BULLY PREVENTION AND
INTERVENTION & THREAT
ASSESSMENT
Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D.
Professor, Child Development Division; Educational Psychology, Univ. of Illinois
espelage@illinois.edu
www.espelageagainstbullying.com
Joey Merrin, Ed.M.
Doctoral Candidate, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control
& Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)
University of Illinois Anti-Bullying Program
•
Indiana University Teen Conflict Survey (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Espelage et al., 2000,
2001)
•
▫
University of Illinois Bullying Research Program
▫
INTERVIEW STUDY (Espelage & Asidao, 2001)
▫
EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE STUDY (Espelage, 1998)
▫
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS STUDY (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Espelage, Green, &
Wasserman, 2007; Espelage, Green, & Polanin, in press)
▫
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, DATING VIOLENCE, & BULLYING STUDIES (Holt & Espelage, 2003; Holt &
Espelage, 2005; Espelage & Holt, 2006)
▫
ATTRIBUTION, COPING STYLES, & BULLYING (Kingsbury & Espelage, 2006)
▫
THEORY OF MIND, EMPATHY, & BULLYING (Espelage et al., 2004; Mayberry & Espelage, 2006)
▫
HOMOPHOBIA, SEXUAL VIOLENCE, & BULLYING (Poteat & Espelage, 2006; Espelage et al., 2008)
▫
Sexual Orientation, Bullying, & Mental Health Outcomes (Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008;
Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009)
CDC Federally-funded Grants:
▫
Bullying & SV Overlap (2007 - 2010)
▫
Randomized Clinical Trial of Middle School Second Step Program (Committee for Children, 2008) in
Reducing Bullying & SV (2009-2013)
Evolutionary Insights Into Risky
Adolescent Behavior (Ellis et al., 2011)
Domain of
Study
Functions of
risky and
aggressive
behavior
Sample Insights
•
•
•
Both Prosocial and antisocial
behavioral strategies function to
control resources
Bullying is a common animal
behavior that increases access to
physical, social, and sexual resources
Adolescents are adapted to engage
in bullying when the conditions are
right
Sample Implications for Intervention
•
•
•
Many antibullying interventions fail because they
are based on false stereotypes about the social
incompetence of bullies.
Interventions need to alter the cost-benefit ratio of
bullying so that it is no longer an adaptive
strategy in the school ecology.
Interventions should try to substitute more
prosocial strategies that yield outcomes that are
comparable to those achieved through bullying
Evolutionary Insights Into Risky
Adolescent Behavior (Ellis et al., 2011)
Domain of
Study
Conditional
adaptation
to stressful
environments
Sample Insights
•
•
Stressful experiences direct or regulate
development toward strategies that
are adaptive under stressful conditions
Exposures to harsh and unpredictable
environments each uniquely increase
risky adolescent behavior
Sample Implications for Intervention
•
•
•
Interventions should be careful of declawing
the cat.
Band-Aid solutions that do not address
causative environmental conditions will not
effectively change high-risk behaviors.
Interventions need to alter social contexts in
ways that--through changes in the experiences
of at-risk-youth—induce an understanding that
they can lead longer, healthier, more
predictable lives.
Definition of Bullying (Swearer, 2001)

Bullying happens when someone hurts or scares another
person on purpose and the person being bullied has a
hard time defending himself or herself. Usually, bullying
happens over and over.
Punching, shoving and other acts that hurt people physically
 Spreading bad rumors about people
 Keeping certain people out of a “group”
 Teasing people in a mean way
 Getting certain people to “gang up” on others
 Use of technology

Bully/Victim Continuum
Bully – reports bullying others
 Victim – reports being bullied by others
 Bully-victim – reports bullying others &

being bullied

Bystander – reports observing others being
bullied

No Status/Not involved – does not report
any involvement with bullying
Bullying Prevalence

