Elsevier

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Volume 19, Issue 5, September–October 2014, Pages 532-544
Aggression and Violent Behavior

The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Overall, 11 of the 22 (50%) studies examining bullying perpetration observed significant effects

  • Overall, 18 of 27 (67%) studies examining victimization reported significant program effects

  • Studies conducted outside of the United States were more likely to report significant findings

  • Studies with racially homogenous samples were more likely to report significant findings

  • Measures in most studies lack construct validity and measurement is a challenge for the field

Abstract

Bullying is a social phenomenon. About 30% of school children are involved in bullying as victims, bullies, or bully/victims. The victims of bullying suffer multiple negative consequences, including poor social and academic adjustment, depression, and anxiety. This paper extends Farrington and Ttofi's (2009) meta-analysis of controlled trials of 44 bullying interventions, which suggests that bullying programs are effective in decreasing bullying and victimization. We review controlled trials of bullying interventions published from June, 2009 through April, 2013, focusing on substantive results across 32 studies that examined 24 bullying interventions. Of the 32 articles, 17 assess both bullying and victimization, 10 assess victimization only, and 5 assess bullying only. Of the 22 studies examining bullying perpetration, 11 (50%) observed significant effects; of the 27 studies examining bullying victimization, 18 (67%) reported significant effects. Although the overall findings are mixed, the data suggest that interventions implemented outside of the United States with homogeneous samples are more successful than programs implemented in the United States, where samples tend to be more heterogeneous. Few studies have measured bullying with sufficient precision to have construct validity. Finding strong measures to assess the complex construct of bullying remains a major challenge for the field.

Introduction

School bullying is a serious social problem. Bullying includes both direct aggressive behavior (e.g., physical intimidation, verbal threats) and indirect aggressive behavior (e.g., exclusion, rejection). Typically, bullying has four related forms or dimensions: physical (i.e., physical force such as hitting or kicking), verbal (i.e., oral or written communication such as teasing or name calling), relational (i.e., direct or indirect actions intended to harm the victims' reputation and relationships such as rumor spreading or physically or electronically posting embarrassing images of the victim), and damage to property (i.e., stealing or damaging the possessions or property of victims; Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014). In addition, bullying has three defining features: intent to harm (i.e., the bully intends to harm the victim), imbalance of power (i.e., the bully is physically stronger and/or has more social power than the victim), and repetition (i.e., the bullying is focused on particular children and occurs repeatedly; Olweus, 1993).

As a social dynamic, bullying involves a large proportion of elementary, middle, and high school students. Given the lack of national studies, the prevalence of bullying among elementary school-aged children must be estimated from local and state survey studies. For example, in a sample of 3530 students in Grades 3 thru 5 enrolled in an urban school district on the West Coast of the United States, 22% of students reported involvement in bullying as a bully, a victim, or a bully/victim (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005). The majority of national studies of bullying have used samples from middle and high schools. A national survey of 15,686 students in Grades 6 thru 10 reported 30% of students appeared to be involved in bullying as a bully, victim, or bully/victim in the current semester (Nansel et al., 2001). A more recent national survey, the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, examined 4326 adolescents and found 28% reported bullying victimization (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011). In addition, the national Health Behavior in School Aged Children survey of 7182 students in Grades 6 thru 10 reported that the most prevalent form of bullying was verbal bullying (e.g., teasing, name calling) with 54% of students reporting involvement in the past 2 months. Other prevalent forms of bullying included relational bullying (i.e., exclusion; 51%), physical bullying (21%), and victimization using electronic media or cyber bullying (14%; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).

Bullying is a peer-group process and children can be actively involved as bullies, victims, or bully/victims. Moreover, children can be passively involved as bystanders, offering varying degrees of support to bullies or victims (Salmivalli, 2010). Research has suggested that a child's active participation in bullying has negative developmental consequences (Gladstone et al., 2006, Ttofi et al., 2012, Ttofi et al., 2011a). As discussed later, these negative sequelae include depression, anxiety, relationship difficulties, and criminal behavior. As these negative outcomes have become more widely recognized among policy makers, educators, and scholars, a variety of school-based bullying intervention programs have been developed.

