Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 433–441 | Cite as

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a commentary

  • Peter K. Smith
  • Christina Salmivalli
  • Helen Cowie
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Recent decades have seen a focus on intervention programs to reduce school bullying, in light of the severe negative consequences of such behavior. A recent meta-analysis by Ttofi and Farrington (Journal of Experimental Criminology 7: 27–56, 2011) provided encouraging findings in terms of some significant reductions in bullying and victimization achieved by many programs. They also report analyses of effect sizes associated with specific program elements and design features of the interventions. While this is an important step forward, we critique some of the strong policy implications which they draw from these latter analyses.

Methods

We discuss four important areas to substantiate this critique: analytical procedure, definitional issues, historical issues, and recent empirical data. As context, we use two particular program elements described by Ttofi and Farrington, namely use of disciplinary measures and work with peers, and one design feature, namely age of pupils.

Results

The findings for the program elements and design feature examined are complex and do not justify strong policy implications at this stage.

Conclusions

We conclude with suggestions for future research directions.

Keywords

Bully Victim School Intervention Discipline Peers 

References

  1. Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2009). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “much ado about nothing”? Psychological Medicine, 29, 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., & Kim, T. E. (2010). Variability in the prevalence of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analysis. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 347–362). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cowie, H., & Oztug, O. (2008). Pupils’ perceptions of safety at school. Pastoral Care in Education, 26, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowie, H., & Smith, P. K. (2010). Peer support as a means of improving school safety and reducing bullying and violence. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Eds.), Handbook of prevention research (pp. 177–193). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cowie, H., Hutson, N., Oztug, O., & Myers, C. (2008). The impact of peer support schemes on pupils’ perceptions of bullying, aggression and safety at school. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 13, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garandeau, C. F., Little, T., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Dealing with bullies at school: which approach for which situations? In M. Sainio & C. F. Garandeau (Chairs), KiVa anti-bullying program: Practical viewpoints on implementation and effectiveness, and an innovative perspective from social network analysis. Symposium presented at the Biennial Meeting of the European Society for Developmental Psychology, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  7. Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A metaanalysis.Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065.Google Scholar
  8. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011a). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. Under review.Google Scholar
  9. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011b). Going to scale: a nonrandomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for comprehensive schools. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0025740.
  10. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011c). A large scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: grades 4–6. Child Development, 82, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2008). Can restorative practices in schools make a difference? Educational Review, 60, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Monks, C. P. (2011). Peer victimisation in preschool. In C. Monks & I. Coyne (Eds.), Bullying in different contexts (pp. 12–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  14. Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Progam. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134.Google Scholar
  15. Poskiparta, E., Kaukiainen, A., Pöyhönen, V., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Anti-bullying computer game as part of the KiVa program: Students’ perceptions of the game. In A. Costabile & B. Spears (Eds.), The impact of technology on relationships in educational settings: International perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Sapouna, M., Wolke, D., Vannani, N., Watson, S., Woods, S., Schneider, W., Enz, S., Hall, L., Paiva, A., Andre, E., Dautenhahn, K., & Aylett, R. (2009). Virtual learning intervention to reduce bullying victimization in primary school: a controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., & Garcia-Vasquez, E. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. A Report by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Taskforce. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/cpse/zttfreport.pdf.
  18. Smith, P. K. (2010). Cyberbullying: the European perspective. In: J. Mora-Merchán & T. Jäger (Eds). Cyberbullying: A cross-national comparison. (pp. 7–19). Landau: Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Spiel, C., Salmivalli, C., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Translational research: national strategies for violence prevention in school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 381–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson, F., & Smith, P. K. (2011). The use and effectiveness of anti-bullying strategies in schools. Research Brief DFE-RB098. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/AllRsgPublications/Page10/DFE-RR098.
  22. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Reintegrative shaming theory, moral emotions and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2011). Editorial: health consequences of school bullying. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 60–62.Google Scholar
  25. United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved March, 9, 2007, from http://www.unicef.org/crc.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter K. Smith
    • 1
    • 4
  • Christina Salmivalli
    • 2
  • Helen Cowie
    • 3
  1. 1.GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.University of SurreySurreyUK
  4. 4.Unit for School and Family StudiesGoldsmiths CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations