Using multimedia to reduce bullying and victimization in third-grade urban schools.

This study investigated the effects of increasing levels of multimedia interventions (cognitive behavioral treatment, videotapes, and CD-R OM modules) on self-reported bullying and victimization among urban third graders. Students' self-ratings were assessed using Reynolds' Bully Victimization Scale (Reynolds, 2003). The results indicated that the interventions did produce statistically significant reductions in bullying and victimization scores; however, these reductions were not universally associated with multimedia intervention type. Implications for school counselors and future researchers are offered.

**********

Bullying is a cross-cultural phenomenon (Carney & Merrell, 2001). Once considered a normal process of growing up (Lipman, 2003), officials now recognize the costs of such a tolerant view. Bullying is not a momentary trauma but a continual stressor for many children (Lane, 1989; Newman, Holden, & Delville, 2005; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005; Theriot, Dulmus, Sowers, & Johnson, 2005). For example, the U.S. Secret Service reported that in its examination of 37 school shootings, the majority of shooters suffered extreme and longstanding bullying and harassment (Lumsden, 2002; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). A 2001 survey by the World Health Organization, in the United States, found that 30 percent of students in a survey of 15,000 6th through 10th graders bullied others, were bullied by others, or both. Approximately 160,000 students avoid school each day in order to escape being bullied (Lees, 1993).

Researchers and theorists have identified several roles involved in the bullying process: bully, victim, and bystander (e.g., Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005; Lane, 1989). This article will highlight each role. Finding a universally acceptable definition of bullying is challenging. The literature supports a wide variety of definitions. However, Olweus (1993) was the first to describe both the physical and mental aspects of bullying. Olweus characterized bullying to occur when one or more students intentionally inflict or repeatedly attempt to inflict injury or discomfort on another student.

Regardless of one's operational definition, being a bully carries the potential for serious lifelong consequences. Physical bullies are at greater risk than their peers for criminal conviction and recidivist crime (Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000). For example, data from the U.S. Department of Justice (2001) suggest that 60% of sixth- to ninth-grade bullies will be convicted of a crime as an adult, compared to 23% of children who are not classified as bullies. Bullying is linked to delinquency, substance abuse, sexual harassment, and dating aggression (Craig & Pepler, 2003). Carney and Merrell (2001) reported that bullies' aggressive behavior is often directed to parents and teachers. In addition to behavioral problems, bullies may experience psychological sequelae such as depression and suicidal behavior (Rigby, 2003). Perpetration of aggressive behavior is the most common reason for referral to psychiatric services for adolescents (Griffin & Gross, 2004).

The short- and long-term consequences of being bullied also are deleterious for the victims. Compared to nonvictims, victims of bullying are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, suicide, truancy, school refusal, headaches, stomachaches, bedwetting, and poor sleep (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Vosk, Forehand, Parker, & Rickard, 1982; Rigby, 2003; Wilkins-Shurmer et al., 2003). Negative academic consequences are linked to being victimized as well (Gladden, 2002). It is understood that bullying, in all of its forms, results in negative consequences. Whether overt or covert forms are utilized, the victim does not emerge from the experience unscathed.

Until recently, most of the focus on bullying was directed toward the easily identified bully-victim dyad. However, recently attention has been directed toward those who witness and live in social units in which bullying and victimization occur (Askew as cited in Lane, 1989; Craig & Pepler, 2003; Fekkes et al., 2005). Witnessing bullying causes bystanders to feel anxious and afraid that they, too, may one day be targeted (Olweus, 1978).

Being a witness to repeated violence desensitizes one to violence, in turn making violence seem like a normal part of the academic experience. Witnessing violence also may teach children to be aggressive (Bandura, 1973). Further, witnessing violence has been linked to anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1998). Finally, observing bullying can cause witnesses to experience "survivor guilt" due to the helplessness of being unable to intervene in another's trauma for fear of becoming the target of future violence (Phillips, 2003). While numerous treatment interventions have been designed and implemented to address the needs and concerns of bullies and victims, few intervention options are available that specifically address the experience of being a bystander (Carney & Merrell, 2001).