Farrington and Ttofi (2009) conducted a systematic review of 44 bullying interventions tested in controlled trials. The results of their meta-analysis showed that, on average and when compared with routine school services, these programs decreased bullying between 20% and 23% and reduced victimization between 17% and 20%. For example, in a cluster randomized trial of elementary students in Grades 3 thru 5 (N = 1345), Fonagy et al. (2009) estimated the program effect of the Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment (CAPSLE) intervention on bullying and victimization. Using a cluster sample of nine elementary schools, Fonagy and colleagues randomly assigned the schools to participate in one of two treatment conditions (i.e., CAPSLE or psychiatric consultation, in which psychiatrists provided individual consultation to children with problematic behaviors), or the treatment-as-usual control condition. The study results showed that after 2 years of program implementation, the CAPSLE program reduced bullying victimization. A comparison of victimization reports showed that 19% of students in the CAPSLE program reported victimization compared with 25% of children who received psychiatric consultation and 26% of children in the control condition.

From their review, Farrington and Ttofi (2009) distilled elements of effective anti-bullying programs such as: presence of parent and teacher training, use of classroom disciplinary methods (i.e., strict rules for handling bullying), implementation of a whole-school anti-bullying policy, and the use of instructional videos. These elements were positively correlated with a reduction in bullying and victimization. In addition, Farrington and Ttofi found that program duration and intensity were related to decreased bullying and victimization, and interventions inspired by the work of Dan Olweus appeared to be more successful.

Characteristics of studies were also related to bullying outcomes. Farrington and Ttofi (2009) found that studies using more rigorous designs produced lower effect estimates. Expressed as an odds ratio (OR), the average effect size for bullying was 1.10 for randomized experiments, 1.60 for before–after experimental control, 1.20 for other experimental-control, and 1.51 for age-cohort designs. Across designs, the mean OR was 1.36 (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). On average, intervention groups had bullying rates 1.36 times lower than control groups. Programs focused on older children (i.e., 11 years or older) had larger effect sizes. In fact, when age was divided into four categories (i.e., 6–9 years, 10 years, 11–12 years, and 13–14 years) the weighted mean OR steadily increased for both bullying and victimization. In addition Farrington and Ttofi observed that programs implemented in Europe were more successful than programs implemented in the United States.

Compared with youth who reported no involvement in bullying, those youth who reported involvement as bullies, victims, or bully/victims reported poorer psychosocial adjustment (Aluede et al., 2008, Gini, 2008, Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999, Nansel et al., 2001). Although bullies, victims, and bully/victims share some risk-related characteristics, outcomes vary. For example, in elementary school, victims and bully/victims have been shown to have more serious adjustment problems than bullies. In a sample of 565 students in Grades 3 thru 5, teacher reports and child self-reports indicated that as compared with noninvolved children, both victims and bully/victims experienced higher levels of psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., feeling tired, dizzy, tense) whereas only victims experienced greater psychosocial difficulties (e.g., conduct problems, hyperactivity, problems with peers). Bullies were similar to noninvolved youth, but bullies reported higher levels of sleeping problems, feeling tense, and hyperactivity (Gini, 2008).

Consistent with these findings, a study with a sample of Grade 6 students found that victims of bullying reported the highest levels of depression, social anxiety, and loneliness as compared with bullies, bully/victims, and noninvolved youth (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003). This pattern of negative outcomes appears to persist into high school, as evidenced by a study with a sample of older youth (i.e., mean age 15 years) in which youth who were consistently victims and bully/victims, reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal as compared to bullies and noninvolved youth. In contrast, a different study with bullies reported the perpetrators experienced more externalizing problems (e.g., aggression) than their victims or bully/victims (Menesini, Modena, & Tani, 2009). The data tend to support a description of victims as lonely, anxious, and insecure (Olweus, 1993) and suggest that victimization is associated with deficits in social competence, feelings of powerlessness, rejection by peers (Kvarme et al., 2010, Nation et al., 2008) and decreased academic achievement (Glew et al., 2005).

In contrast to victims, bullies tend to be more aggressive (Olweus, 1993). For example, in a study with a sample of 23,345 students in elementary, middle, and high school comparing bullies and noninvolved youth, O'Brennan, Bradshaw, and Sawyer (2009) found that bullies were more likely to endorse reacting to provocation with aggression. Bullies often have a low level of school commitment and are at increased risk of dropping out and using substances (Vanderbilt & Augustyn, 2010). Moreover, bullies tend to display higher levels of hyperactivity than either victims or bully/victims (Gini, 2008).