Among 3rd – 8th graders:
 15% Chronically Victimized
 17% Ringleader Bullies
 8% Bully-Victims
 60% Bystanders
Only 13% intervene to help victim
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003)
Cyber-Bullying
“Cyber-bullying involves the use of
information and communication
technologies to support deliberate,
repeated, and hostile behavior by an
individual or group, that is intended to
harm others."
(Bill Belsey: www.cyberbullying.ca)
http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-psa-oncyberbullying-from-the-national-crime-preventioncouncil-2398263.html
Technology Use by Youth
Most children and adolescents are online (93%) –
but not all are (7% are not)
Many (73%) are on Face book and other social
network sites
 But

very few (8%) are tweeting
Constantly text messaging? YES
 72%
of teens text; at an average of 112 texts
per day
CyberBullying (Ybarra, 2012)
Cyberbullying (bullying online)
affects between 15-17% of
youth each year; harassment
affects about 38%
• More than 4 in 5 youth who use the
Internet are *not* cyberbullied
About 1/3 of bullied and
harassed youth are very or
extremely upset
• 2/3 bullied and harassed youth are less
affected
Bullying is most commonly an
in-person experience (21%
are bullied exclusively this
way).
• For a concerning minority (8%), bullying
is ubiquitous (in person, online, via text)
Internet victimization is not
increasing
• Text messaging victimization may be
increasing…
Bullying Prevention –
Meta-analysis (Merrell et al., 2008)






Evaluated effectiveness of 16 bullying efficacy studies across
some six countries (six studies in US).
Only two of six US studies published.
All showed small to negligible effects.
Small positive effects found for enhancing social competence
and peer acceptance, and increasing teacher knowledge and
efficacy in implementing interventions.
Reality—No impact on bullying behaviors.
Farrington & Tfoti (2009) – programs that are effective in European country
include parents, use of multimedia, and target teacher’s competence in
responding to bullying.
Bullying Prevention –Why little success?
Majority of the programs fail to recognize that bullying co-occurs with other
types of aggression, including sexual violence, dating aggression, and
homophobic banter.
•
Programs often fail to address basic life and social skills that kids may need
to effectively respond to bullying.
•
Only one program directs prevention efforts at the key context that promotes
and sustains bullying perpetration – the peer group.
•
No programs consider the impact of family and community violence on
bullying prevalence .
•
•
All programs fail to address the extent to which demographic variables (such
as gender and race) and implementation levels impact a program’s
effectiveness.
12
www.
www.guilford.com
Social-Ecological Perspective
Society
Community
School
Family
Child
/Peers
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Swearer & Doll, 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003;
Espelage & Horne, 2007)
Individual Correlates of Bullying
Involvement








Depression/Anxiety
Empathy
Delinquency
Impulsivity
Other forms of Aggression
Alcohol/Drug Use
Positive Attitudes toward Violence/Bullying
Low Value for Prosocial Behaviors

For review (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Espelage & Horne, 2007)
Family & School Risk Factors

FAMILY
– Lack of supervision
– Lack of attachment
– Negative, critical
relationships
– Lack of discipline/
consequences
– Support for violence
– Modeling of violence

SCHOOL
– Lack of supervision
– Lack of attachment
– Negative, critical
relationships
– Lack of discipline/
consequences
– Support for violence
– Modeling of violence
For review (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Espelage & Horne, 2007)
Sibling Bullying


Sibling bullying is tied to school-based bullying in
many countries (Espelage & Swearer, 2003 for
review)
Study of 779 middle school students, association
between bullying perpetration and sibling
aggression perpetration was strongly associated
(girls r = .52, boys r = .42; Espelage & Stein, in
prep)
Relation Between Bullying & Other
Victimization Forms



Child maltreatment has been associated with difficulties in
peer relations (Jacobsen & Straker, 1992; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001)
Exposure to domestic violence has been linked to bullying
perpetration (Baldry, 2003)
Study of 779 middle school students, association between
bullying perpetration and family violence victimization was
moderately associated for females (r = .31) and bullying
perpetration was also related to neighborhood violence
victimization (r = .40; Espelage & Stein, in prep)
Homophobic Language & Bullying