Advances in the understanding of bullying behavior include the recognition that children of both sexes can be bullies (Phillips, 2003). While both sexes engage in bullying behaviors, their reasons and the manner in which they bully may differ. Boys tend to develop power-based social relationships while girls use more affiliative activities (Lane, 1989). Boys tend to use externalized aggression through physical violence or intimidation as their primary method of bullying (Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000). Girls, on average, employ indirect or psychological intimidation techniques such as shunning, teasing, harassment, and the spreading of rumors (Lumsden, 2002). As stated previously, all forms of bullying have the tendency to result in negative consequences for the victim.

Historically, bullying was seen as a problem of middle school. Evidence suggests that bullying can start at a much younger age and grade level than previously believed (Smith & Ananiadou, 2003). Accumulating evidence now points to the conclusion that bullying begins at a much earlier age than once thought. For example, Monks, Smith, and Swettenham (2003) reported finding bullying behaviors in children as young as 4-6 years of age. Eslea and Rees (2001) reported that 30% of 7- and 9-year olds identified themselves as a victim of bullying in a Sheffield Bullying Project survey by the U.K. Department for Education and Skills.

Counselors interested in implementing bullying intervention programs may avail themselves of a rich body of literature developed on the subject. Recent additions to this literature include Brinson, Kottler, and Fisher's (2004) cross-cultural techniques and strategies, D'Andrea's (2004) Hawaii School-Based Violence Prevention Training Project, and Newman-Carlson and Horne's (2004) Bully Busters program. Despite the plethora of available interventions, few studies exist to empirically validate the effectiveness of these programs (Harris, 2004).

It is clear that comprehensive, empirically validated bullying intervention programs are needed that address the specific needs of bullies, victims, and bystanders of both sexes and that target younger ages than typically addressed. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of increasing levels of multimedia interventions on self-reported bullying and victimization among urban third graders. Due to children's interest in videos and computers, it was reasoned that implementing these technologies into a prevention program, in addition to a counselor-lead cognitive behavioral intervention, might be attractive to children and consequently be effective.

It is impossible to predict which students will be future bullies, victims, or bystanders. As such, all students, regardless of their current role affiliation, were invited to participate in this study. It was expected that each group would demonstrate statistically significant pre- to post-treatment reduction in self-reported bullying and victimization scores. Further, it was expected that decreases in victimization and bullying would be inversely associated with increases in intervention levels.

METHODS

Participants

The entire third-grade populations of three schools located in the same Midwestern district, where the first author is a licensed school counselor, were invited to participate in this study. Intact groups, while commonly investigated in field research, prohibit the researchers from using random assignment to control threats to the internal validity of the design. All of the students' parents and the students themselves consented to participate. In an attempt to counter the inability to randomly assign students, participating schools were randomly assigned to the control group, intervention group 1, or intervention group 2.

The control group consisted of 36 third-grade students (17 girls). Their mean age was 8.8 years (SD = .7, range = 8-10). The control group students self-identified their ethnicity as follows: African American (n = 30), European American (n = 2), and biracial (n = 4). Intervention group 1 consisted of 34 third-grade students (16 gifts). The mean age in years for intervention group 1 was 8.7 (SD = .5, range = 8-10). The intervention group 1 students self-identified their ethnicity as follows: African American (n = 1), European American (n = 27), Hispanic (n = 2), and biracial (n = 4). Intervention group 2 consisted of 40 third-grade students (16 girls). The mean age in years for intervention group 1 was 8.7 (SD = .6, range = 8-10). The intervention group 2 students self-identified their ethnicity as follows: African American (n = 3), European American (n = 35), biracial (n = 1), and no response (n = 1).