Both internalizing disorders and suicidal ideation have been reported among bullies as well as their victims. In a sample of 16,410 Finnish adolescents ages 14 to 16 years, depression and suicidal ideation were observed more frequently among bully/victims, followed by victims, and then bullies relative to adolescents with no bullying involvement (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999). Controlling for age, gender, and depression to assess risk for suicidal cognition, Kaltiala-Heino et al. created a statistical model, in which bullies were found to have the highest risk of suicidal ideation, followed by bully/victims, and then victims. These Northern European data suggest that bullies may be at higher risk for suicide than previously thought (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999).

The effects of bullying involvement appear to persist into young adulthood (Ttofi et al., 2012). Indeed, those who were bullies or who were the victims of bullies during childhood or adolescence face increased risk as adults for health problems and poor social and emotional adjustment (Vanderbilt & Augustyn, 2010). Although the threshold level of exposure is not clear, studies suggest that victimization is associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems. For example, a meta-analysis of 29 studies found that childhood bullying victimization led to increased rates of depression that persisted up to 36 years post-victimization, with an average duration of 6.9 years post-victimization (Ttofi et al., 2011a). In addition, as adults, the victims of childhood bullying were at increased risk for experiencing internalizing disorders such as anxiety (Gladstone et al., 2006). A meta-analysis of 51 reports of 28 longitudinal studies found that childhood victimization was associated with the continued presence of aggressive (e.g., fighting) and violent (e.g., assault, robbery, rape, carrying or shooting a firearm) behaviors with an average of 6 years after victimization (Ttofi et al., 2012).

A recent meta-analysis of 28 studies comparing nonbullies and bullies found that bullies displayed increased levels of criminal offending up to 11 years post-bullying perpetration (Ttofi, Farrington, Losel, & Loeber, 2011b). One study included in this meta-analysis used a sample of 957 youth from the Healthy Children Project, which recruited participants from 10 suburban public elementary schools in the U.S. Pacific Northwest region (Kim, Catalano, Haggerty, & Abbott, 2011). The researchers found that bullying in Grade 5 predicted increased rates of problem behaviors at age 21 years, including violence (e.g., started a fight, hit someone to seriously harm them, carried a hand gun), heavy drinking (e.g., consuming more than 4 [females] or 5 [males] drinks in a row), and marijuana use. Moreover, the study found moderate correlations between bullying in Grade 5 and young adults' (i.e., 21 years) problematic behaviors such as impulsivity (r = .27), poor family management (r = .39), and antisocial peer association (r = .41; Kim et al., 2011). In summary, the data suggest that victimization and bullying are related to ongoing difficulties with social, psychological, and academic adjustment. Early reports suggested that bully prevention programs might be effective in reducing bullying. Because bullying appears to be part of a cascade of risks related to negative developmental sequelae, the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs can be important in promoting positive youth and life course outcomes.

Since the publication of Farrington and Ttofi's (2009) meta-analysis, additional bullying prevention programs have been evaluated. The aim of the current study was to extend the work of Farrington and Ttofi by assessing controlled trials of bullying interventions published from June, 2009 through April, 2013.

Section snippets

Search strategy

Our review followed AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines for conducting systematic reviews (e.g., an established research question, a documented list of inclusion criteria, a comprehensive literature search; Shea et al., 2007). We identified potential articles, book chapters, and dissertations for review by searching 12 databases: Campbell Collaboration, Cochran Library, Dissertation Abstracts, ERIC, Google Scholar, Index to Thesis Database, PsycInfo, PubMed,

Results

Displayed in Table 1, the search protocol yielded 32 articles that evaluated 24 distinct bullying interventions. Each article described a controlled trial of a bullying prevention program and measured (a) perpetration and victimization (17 studies), (b) victimization only (10 studies), or perpetration only (five studies). Results are discussed in terms of changes in victimization or perpetration. Thus, 27 studies measured victimization (17 examined both perpetration and victimization, 10

Discussion

Overall, the findings from evaluations of anti-bullying programs are mixed. Of the 22 controlled trials with measures of bullying perpetration, 11 trials (50%) reported significant program effects on bullying behavior, and one reported mixed results. Of the 27 studies that assessed victimization, 18 (67%) reported significant program effects, and one reported mixed results. To be sure, the evidence is sufficiently strong to indicate that bullying interventions can be effective. At the same

Conclusion

Overall, the findings are mixed. Although effective bullying interventions were identified, up to 45% (i.e., 10 of 22 studies) of the studies showed no program effects on bullying perpetration and 30% (i.e., 8 of 27 studies) showed no program effects on victimization. Of the studies reporting significant effects, compromised measurement reduces the confidence policymakers and others might have that programs are reducing bullying behavior. Among the more rigorously measured programs (i.e., those

References1 (87)

  • O. Aluede et al.

