pill and passes it to the victim.
Victim: does not take a pill and passes the bottle to Henchman 3.
Bully: What, are you too good to take some?
Victim: No, I just don’t want to.
Henchman 3: takes a pill. What’s the big deal?
98
Victim: looks uncomfortable. I don’t want to do drugs.
Bully: Ok, Saint Kelsy.
Henchman 1, 2, and 3: all laugh.
Bully: to victim. Come on, take one.
Victim: No thank you.
Bully: You really are a goody two shoes. It’s just Megan’s brother’s ADHD pills.
Henchman 1: Quick, put them away, here comes Mrs. Julie!
Henchman 3: hands the pills to the bully, who shoves them in pocket.
Bully, Henchman 1, 2, and 3 begin to scurry away.
Bully: You better not say anything, Kelsey.
. . . The next day . . .
Victim: walks on stage, looking distraught.
Defender: Hi, Kelsey!
Victim: Hey.
Defender: Are you okay?
Victim: No, you’re lucky you were out sick yesterday.
Defender: I am? Why?
Victim: Marybel brought some pills to school yesterday, and when I wouldn’t take
any, they started pressuring me. I didn’t take any, but now she is calling me “Saint
Kelsey” and “Goody Two Shoes” on Facebook and threatening me not to tell anyone
about the pills. Marybel said if they get caught, it will all be my fault. Look at all
these texts from them. Shows phone to Defender.
Defender: reads aloud: “Hey Saint Kelsey, I know you think you’re too good for us,
but you better not tell anyone about the pills! You’re just a pathetic loser who doesn’t
want to have any fun!”
99
Victim: Maybe I should have just taken a pill.
Defender: What!? No way! You can’t let Marybel bully you into taking drugs!
Victim: But she is going to make my life miserable!
Defender: Not if I can help it. We have to tell someone. Remember the Rule?
Victim: Yea, “If we know that somebody is being bullied, we will tell an adult at
school and at home.”
Defender: So let’s tell your mom after school.
Victim: But I’m nervous.
Defender: Why, you didn’t do anything wrong.
Victim: I know, but still. Marybel told me not to say anything.
Defender: But if we tell your mom then she can help us figure out what to do.
Victim: Yea, she is pretty good at that.
Defender: So we can talk to her after school?
Victim: Yea.
Defender: Good.
100
APPENDIX E
FIRST CLASS MEETING OUTLINE AND SCRIPT
101
102
103
104