Approximately 22% of middle school students (n = 4,302)
report teasing another student because he/she was gay
(16.6% girls, 26.1% boys; Koenig & Espelage, 2003)
17.7% of high school students (n = 4,938) reported teasing
another student because he/she was gay (9.2% girls, 26.2%
boys; Koenig & Espelage, 2003)
Bullying and homophobia perpetration strongly related
among middle school students (r = .61; Poteat & Espelage,
2005)
Homophobia victimization was reported more by males than
females (Poteat & Espelage, 2007)
Poteat & Espelage (2005)


Bullying and homophobia are strongly interrelated for
males and females
Homophobic content and empathy
 Similar
to past findings for attitudinal homophobia and
empathy (Johnson, Brems, & Alford-Keating, 1997)

Homophobic content and school belonging
 Similar
to past findings for LGBT students and isolation,
stigmatization (Uribe & Harbeck, 1991)

Homophobic content and anxiety/depression
 Negative
consequences to “harmless” banter?
Openness to friends and schools
(Poteat, Espelage, Koenig, 2009)

To what extent are heterosexual youth willing to
remain friends with lesbian and gay peers after
disclosure?
 This
would reflect a removal of an already existing
support system
 This may differ from befriending someone already
known to be gay or lesbian


To what extent are heterosexual youth willing to
attend school with lesbian and gay students?
We expected gender and grade differences
Description of Studies

Dane County Youth Survey 2005 (Study 1)
 Countywide,
school-based
 Limitations to sexual orientation item

Dane County Youth Survey 2008 (Study 2)
 Same
locations and procedures
 Improved item for sexual orientation
Study 1

Study 1
 Middle
school: N = 7,376; High school: N = 13,133
 Gender:
 Racial
50.7% girls m.s.; 50.3% girls h.s.
identity: 72.7% White1 m.s.; 79.7% White2 h.s.
 Sexual
orientation: 75.2% heterosexual m.s.
84.9% heterosexual h.s.
1. 72.7% White, 7.7% bi/multi-racial, 6.9% African American, 5.2.% Asian American, 3.7% Latino/a, 1.1% Native American, 2.6%
“Other”
2. 79.7% White, 5.2% bi/multi-racial, 4.7% Asian American, 4.2% African American, 3.5% Latino/a, 0.9% Native American, 1.8%
“Other”
Study 1 Question

Study 1
 Question:
“I could never stay friends with someone
who told me he or she was gay or lesbian”
 Response
options:
0 = strongly agree
 1 = agree
 2 = disagree
 3 = strongly disagree

Higher scores = more willing
remain friends
Study 2

Study 2
 Middle
school: N = 5,470; High school: N = 11,447
 Gender:
 Racial
50.2% girls m.s.; 49.8% girls h.s.
identity: 71.5% White1 m.s.; 75.5% White2 h.s.
 Sexual
orientation: 85.3% heterosexual m.s.
87.9% heterosexual h.s.
1. 71.5% White, 7.7% bi/multi-racial, 7.5% African American, 5.2% Latino/a, 4.4.% Asian American, 1.2% Native American, 2.2%
“Other”
2. 75.5% White, 6.7% African American, 6.1% bi/multi-racial, 4.5% Asian American, 4.1% Latino/a, 1.0% Native American, 1.7%
“Other”
Study 2 Question

Study 2
 Question:
“I would rather attend a school where there
are no gay or lesbian students”
 Response
options:
0 = strongly agree
 1 = agree
 2 = disagree
 3 = strongly disagree

Higher scores = more
willing to attend school
with gay/lesbian students
Study 1 Results

Boys reported less willingness to remain friends
F
(1, 16243) = 1229.36, p < .001, η2 = .07
 Boys:
M = 1.91 (SD = 0.94)
 Girls: M = 2.37 (SD = 0.78)

Students in lower grades reported less willingness to
remain friends
F
(5, 16243) = 124.77, p < .001, η2 = .04
 All
grade differences significant except 9/10
Distribution of Responses by Grade
Grade 7
30.4%
Grade 8
25.9%
Grade 10
16.8%
Grade 9
18.5%
Grade 11
13.4%
Grade 12
10.8%
Study 2 Results

