Introduction
Tackling bullying is a priority issue for children and
schools. Research on bullying prevalence identifies
that it a pervasive problem, and one that endures over
time for a significant minority of young people
(Sharp, Thompson & Arora, 2000). The negative
outcomes of bullying, for both bully and victim, are
well-established (Rigby, 2003).
Previous research into bullying interventions has
highlighted the need for eco-systemic approaches that
emphasise whole-school policies and practices
(Olweus, 1993; Smith, Ananiadou & Cowie, 2003).
Systematic reviews of such universal prevention
programmes have concluded that that these have
moderate success, with most studies claiming no
more than 15% reductions in bullying (Vreeman &
Carroll, 2007).
This study evaluated the impact of responsive
interventions for bullying, where the research
literature is more limited. It compared the impact of a
traditional ‘rules and sanctions’ based approach to
dealing with bullying, to the use of SCM - a nonpunitive mediative approach.
The Method of Shared Concern (SCM) is a structured mediative approach to tackling bullying amongst groups of
young people. Whilst survey data and reports from mediators suggest positive outcomes of the approach (Duncan,
1996; Pikas, 2002), there have been limited empirical studies in this area. Debate has focused on the comparative
effectiveness of such non-punitive approaches compared to a traditional ‘rules and sanctions’ approach.
This study compared outcomes for pupils identified as bullies and victims in Key Stage 3, where the school had
intervened using either SCM or a sanctions-based approach. Outcomes measures suggested responsive intervention
reduced peer perceptions of bullying, but did not impact on self-reported bullying or victimisation. Pupil and staff
perceptions of intervention success were generally more positive than quantitative measures.
This aims to loosen harmful group dynamics, reindividualise the bullies, help them to make conscious
their reservations about the bullying, and develop a
shared concern for the victim.
Stage 2: Individual talk with the victim to
listen to their views and share constructive
outcomes of stage 1.
Stage 3: Group meeting with the bullies to
share and reinforce positive change
This should take place after there is evident progress
towards improvement. If needed, further individual
talks may be held.
Research Questions
Stage 4: Summit meeting between the victim
and former bullies
•How successful is SCM in reducing the victimisation of bullied pupils compared to a sanctions-based approach?
•How successful is SCM in reducing the bullying behaviour of pupils identified as bullies compared to a sanctions-based
approach?
This should confirm that acceptable relationships have
been established, and if necessary, a future plan may be
agreed.
Questions & implications
ƒIntervention with pupils identified as bullies
time for all pupils. This was mirrored by a reduction in self-reported bullying over
time for all pupils.
•Analysis of peer nomination of victimisation revealed a significant interaction
between time and school intervention, with greater reductions in intervention
(SCM) than control schools.
•Analysis of peer nominations of bullying found a significant time by bully status
interaction. Pupils targeted for intervention as bullies showed significant
decreases in peer nominations of bullying over time, whereas this measure did not
change for other pupils.
•The means suggests that the largest magnitudes of change in self-reported and peernominated bullying and victimisation were for pupils involved in SCM (see figures
right). However, the small effect sizes meant that this difference was not significant.
Perceptions of success
•The mean rating from mediators of the success of SCM was 4.35 on a 5 point
scale.
•Ratings from pupils indicate that victims had more positive perceptions of
Impact
of intervention
on victimisation
interventions than
bullies.
The difference
was statistically significant.
reduces peer-nominations of bullying. Sanctions and
SCM were equally as effective in generating this
change
ƒDecreases for all pupils in self-reported bullying
and victimisation suggest a maturational effect.
Reductions in self reported bullying and victimisation
are also evident for pupils targeted for intervention.
The magnitude of the change is not related to the
type of intervention used.
ƒThere is a small positive effect of SCM on overall
peer nominations of victimisation, perhaps mediated
by changes in staff and classroom ethos
ƒTeachers and victims of bullying hold positive views
about the success of SCM. Bullies view the success of
teacher intervention less favourably. There is no
significant difference in pupil perceptions of the
SCM
and of
sanctions-based
Impact
intervention onapproaches
bullying
•The impact of responsive
interventions in bullying needs to be
carefully monitored using a range of
measures to ensure that changes
take place and that they are
maintained.
•Could poor fidelity of intervention
implementation have contributed to
the lack of more positive findings for
SCM? When working with schools to
introduce new approaches for
bullying, there is a need to ensure
that training is sufficient and to
provide ongoing support to staff.
•What are the barriers in identifying
and intervening in bullying? The lack
of statistically significant findings
may have been attributable to low
power and low sample size. Schools
may need support in identification
of issues and to promote motivation
for intervention. Future research
needs to include larger sample sizes.
Pupil perceptions of impact
4.5
Victim
4
Bully
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Helpfulness of Impact on own Impact on others’
teacher intervention behaviour
behaviour
Mean rating
Proportion of peers
nominating as ‘bully’
Conclusions
•Analysis of OBVQ scores revealed a reduction in self-reported victimisation over
Self reported bullying score on OBVQ Scale B
References:
Duncan, A. (1996). The shared concern method for resolving group
bullying in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 12, 94-98.
Frederickson, N. L., & Graham, B. (1999). Social skills and emotional
intelligence. In N. L. Frederickson, & R. J. Cameron (Eds.), Psychology in
education portfolio. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Goodman R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire for
students. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.
Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the shared concern method. School
Psychology International, 23, 307-326.
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry, 48, 583-590.
Sharp, S., Thompson, D., & Arora, T. (2000). How long before it hurts?
School Psychology International, 21, 37-46.
Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce
school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 591-599.
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of schoolbased interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78-88.
Abstract
Proportion of peers nominating
as ‘bullying victim’
The study used a non-randomised between
participants block design. Four secondary
schools were recruited. Two schools acted as
intervention schools, in which selected school
staff were trained in SCM. Staff used SCM in
Key Stage 3 over a period of two terms. Two
schools acted as control schools, and continued
to use a sanctions-based approach to bullying.
Pupils in identified year groups completed the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ)
(Olweus, 1996), the Guess Who peer
nomination inventory (Frederickson &
Graham, 1999), and the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman,
1997) to provide pre- and post-measures. Pupil
and staff perceptions of intervention success
were also collected. Analysis included data
from 298 pupils, including 17 victims and 30
bullies.
Jennifer Singleton, University College London and Kingston EPS
Stage 1: Individual talks with the bullies, to
elicit a shared concern and stimulate
constructive solutions
Analysis of quantitative measures
Self reported victimisation
- score on OBVQ Scale A
Method
The Effectiveness of Method of Shared
Concern in Tackling Bullying
Stages of SCM
(adapted from Pikas, 2002)