    A review of the extent, nature, characteristics, and effects of bullying behaviour in schools

    Journal of Instructional Psychology

    (2008)
  • G.J.L. *Battey

    Can bullies become buddies? Evaluation of and theoretical support for an experimental education bully prevention curriculum with seventh grade students

    (2009)
  • M. *Bleeker et al.

    Finding from a randomized experiment of Playworks: Selected results from cohort 1

    (2012)
  • K. Bosworth et al.

    Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students

    Journal of Early Adolescence

    (1999)
  • G.J. Botvin et al.

    Effectiveness of culturally focused and generic skills training approaches to alcohol and drug abuse prevention among minority youths

    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

    (1994)
  • G.J. Botvin et al.

    Effectiveness of culturally focused and generic skills training approaches to alcohol and drug abuse prevention among minority adolescents: Two-years of follow-up results

    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

    (1995)
  • M.J. Boulton et al.

    Swedish and English secondary school pupils' attitudes towards, and conceptions of, bullying: Concurrent links with bully/victim involvement

    Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

    (1999)
  • N.M. *Bowllan

    Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school-wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school

    Journal of School Health

    (2011)
  • E.C. *Brown et al.

    Outcomes from a school-randomized controlled trial of steps to respect: A bullying prevention program

    School Psychology Review

    (2011)
  • N.R. Crick et al.

    Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression

    Development and Psychopathology

    (1996)
  • D. *Cross et al.

    Three year results of the Friendly Schools whole-of-school intervention on children's bullying behavior

    British Educational Research Journal

    (2011)
  • N. Csuti

    The Colorado trust bullying prevention initiative student survey

  • C. DeNavas-Walt et al.

    Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2011 (publication no. P60-243)

    (2012)
  • M. *Domino

    The impact of Take the LEAD on school bullying among middle school youth

    (2011)
  • L.C. *Elledge et al.

    School-based mentoring as selective prevention for bullied children: A preliminary test

    Journal of Primary Prevention

    (2010)
  • D. Espelage et al.

    Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates

    Journal of Emotional Abuse

    (2001)
  • D.P. Farrington et al.

    School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization

    Campbell Systematic Reviews

    (2009)
  • P. Fonagy et al.

    A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression

    Child Psychology and Psychiatry

    (2009)
  • K.S. *Frey et al.

    Observed reductions on school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2009)
  • G.F. *Giesbrecht et al.

    Child and context characteristics in trajectories of physical and relational victimization among early elementary school children

    Development and Psychopathology

    (2011)
  • G. Gini

    Associations between bullying behavior, psychosomatic complaints, emotional and behavioral problems

    Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health

    (2008)
  • R.M. Gladden et al.

    Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0

    (2014)
  • G.L. Gladstone et al.

    Do bullied children become anxious and depressed adults? A cross-sectional investigation of the correlates of bullying and anxious depression

    Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

    (2006)
  • G. Glew et al.

    Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school

    Archives of Pediatric Adolescence

    (2005)
  • E.A. Greytak et al.

    Putting the “t” in “resource”: The benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth

    Journal of LGBT Youth

    (2013)
  • S. Guerin et al.

    Pupils' definitions of bullying

    European Journal of Psychology of Education

    (2002)
  • M.E. Hamburger et al.

    Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools

    (2011)
  • W.L. *Hoglund et al.

    Using your WITS: A 6-year follow-up of a peer victimization prevention program

    School Psychology Review

    (2012)
  • L.R. Huesmann et al.

    Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • J. Iceland

    Poverty in America: A handbook

    (2006)
  • J.M. Jenson et al.

    Effects of a skills based prevention program on bullying and bullying victimization among elementary school children

    Prevention Science

    (2007)
  • J.M. *Jenson et al.

    Preventing childhood bullying: Findings and lessons from the Denver Public Schools trial

    Research on Social Work Practice

    (2010)
  • K. *Joronen et al.

    An evaluation of a drama program to enhance social relationships and anti-bullying at elementary school: A controlled study

    Health Promotion International

    (2011)
  • Cited by (229)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    *denotes articles included in this review.

    View full text