Boys reported less desire to attend school with
lesbian and gay students
F
(1, 13363) = 1330.81, p < .001, η2 = .09
 Boys:
M = 1.63 (SD = 1.04)
 Girls: M = 2.22 (SD = 0.88)

Students in lower grades reported less desire to
attend school with lesbian and gay students
F
(5, 13363) = 104.72, p < .001, η2 = .04
 No
difference between 9/10, 10/11, or 11/12
Distribution of Responses by Grade
Grade 7
44.5%
Grade 8
34.0%
Grade 10
25.2%
Grade 9
26.4%
Grade 11
23.1%
Grade 12
20.6%
LGBT Bullying is Driven by Peers

Adolescent peer groups play a significant role in
the formation and maintenance of harmful and
aggressive behaviors, particularly homophobic
behavior (Espelage & Polanin, 2010; Poteat,
Espelage, & Green, 2009)

Peers influence has to be considered in
developing and evaluating prevention/intervention
programs

Only one bullying prevention program attempts to target
and shift peer norms and mentions LGBT bullying.
BULLYING PERPETRATION & SUBSEQUENT
SEXUAL VIOLENCE PERPETRATION AMONG
MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS
D o r o t h y L . E s p e l a g e , P h . D.
University of Illinois, Urbana -Champaign
&
Ka t h l e e n C . B a s i l e , P h . D.
Division of Violence Prevention
Centers for Disease Control & Pr evention, Atlanta, Geor gia
M e r l e E . H a m b u r g e r, P h . D.
This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
(#1u01/ce001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)
Bullying & Sexual Harassment Overlap



Bully perpetration associated with sexual harassment
perpetration among middle and high school students.
Bully victimization is associated with sexual harassment
victimization.
A large percentage of bullying among students involves the use
of homophobic teasing and slurs, called homophobic teasing or
victimization.
Bully-Sexual Violence Pathway



Emerging theory – bullying perpetration & homophobic teasing
are thought to be predictive of sexual violence over time.
Bullying is associated with increasing homophobic teasing
perpetration during early adolescence.
When students engage in homophobic teasing, sexual
perpetration may develop as students are developing oppositesex attractions and sexual harassment becomes more prevalent.
Definitions



Bullying: An act of intentionally inflicting injury or
discomfort upon another person (through physical
contact, through words or in other ways) repeatedly
and over time for the purpose of intimidation and/or
control.
Homophobic Teasing: Negative attitudes and
behaviors directed toward individuals who identify as
or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgendered.
Sexual Harassment: Includes comments, sexual rumor
spreading, or groping.
Participants of Current Study





1,391 middle school students
5 middle schools (grades 5 – 8)
49.8% Females
59% African-American, 41% Caucasian
67% Low-Income
Procedure
Meetings with school parents,
teachers, administrators
 Newsletters, parent information
forms
 Surveys administered to students
in Spring 2008 and then Fall 2008
 Items on scales aggregated