Interventions

Counselor/teacher intervention. All three groups received the counselor/teacher intervention. This intervention was designed by the first author and follows suggestions based on Olweus' (2003) cognitive behavioral treatment. The teacher and the counselor met with the third-grade class in each building for 1 hour a week for a total of 8 weeks. The interventions started with a search of the Internet to define the terms bullying, victim, and bystander. Children were asked to describe what these people were like in their own words. Next, the counselor initiated a discussion on self-esteem, followed by a section on conflict resolution. Class meetings were held to discuss class and school rules specific to bullying (e.g., "We won't bully," "We'll help victims of bullying," and "We will include others who might easily be left out" [Olweus, 1993]). The final few weeks were spent engaging in the analysis of a bullying incident. Students assumed the role of a victim or a bystander while the counselor played the role of the bully (children were never asked to role-play a bully). The specific role-plays were reenactments of bullying incidents that occurred during the previous week. Children were tasked with determining ways in which the events might have been different. Finally, the counselor met individually with identified bullies and victims each week for 30 minutes per child.

Video intervention. In addition to the counselor/teacher intervention, the second and third groups also watched three age-appropriate videotapes designed to help students identify and reduce bullying and victimization. The half-hour videos were shown during weeks 2, 5, and 7 of the 8-week program. These videos were selected because they were specifically designed for third graders and employed information for bullies, victims, and bystanders. The videos presented bullying scenarios that were resolved by the characters. Students were taught a specific intervention method: stop, calm down, think, come up with solutions, and try the solution. The counselor processed the material presented in the videos with the entire class following each viewing. See Appendix A for a list of all videos used in this investigation.

Multimedia intervention. In addition to the counselor/teacher and video interventions, the third group was presented with a commercially produced CD-ROM during week 3. This CD-ROM was prepared specifically for third graders. The CD-ROMs were part relaxation and part quiz show, with mini-scenarios. The students were presented with options and told to pick the correct manner to resolve each of the presented problems. The relaxation part was imagining being on a beach and relaxing, calming down. Students were directed to work at their own pace on the several modules contained in the CD and to complete the material at a maximum rate of once per week. See Appendix A for the listing of the CD-ROM used in this investigation.

Instrumentation

The Reynolds Bully Victimization Scale (BVS; Reynolds, 2003) was selected because it was constructed specifically for third graders; it is a 46-item scale that measures self-perceived bullying and victimization. The BVS has Bullying and Victim subscales with 23 items each. This instrument asks students to reflect on their behavior over the past month of their lives. The manual (Reynolds) suggests that third graders require approximately 10 minutes to complete the BVS. Raw scores are converted to T scores. The Reynolds manual reports a Cronbach's coefficient alpha of .91 for the Bullying Scale and .94 for the Victim Scale among third graders. One to two-week test-retest stability coefficients, respectively, are .81 and .80, which exceed minimal levels recommended by Groth-Marnat (2003). Both scales are moderately correlated with teacher bully-victim rating scales and school disciplinary actions in the past 6 months. The Bullying Scale also is correlated with measures of anger, disruptive behaviors, antisocial behavior, and anger control problems. The Victim Scale is correlated with anxiety, depression, emotional disturbance, and issues with anger.

The BVS Bullying Scale items tap two general categories of bullying that have demonstrated associations with male and female patterns of bullying: overt peer aggression and relational aggression. Overt behaviors represented on this scale include behaviors such as throwing objects at others, hitting, fighting, stealing, and intimidation. Relational aggression is conceptualized as harassment, name-calling, teasing, ridiculing, and making verbal threats. T scores less than 58 are considered to fall in the normal range. Scores between 58 and 65 are representative of a clinically significant level of bullying requiring some form of intervention. Scores between 66 and 74 fall in the moderately severe range and represent frequent engagement of bullying. Scores higher than 74 are produced by children who frequently bully others.

The BVS Victim Scale items tap into both overt peer aggression and relational aggression. Items include peer victimization, being assaulted by peers, being forced to do things, being chased, being spat on, being threatened, having things thrown at them, having property destroyed, being teased, being made to feel bad by peers, being called names, and being intimidated. Scores below 56 are considered to be in the normal range. Scores between 56 and 68 are considered to be clinically significant, more likely to be from teasing than from overt aggression. Scores between 64 and 68 fall in the moderately severe range and represent somewhat consistent victimization over the past month. Finally, scores in excess of 68 are produced by children who are experiencing severe victimization by their peers.

