Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 61–76 | Cite as

Reducing Bullying and Victimization: Student- and Classroom-Level Mechanisms of Change

  • Silja Saarento
  • Aaron J. Boulton
  • Christina Salmivalli
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This longitudinal study examines the mediating mechanisms by which the KiVa antibullying program, based on the Participant Role approach, reduces bullying and victimization among elementary school students. Both student-level mechanisms leading to reduced perpetration of bullying and classroom-level mechanisms leading to reductions in bullying and victimization are considered. Analyses are based on a sample of 7,491 students (49.5 % boys) nested within 421 classrooms within 77 schools. At the beginning of program implementation, the children were in Grades 4, 5, and 6 (mean age 11.3 years). Multilevel structural equation modeling was used to analyze whether changes in the hypothesized mediators accounted for later reductions in the outcomes. At the student level, antibullying attitudes and perceptions regarding peers’ defending behaviors and teacher attitudes toward bullying mediated the effects of KiVa on self-reported bullying perpetration. The effects on peer-reported bullying were only mediated by antibullying attitudes. At the classroom level, the program effects on both self- and peer-reported bullying were mediated by students’ collective perceptions of teacher attitudes toward bullying. Also, perceived reinforcing behaviors predicted bullying but did not emerge as a significant mediator. Finally, bullying mediated the effects of the classroom-level factors on victimization. These findings enhance knowledge of the psychosocial developmental processes contributing to bullying and victimization and shed light on the key mechanisms by which school bullying can successfully be counteracted.

Keywords

Bullying Victimization Bystander behaviors Antibullying program Multilevel structural equation modeling Mediation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2006). Constructing covariates in multilevel regression. Mplus Web Notes: No. 11. February 15, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Branson, C. E., & Cornell, D. G. (2009). A comparison of self and peer reports in the assessment of middle school bullying. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caravita, S. C. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornell, D. G., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2010). The assessment of bullying. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 265–276). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Eisner, M. P., & Malti, T. (2012). The future of research on evidence-based developmental violence prevention. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6, 166–175.Google Scholar
  6. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512.Google Scholar
  8. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). Vulnerable children in varying classroom contexts: Bystanders’ behaviors moderate the effects of risk factors on victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Alanen, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011a). Going to scale: A nonrandomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for Grades 1-9. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 796–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011b). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1-3 and 7-9. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When "good" indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4, 192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300.Google Scholar
  17. Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable approach to group-level effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13, 203–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacEvoy, J. P., & Leff, S. S. (2012). Children’s sympathy for peers who are the targets of peer aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 1137–1148.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacKinnon, D. P. (1994). Analysis of mediating variables in prevention and intervention research. In A. Cázares & L. A. Beatty (Eds.) Scientific methods in prevention research (pp. 127-153). NIDA Research Monograph 139. DHHS Pub. No. 94-3631. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print Office.Google Scholar
  20. MacKinnon, D. P., Weber, M. D., & Pentz, M. A. (1989). How do school-based drug prevention programs work and for whom? Drugs & Society, 3, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marks, P. E. L., Babcock, B., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Crick, N. R. (2013). The effects of participation rate on the internal reliability of peer nomination measures. Social Development, 22, 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, T. D., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2011). Beyond multilevel regression modeling: Multilevel analysis in a general latent variable framework. In J. Hox & J. K. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of Advanced Multilevel Analysis (pp. 15–40). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  24. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  25. Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  26. Pituch, K. A., & Stapleton, L. M. (2012). Distinguishing between cross- and cluster-level mediation in the cluster randomized trial. Sociological Methods & Research, 41, 630–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.Google Scholar
  28. Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying?: The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prentice, D. A. (2008). Mobilizing and weakening peer influence as mechanisms for changing behavior: Implications for alcohol intervention programs. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 161–180). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryu, E., & West, S. G. (2009). Level-specific evaluation of model fit in multilevel structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saarento, S., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011, March). Student-, classroom-, and school- level risk factors for bullying. Poster session presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  35. Saarento, S., Kärnä, A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Student-, classroom-, and school-level risk factors for victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 421–434.Google Scholar
  36. Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Victims and their defenders: A dyadic approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010a). From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 441–454). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010b). Development, evaluation, and diffusion of a national anti-bullying program (KiVa). In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Eds.), Handbook of youth prevention science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/.
  44. Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.Google Scholar
  45. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., & Little, T. (2012). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on adolescents’ depression, anxiety, and perception of peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 289–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2007). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. In M. E. Sobel & M. P. Becker (Eds.), Sociological Methodology 2000 (pp. 165–200). Washington, D.C.: ASA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silja Saarento
    • 1
  • Aaron J. Boulton
    • 2
  • Christina Salmivalli
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Edith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia

Personalised recommendations