Bully Perpetration
In the 30 days, how often did you do the following to other students at school?
I teased other students.
In a group I teased other students.
I upset other students for the fun of it.
I excluded others.
I encouraged people to fight.
I spread rumors about others.
I was mean to someone when angry.
I helped harass other students.
I started arguments or conflicts.
Response options: Never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or 6 times, or 7 or more times
Homophobic Teasing Perpetration
Some kids call each other names like homo, gay, fag, or dyke. How many
times in the last 30 days did YOU say these words……
To a friend
Someone you did not like
Someone you did not know
Someone you thought was gay
Someone you thought was not gay
Sexual Harassment Perpetration
In the last year, how often did you do the following to other students at school?
Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures..
Showed, gave, or left sexual pictures,….
Pulled at clothing of another student
Wrote sexual messages/graffiti about them…
Spread sexual rumors about them.
Touched, grabbed, or pinched..sexual way
Pulled at their clothing
Blocked their way or cornered them in a sexual way
Response options: Not Sure, Never, Rarely, Sometimes, & Often
Percentages of Bullies
Percentages of Homophobic Teaser
Percentages of
Sexual Harassment Perpetration
Longitudinal Results
Bullying
Perpetration
Wave 1
+
+
+
Homophobic
Teasing
Perpetration
Wave 1
Sexual
Harassment
Perpetration
Wave 2
+
Controlling for:
Sexual
Harassment
Perpetration
Wave 1
+
CAUSAL LINK: Bullying – Homophobic Teasing
Bully
Time
1
Bully
Time
2
Bully
Time
3
Bully
Time
4
0.325
0.30
0.25
0.375
HPC
Time
1
Bully
Time
5
HPC
Time
2
HPC
Time
3
HPC
Time
4
HPC
Time
5
Model Fit: χ2 (340, n=790)= 1366.088; RMSEA = .057 (0.053 ; 0.060); NNFI = .0985; CFI = .988; (Espelage & Rao, under review)
Discussion



This research is focused on one kind of sexual
violence – Sexual HARASSMENT
Sexual harassment that does not include forcible
acts like rape.
The findings suggest that bullying perpetration
and homophobic teasing perpetration are
associated with each other and both are
associated with later sexual harassment
perpetration.
Future Analyses Underway




Bullying perpetration causally linked to homophobic
teasing perpetration.
Relation between bullying perpetration and sexual
harassment perpetration explained by homophobic teasing
perpetration.
Association between bullying perpetration and homophobic
perpetration explained by higher levels of traditional
masculinity.
Bullying perpetration, homophobic bullying perpetration,
and sexual harassment perpetration develops from peer
influence, modeling, and socialization.
Suggestions
Addressing homophobic teasing explicitly within a bullying prevention
curriculum may be a way to delay development of sexual harassment.
At a minimum, homophobic teasing should be addressed by adults:
Why little success in preventing
school bullying?

Most frequently used bullying prevention programs DO
NOT incorporate content related to use of homophobic
language & bullying directed at LGBT youth.




23 bullying prevention programs in US, only three mentioned LGBT
bullying; and NONE did this indepth (Birkett & Espelage, 2010)
These include Flirting or Hurting (Stein & Sjorstom, 1996), Step Up
(Madsen et al., 2006), Second Step (CfC, 2008)
Meta-analyses do not include evaluation of Groundspark
videos: Let’s Get Real (2003), Straightlaced (2009).
SOLUTION: Bully State Laws should require bully
prevention plan to include LGBT related material (GSA,
lessons, academic content)
WILLINGNESS TO INTERVENE IN BULLYING EPISODES
AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS: INDIVIDUAL AND
PEER-GROUP INFLUENCES
JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE
Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D.
Professor, Child Development Division; Educational Psychology
espelage@illinois.edu
Harold J. Green, Ph.D.; RAND Corporation
Joshua Polanin, M.A., Loyola University, Chicago
This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control &
Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)
Bystander Intervention




Scholars suggest that including bystanders increases
school-based bullying programs’ effectiveness (Newman,
Horne, & Bartolomucci, 2000; Olweus, 1993; Rigby &
Johnson, 2006).
These researchers advocate encouraging bystanders to
create a more positive school climate through intervening
(e.g., reporting an incident, confronting the bully).
Self-declared bullies and bystanders sometimes report
feeling sorry after bullying their peers though they rarely
intervene in bullying episodes (Borg, 1998).
For example, 43% of an Australian adolescent sample (n
= 400) reported that they would intervene to help a victim
depicted in a videotaped bullying situation (Rigby &
Johnson, 2006).
Bystander Intervention

Observational data indicated a stark contrast in outcome. O’Connell,
Pepler and Craig (1999) videotaped 1st through 6th graders (n = 120)
during recess.
 54% of peers spent their time reinforcing bullies by passively
watching, 21% actively modeled bullies, and only 25% intervened.
 Older boys (grades 4-6) were more likely to join actively with the bully
than were younger boys (grades 1-3) and older girls.
 Younger and older girls intervened on behalf of victims more often
than older boys.
 88% of bullying episodes involved multiple children, but only
intervened 19% of the time.
 57% of the interventions effectively stopped the bullying (Hawkins,
Pepler, & Craig, 2001).
Rigby & Johnson (2006)