Design

A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) was used to answer the research questions. Employing a control group without a treatment was deemed undesirable because it is unethical to withhold treatment expected to be effective. Therefore, it was determined that all three groups would receive a consistent counselor-driven treatment intervention. The CD-ROMs were shared among classmates and could only be used by one student at a time. The videos were shown to the entire class at the same time. Because of the logistic limitations involved with shuttling the CD-ROMs between two school buildings, it was decided that both intervention groups would view the videotapes and only intervention group 2 would have access to the CD-ROMs. The control group received the counselor-driven treatment intervention only. Intervention group 1 received the counselor intervention plus a videotape intervention about bullying and victimization reduction. Finally, intervention group 2 added the interactive CD-ROM about bullying, victimization, and being a bystander to the counselor and bullying and victimization reduction interventions. Students in all three groups completed a demographic data form, provided parental consent to participate, and completed the BVS Bullying and Victim scales prior to any intervention. The BVS Bullying and Victim scales were readministered at the conclusion of the treatment during week 8.

RESULTS

Raw scores for the Reynolds Bullying and Victim scales were converted to T scores. The means, standard deviations, and ranges of scores for the pre- and post-testing data, as well as the internal consistency Cronbach's alphas for the combined pre-testing data, are presented in Table 1. To test for significant changes in bullying and victimization scores across time, paired t tests were calculated for each treatment group's pre- and post-treatment bullying and victimization scores. The results of these t tests, the associated p values, and the effect sizes are presented in Table 2. As can be seen by reviewing Tables 1 and 2, all three groups evidenced decreases in bullying and victimization scores. Statistically significant reductions in bullying scores, however, were produced by the intervention 2 and control groups. In addition, only intervention groups 1 and 2 produced statistically significant reductions in victimization scores.

Cohen (1977) suggested three levels of effect sizes d: small (.025), medium (.15), and large (.35). According to this rubric, the changes in the control group's bullying scores are considered medium and the changes in bullying and victimization reported for intervention group 2 and the victimization score for intervention group 1 are large.

Two 3 x 2 repeated-measures analyses of variance (school by time) were conducted to test for the differential effects of school across time (the interaction) on the two dependent variables of bullying and victimization. While all three intervention groups evidence improvement from time 1 to time 2 (main effect for time) on the BVS Bullying and Victim scales, none of the regression line slopes were statistically different from each other. This suggests that, when controlling for each group's pre-bullying and pre-victimization scores, the amount of change produced by the three interventions did not differ in a statistically significant manner from each other (p > .05).

Our post-hoe review of the data provides interesting findings. For example, we noted that two of the three bullying score pre-intervention group observations and all of the victimization score pre-intervention group observations were in the normal range. It is unlikely, given the three roles in bullying (victim, bully, bystander), that all students in a particular class would fall into the bullying or victimization group. Each class likely has a certain number of identified bullies, a certain number of identified victims, and a larger number of bystanders. As such, the three groups' bullying mean scores may have been deflated due to the predominance of people in the victim and bystander categories. The three groups' victimization scores might likewise be affected. Therefore, an additional measure of these interventions might be to review each group to determine how many students fell into Reynolds' four classification categories and to examine them to see if individual students' scores reduced their categorization status. To that end, the total numbers of students in each category by group by time are presented in Table 3. These data indicate that in every case, the number of students in the normal category increased by at least 5.

Generally, the number of students in the clinically elevated category decreased. The degree of change in numbers in the moderately severe and frequent categories saw less change, indicating that the particular interventions utilized in this study might be more effective in addressing the needs of students whose bullying and victimization are less severe. It is likely that increased attention, perhaps via one-on-one counseling in a community, setting, might be more appropriate for students whose bullying and victimization are resistant to the weekly interventions supplemented with multimedia tools as were used in this study.

DISCUSSION

This study had two hypotheses. First, it was expected that each of the three groups would produce significant pre- to post-treatment reductions in self-reported bullying and victimization scores. Second, it was hypothesized that the amount of pre- to post-treatment change in self-reported bullying and victimization scores would be associated with increasing amounts of multimedia intervention. That is, we expected that intervention group 1's improvements would be significantly greater than the control group's and that the intervention group 2 improvement would exceed that of both the control group and intervention group 1.

The present findings provide moderate support for the first hypothesis. Significant pre- to post-intervention changes in bullying scores were observed in the control group and intervention group 2, but not in intervention group 1. Interpretation of the changes in bullying scores is challenging due to the fact that the control group's pre- to post-intervention scores were significantly lower and intervention group 1's scores were not. When one considers the control group's and intervention group 1's pre-treatment bullying scores (59.6 and 49.2, respectively), it could be argued the that control group had more potential for improvement because its mean score was representative of clinically significant levels of bullying and intervention group 1's mean score was in the normal range. Additionally, it is important to interpret these results keeping in mind that the control group was not a "no-treatment group." Rather, due to ethical considerations, the control group received fairly intensive counselor- and teacher-led interventions for an hour a week over the course of the 8-week project. Therefore, it might be better to approach these results from the point of view that reduction in bullying behaviors among these third-grade urban students was not significantly aided by the introduction of the three videotapes over and above that which was accomplished by the intensive counselor and teacher interventions.

The fact that both intervention groups 1 and 2 started at virtually the same point in bullying scores (49.2 and 49.8) yet group 2's scores decreased significantly argues against the fact that intervention group 1's bullying scores, being in the normal range, could not have demonstrated improvement. Rather, a more appropriate interpretation might be that the introduction of individual learning units utilizing CD-ROM media technology coupled with the videotapes and the intensive counselor and teacher interventions produced statistically significant reductions in bullying behaviors and that these differences were greater in magnitude than those for the control group and intervention group 1.

Likewise, significant pre- to post-intervention changes in victimization scores were observed in intervention groups 1 and 2, but not in the control group. These results were as expected; however, the actual degrees of change between pre- and post-treatment scores for groups 1 and 2 were virtually identical (4.4 and 4.6, respectively), as was the magnitude of the effect sizes (.43 and .48, respectively). In this case, it appears that the multimedia intervention decreased victimization scores more than did the intensive counselor and teacher interventions; however, the impact of the use of CD-ROMs and videotapes in reducing victimization scores was only slightly greater than that of the videotapes alone.

The second hypothesis, that the degree of change would be related to increasing amounts of multimedia intervention, was not supported. All three groups demonstrated decreases in pre- to post-treatment bullying and victimization scores; however, the reduction of scores was independent of the degree of multimedia intervention employed. That is, the amount of improvement evidenced by the students was independent of whether they received the teacher and counselor intervention alone, additionally watched the videotapes, or worked independently with a self-paced CD-ROM. We offer two potential and tentative interpretations for these findings. One approach to these findings is to consider this investigation's power. Power is directly related to the size of one's sample and is a study's likelihood of detecting statistical differences if, in fact, they exist. Time series analysis, while useful to control for pre-test scores, effectively reduces one's sample size by half. The power estimate of these analyses was only .23. This means that if there were differences among the groups' improvements on the bullying and victimization variables, our analyses had about a 1 in 4 chance of detecting them. Therefore, it is possible that a larger number of students in each condition would have impacted the statistical findings. Future researchers are encouraged to replicate these methods with larger numbers of students to test this hypothesis.

A second explanation accepts the data at face value and allows for an interpretation that "more is not better." The finding that, in this study, teacher and counselor interventions appear to be as effective in reducing self-reported bullying and victimization may be heartening to those school districts that are interested in addressing bullying problems but must work with limited budgets.