Australian primary and secondary students (n = 400) viewed a
videotape of a bullying situation and were subsequently asked
what they would do.
Multiple regression analysis indicated that greater willingness to
intervene was associated with being younger, having rarely or
never bullied others, having been victimized, and having a positive
attitude toward victims.
Students were more likely to intervene if they believed their friends
expected them to support victims.
Friends’ attitudes weighed heavily in a student’s decision to
intervene, highlighting the need for research that addresses peer
influence.
Attitudes & Empathy



Some scholars posit that modifying attitudes supportive of violence
and empathy training positively influence bullying prevention.
Numerous character education, bullying curricula, anger
management, and social problem-solving prevention/intervention
programs include empathy training and promote prosocial,
nonviolent attitudes (e.g., Goldstein, Glick, & Gibbs, 1998;
Newman et al. 2000; Pecukonis, 1990).
These programs are predicated on the assumption that
understanding negative behavior toward others (i.e., empathy) and
engaging in prosocial behavior will decrease an individual’s
bullying behavior.
Research Questions

Are middle school male and female peer groups similar in
their level of willingness to intervene?

Is willingness to intervene stable over 1-year period?

Do attitudes supportive of bullying, empathy, and
perspective-taking predict willingness to intervene over
time?

Does peer-group level bullying predict willingness to
intervene over time?
Participants

210 middle school students (grades 6 – 7)

117 males; 93 females

One mid-western middle schools

94% White, .5% Black, .5% Asian, 2.3%
Biracial, 2.7% Other

Survey completed Spring 2003 & Spring 2004
(Wide range of scales & friendship nominations)
Gender Differences*
*η2 = .27; individual η2s = .25, .13, .27
Gender Differences*
*η2 = .27; individual η2s = .12, .16, .08
Results & Conclusions