Directions for Future Research

Working with intact groups hindered the ability to randomly assign students to treatment groups. This limitation is common among field-based research projects. As such, the study's design may have been subject to systematic error due to the influence of extraneous variables. Systematic error reduces one's confidence that the different levels of treatment were responsible for the observed changes in bullying and victimization scores. For example, it is possible that students in one classroom experienced some form of psychological change that would make them either more or less open to the interventions than those of another classroom. Also, the selection process may have caused one of the groups to be constituted in possession of some unknown trait that would influence its students' ability to attend to and respond to the various levels of the interventions. Researchers interested in conducting similar investigations are encouraged to employ random assignment when constructing their groups.

The researchers were unaware of a bullying bystander-specific scale at the onset of this study. Consequently, no pre-post assessment of bystander victimization was made in this study. Nonetheless, every student in each class participated in all phases of their respective intervention regardless of whether their pre-treatment scores classified them as a bully, victim, or neither. Thus, bystanders also participated in the treatment process. Future researchers are encouraged either to design psychometric measures specific to the assessment of bystanders' experiences or to use proxies that approximate theoretical correlates of witnessing bullying such as anxiety and fearfulness scales. Such measurements would help to determine whether bystanders benefit from participating in bullying and victimization reduction interventions or if specific and targeted interventions are required to help bystanders.

Additionally, future researchers are encouraged to include interventions specifically targeted toward reducing bystander apathy (Latane & Darley, 1968) by encouraging bystanders to become more involved in helping bullying victims. For example, research has demonstrated that willingness to intervene in emergency situations is increased when the situation is non-ambiguous, the bystander feels a sense of responsibility for the victim and feels competent to intervene, and the bystander has witnessed others intervene (Levine, Martinez, Brase, & Sorenson, 1994; Solomon, Solomon, & Stone, 1978). Specific interventions designed to help students cultivate a sense of responsibility for their peers and learn effective bullying intervention techniques would be helpful.

Conclusion

Bullying and victimization by bullying occur at a very young age. This study found that school-based interventions targeted at reducing self-reported bullying and victimization can be effective among this age group. In the case of victimization, the addition of multimedia interventions to counselor and teacher interventions produced significant reductions of self-reported victimization that were not observed when students received only the counselor and teacher interventions. Alternatively, self-reported bullying was reduced by the counselor and teacher intervention alone and by the counselor, teacher, videos, and CD-ROM conditions, but not by the counselor, teacher, and video conditions. While these preliminary findings are encouraging, the exact impact upon these scores of the varying levels of multimedia interventions is unclear and bears further investigation in the future.

APPENDIX A

Multimedia Used

1. Boulden Publishing (Producer). (1999). Buddy learns about bullying [Motion picture]. (Available from Boulden Publishing Co., Inc., Weaverville, CA 96053)

2. Boulden Publishing (Producer). (2000). Bully & victim: Quiz show [Motion picture]. (Available from Boulden Publishing Co., Inc., Weaverville, CA 96053)

3. Boulden Publishing (Producer). (2000). Push and shove [Motion picture]. (Available from Boulden Publishing Co., Inc., Weaverville, CA 96053)

4. Boulden Publishing. (2000). Push and Shove [Computer software]. Weaverville, CA: Author.

References

Bandura, A. (1973).Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Brinson, J. A., Kottler, J. A., & Fisher, T. A. (2004). Cross-cultural conflict resolution in the schools: Some practical intervention strategies for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 294-301.

Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.

Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K.W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22, 364-382.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2003). Identifying and targeting risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 577-582.

D'Andrea, M. (2004). Comprehensive school-based violence prevention training: A developmental-ecological training model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 277-286.

Eslea, M., & Flees, J. (2001). At what age are children most likely to be bullied at school? Aggressive Behavior, 27, 419-429.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers, and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81-91.

Gladden, M. R. (2002). Reducing school violence: Strengthening student programs and addressing the role of school organizations. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 2002 (pp. 263-299).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004).Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400.

Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Harris, I. M. (2004). Evaluating peace education. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.uwsp.edu/history/WlPCS/JSPC2004/Harris.pdf

Kumpulainen, K.,& Rasanen, E. (2000).Children involved in bullying at elementary school age: Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence. An epidemiological sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1567-1577.