In this study (at least for boys) efforts to influence an individual’s willingness
to intervene will be more successful with careful consideration of the
bullying perpetration level among friendship groups.
Findings suggest importance to explore predictors of attitudes and
behaviors across multiple levels, including individual and peer groups.
Lack of attention to peer group influences on bullying attitudes and
behaviors is an unfortunate phenomenon because bystander intervention is
emphasized within some of the most commonly utilized bullying prevention
programs (Newman et al., 2000; Olweus, 1993).
These findings provide support for the practice in many of these programs
to teach students perspective-taking skills.
Bystander Interventions
(Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2011)
•
•
•
•
Meta-analysis synthesized the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs
in altering bystander behavior to intervene in bullying situations.
Evidence from twelve school-based interventions, involving 12,874 students,
revealed that overall the programs were successful (ES = .21, C.I.: .12, .30),
with larger effects for high school samples compared to K-8 student samples
(HS ES = .44, K-8 ES = .13; p = .001).
Analysis of empathy for the victim revealed treatment effectiveness that was
positive but not significantly different from zero (ES = .05, CI: -.07, .17).
Nevertheless, this meta-analysis indicated that programs were effective at
changing bystander behavior both on a practical and statistically significant
level.
60
IMPACT OF A SCHOOL-RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF
STEPS TO RESPECT: A BULLYING PREVENTION
PROGRAM®
Eric C. Brown, Sabina Low, & Kevin P. Haggerty
Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Brian H. Smith
Committee for Children
Seattle, WA
Funded by: Raynier Foundation
Study Purpose
Build upon prior STR evaluation (Frey et al., 2005) by
assessing the efficacy of the STR program in preventing
bullying and bullying-related behaviors among elementary
school children using a rigorous school-randomized design.
Secondary Research Question:
-To examine the predictors, of and outcomes from, program
implementation in intervention schools…
…incorporating the nested design of the original efficacy study.
Program Components:
• School-wide and Parent components
– Program Guide
Develop an anti-bullying policy
Gain staff buy-in
Implementation Information
– Staff Training
– Parent Materials
•
Annual letter from principal
Parent night materials
Parent handouts
•
•
•
•
•
Program Components
• Classroom-based components (3rd-6th grades)
– 10 Skills Lessons that focus on:
Friendship skills
Recognizing bullying
Refusing and reporting bullying
Bystander skills
– Literature Lessons:
Reinforces STR concepts while addressing language arts
objectives
•
•
•
•
•
Study Design
• School-randomized controlled trial
– Elementary schools matched on key demographic variables (size, %FRPL,
mobility rates)
– Randomized to intervention or wait-listed control
– Selected four 3rd-5th grade classrooms to collect data
– One-year, pre-post data collection from school staff, teachers, and students
• Participants
– 33 elementary schools
 in 4 counties in northern, central California
 25% rural, 10% small towns, 50% suburban, 15% mid-sized cities
 Average N of students = 479 (range = 77 to 749)
 Average N of teachers = 24
 Average 40% of students receiving FRL
Study Design
• Participants
– School Staff
 Ns = 1,307 (pretest) and 1,296 (postest)
-Teachers
 N= 128
– Students
 N = 2,940 Students
 94% of target population
 51% Male
 52% White
 42% Hispanic
 6% Asian
 35% Other race/ethnicity
 Age range = 7 to 11 years
Measures
– School Environment Survey (SES)
 six subscales (Mean alpha = .91, range = .82 to .95)
– Teacher Assessment of Student Behavior (TASB)
 five subscales (Mean alpha = .87, range = .80 to .95)
– Teacher Program Implementation Log
 weekly online report of classroom curricula adherence and
student engagement
– Student Survey
13 measures (Mean alpha = .79, range = .68 to .87)
Results
• School Staff
–
–
–
–
–
–
School Anti-Bullying Policies and Strategies (+)
Student Bullying Intervention (+)
Staff Bullying Intervention
Student Climate (+)
Staff Climate (+)
School Bullying-Related Problems (-)
 Average d = .296 (range = .212 for Staff Climate to .382 for
Anti-Bullying Policies and Strategies).
Note: Bolded outcomes indicate significant (p < .05) intervention effects.
Results
• Teacher Report
–
–
–
–
–
Social Competency (+)
Academic Competency
Academic Achievement
Physical Bullying Perpetration (-)
Non-Physical Bullying Perpetration
 d = .131 for Social Competency
 AOR = .609 for Physical Bullying Perpetration
Note: Bolded outcomes indicate significant (p < .05) intervention effects.
Results
Student Report
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Student Support
Student Attitudes Against Bullying
Student Attitudes Toward Bullying Intervention
Teacher/Staff Bullying Prevention (+)
Student Bullying Intervention (+)
Teacher/Staff Bullying Intervention (+)
Positive Bystander Behavior (+)
School Bullying-Related Behaviors
Bullying Perpetration
Bullying Victimization
Student Climate (+)
School Connectedness
Staff Climate
Note: Bolded outcomes indicate significant (p < .05) intervention effects.
Outcomes Related to Program
Implementation

Exposure







School Bullying as a Problem (-)
Student Attitudes Against Bullying (+)
Student Attitudes Toward Bullying Intervention (+)
Student Bullying Intervention (+)
Teacher/Staff Bullying Intervention (+)
Bullying Victimization (-)
Engagement






Student Support (+)
Student Climate (+)
Bullying Victimization (-)
School Connectedness (+)
Student Attitudes against Bullying (+)
Student Attitudes toward Bullying Intervention (+)
Second Step
Committee for Children, 2008
Second Step: Addresses Multiple Issues
Prevalence of
aggression and
bullying in
middle schools
Bullying
program for
middle school
Substance
abuse is a
middle school
prevention
priority
Second Step:
Student
Success
Through
Prevention
One program
that focuses on
multiple issues
Program Goals
Decrease
aggression
and
violence
Decrease
bullying
behaviors
Decrease
substance
abuse
Increase
school
success
Program Goals

Research Foundations
 Risk
and Protective Factors
 Bullying
 Brain Research
 Positive Approaches to Problem Behavior
 Developmental Needs of Young Adolescents
Prevention Research Supports One
Program Targeting Multiple Issues

Risk and protective factors are at the heart of
Second Step: Student Success Through Prevention
 Many
of the same factors predict substance abuse,
violence, delinquency and school failure.
76
Risk and Protective Factors Addressed in the
Second Step Program
Risk Factors
 Inappropriate classroom behavior
 Favorable attitudes towards
violence or substance use
 Friends who engage in violence or
substance use
 Early initiation of violence or
substance use
 Peer rewards for antisocial behavior
 Peer rejection
 Impulsiveness
Protective Factors

Social skills

School connectedness

Adoption of conventional norms
about substance use
Levels and Lessons


50 minutes to teach a complete lesson
Each lesson is divided into two parts that can be taught
separately
78
Teaching strategies


Use of DVD with rich multi-media content to
accompany each lesson
Carefully constructed approach to partner
and group work






Class discussion and activities
Partner or group exchanges
Individual, partner, or group activities
Partner or group skill practices
Individual reflection
Frequent review of core skills and concepts
79
Increasing Student Exposure to
Lesson Content





Additional practice activity
Reflective writing assessment
Homework
Integration activities
Journal page
80
Five Program Themes

Each level includes the following five themes:
 Empathy
and communication
 Bullying prevention
 Emotion management
 Coping
with stress (grades 7 and 8)
 Problem-solving
 Decision-making
(grade 7)
 Goal-setting (grade 8)
 Substance
abuse prevention
81
Substance Abuse Prevention
Tobacco, Marijuana, Alcohol and Inhalants






Health, personal and social consequences of using
alcohol and other drugs
Preferred future
Making good decisions about friends
Normative education
Resistance skills
Making a commitment
82
Implications for
Prevention Programming



Need to give kids life and social skills, not just knowledge
about bullying
Need to develop secondary and tertiary programs, not just
primary prevention programs
Bullying programs need to consider incorporating
discussion of sexual harassment and (homophobic
language; Birkett & Espelage, 2010).


67 bullying prevention programs in US, only five discuss sexual
harassment or sexual orientation issues.
Peers influence has to be considered in developing and
evaluating prevention/intervention programs

67 bullying prevention programs, only one attempts to target and
shift peer norms.
Implications for Prevention
Programming

Recognize that students are witnessing and
involved in violence in their homes. We need to
give them alternatives to violence for solving
problems and conflicts.

Consider how the use of technology is influencing
relationships and talk to kids about responsible
use of technology.
Realistic Strategies


Simple strategies can help to decrease bullying
 Use data to make decisions (i.e., Increase hallway monitors;
reduce time between classes)
 Involve PE teachers and coaches in stopping bullying behaviors
With your support, students can play an important role in
decreasing bullying
 Implement a procedure to allow students to confidentially
repot bullying incidents
 Take all bullying reports seriously!
 Create a confidential reporting system
 Have an open door policy with counselors to address the
needs of students involved in bullying
Realistic Strategies






Make sure your school has an anti-bullying policy that is
consistent with state and federal policies
Make sure the adult workplace models healthy social
relationships
Work respectfully and collaboratively with families
Use videos and classroom discussion guides to talk about the
detrimental effects of bullying
Use social-emotional learning activities to create a positive
school climate
Use a positive behavioral interventions and supports to respond
effectively to student behaviors
Realistic Strategies

2008 meta-analysis by Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry
found that reductions in bullying were associated with:
Parent training
 Increased playground supervision
 Non-punitive disciplinary methods
 Home-school communication
 Effective classroom rules
 Effective classroom management
 Embed in curriculum

Thank you!

Dorothy L. Espelage
 espelage@illinois.edu
 www.espelageagainstbullying.com

Joey Merrin
 gjmerrin@illinois.edu