Lane, D. A. (1989).Violent histories: Bullying and criminality. In D. P. Tattum & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 94-104). Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books.

Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.

Lees, S. (1993). Sugar and spice: Sexuality and adolescent girls. London: Penugin.

Levine, K.V., Martinez, T. S., Brase, G., & Sorenson, K. (1994). Helping in 36 U.S. cities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 69-82.

Lipman, E. L. (2003). Don't let anyone bully you into thinking bullying is not important! Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 575-576.

Lumsden, L. (2002). Preventing bullying (ERIC Digest 155). Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed463563.html

Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Bullying in infant classes: Roles taken, stability and relationship to sociometric status. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 49, 453-469.

Newcombe, A. F., Bu kowski, W. W., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 173, 99-128.

Newman, M. L., Holden, G.W., & Delville, Y. (2005). Isolation and the stress of being bullied. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 343-357.

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

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership, 60, 12-17.

Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. F. (1998), Bullying prevention program: Blueprints for violence prevention, book nine. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Phillips, C. (2003).Who's who in the pecking order? Aggression and "normal violence" in the lives of girls and boys. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 710-728.

Reynolds, W. M. (2003). Bully victimization: Reynolds scales for schools. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583-590.

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.

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

Solomon, L. Z., Solomon, H., & Stone, R. (1978). Helping as a function of bystanders and ambiguity of emergency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(2), 318-321.

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.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). Addressing the problem of juvenile bullying. (Publication No. FS-200127). Washington, DC: Author.

Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A multi-method comparison of popular and unpopular children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 571-575.

Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M. R., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the safe schools initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education.

Wilkins-Shurmer, A., O'Callaghan, M. J., Najman, J. M., Bor, W., Williams, G. M., & Anderson, M. J. (2003). Association of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39, 436-441.

Laura McLaughlin is a school counselor with Toledo Public Schools, Toledo, OH. E-mail: [e-mail]

John M. Laux and Lisa Pescara-Kovach are assistant professors at the University of Toledo.

Table 1. Pre- and Post-Intervention and Victimization Scores
and Coefficient Alphas

Scale                    Mean    SD    Range   [alpha]

Bullying
Control group pre        59.6   15.1   44-99
Control group post       56.6   16.8   44-99
Group 1 pre              49.2    9.3   44-89
Group 1 post             48.1    8.0   44-82
Group 2 pre              49.8    8.8   44-90
Group 2 post             46.2    4.8   44-68
Combined bullying                              .92

Victimization
Control group pre        59.6   15.1   44-99
Control group post       56.6   16.8   44-99
Group 1 pre              49.2    9.3   44-89
Group 1 post             48.1    8.0   44-82
Group 2 pre              49.8    8.8   44-90
Group 2 post             46.2    4.8   44-68
Combined victimization                         .92

Table 2. Paired t Tests for Pre- and Post-Intervention
Bullying and Victimization Scores

                 t    df  p value   Cohen's d

Bullying
Control group   1.8   35     .04       .19
Group 1         1.1   33     .15       .13
Group 2 pre     3.5   39    .001       .47

Victimization
Control group   1.5   35     .08       .18
Group 1         3.9   33    .001       .43
Group 2 pre     2.8   39    .004       .48

Table 3. Changes in Reynolds Categorical Classification from
Pre--to Post-Intervention for Bullying and Victimization Scores

                         Control      Intervention  Intervention
                         Group          Group 1       Group 2

Bullying Category        Pre   Post   Pre   Post    Pre   Post
Normal                    20     26    29     32     34     39
Clinically elevated        6      3     4      0      4      0
Moderately severe          2      1     0      1      0      1
Frequent bullying          8      6     1      1      2      1

Victimization Category
Normal                    25     30    22     28     27     32
Clinically elevated        7      3     3      4      6      4
Moderately severe          2      2     6      0      3      3
Frequent victim            2      1     3      2      3      1