IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v5y2009i1pi-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

School‐Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization

Author

Listed:
  • David P. Farrington
  • Maria M. Ttofi

Abstract

Bullying is becoming an ever more pressing issue for schools, daycare centers, politicians and the public. Everyone agrees that bullying is a serious problem and initiatives are urgently called for to stamp it out. This Campbell Systematic Review studied the effects of anti‐bullying programs in schools. The conclusion is that programs generally work and bullying is reduced on average by around 20%. A total of 89 reports were of sufficient quality to be included in the systematic review. The 89 reports describe 53 different studies. However, nine studies did not provide enough data to allow the calculation of an effect size and were, therefore, not included in the final meta‐analysis. The overall analysis is therefore based on a total of 44 studies. The 44 different studies were carried out between 1983 and mid‐2009 and came from 16 different countries. The included studies were either randomized controlled trials, quasi‐randomized trials, age‐cohort studies or other controlled studies. Furthermore, the systematic review clearly states that future evaluations should measure the children's situation before and after an anti‐bullying program. This should apply to the experimental group as well as the control group to get the most accurate results possible. Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND School bullying has serious short‐term and long‐term effects on children's physical and mental health. Various anti‐bullying programs have been implemented world wide and, more rarely, evaluated. Previous narrative reviews, summarizing the work done on bullying prevention, as well as previous meta‐analyses of anti‐bullying programs, are limited. The definition of school bullying includes several key elements: physical, verbal, or psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim; an imbalance of power (psychological or physical), with a more powerful child (or children) oppressing less powerful ones; and repeated incidents between the same children over a prolonged period. School bullying can occur in school or on the way to or from school. It is not bullying when two persons of the same strength (physical, psychological, or verbal) victimize each other. OBJECTIVES This report presents a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce school bullying perpetration and victimization (i.e. being bullied). The authors indicate the pitfalls of previous reviews and explain in detail how the present systematic review and meta‐analysis addresses the gaps in the existing literature on bullying prevention. SEARCH STRATEGY In the present report, we go beyond previous reviews by: doing much more extensive searches for evaluations such as hand‐searching all volumes of 35 journals from 1983 up to the end of May 2009; searching for international evaluations in 18 electronic databases and in languages other than English; and focusing only on programs that are specifically designed to reduce bullying and not aggressive behavior (i.e. the outcome variables specifically measure bullying). Leading researchers in the area of school bullying were also contacted via e‐mail. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies were included in this review if they evaluated the effects of an anti‐bullying program by comparing an experimental group who received the intervention with a control group who did not. The word ‘experimental’ here refers to students who received the program and does not necessarily imply randomization. Four types of research design were included: a) randomized experiments, b) experimental‐control comparisons with before and after measures of bullying, c) other experimental‐control comparisons and d) quasi‐experimental age‐cohort designs, where students of age X after the intervention were compared with students of the same age X in the same school before the intervention. Both published and unpublished (e.g. PhD theses) reports were included. Reports concerning an evaluation of a program had to clearly indicate that bullying or victimization were included as outcome measures. Bullying and victimization could be measured using self‐report questionnaires, peer ratings, teacher ratings, or observational data. RESULTS We found a total of 622 reports that were concerned with bullying prevention. The number of reports on anti‐bullying programs and on the necessity of tackling bullying has increased considerably over time. Only 89 of these reports (describing 53 different program evaluations) could be included in our review. Of the 53 different program evaluations, only 44 provided data that permitted the calculation of an effect size for bullying or victimization. Our meta‐analysis of these 44 evaluations showed that, overall, school‐based anti‐bullying programs are effective in reducing bullying and victimization (being bullied). On average, bullying decreased by 20% – 23% and victimization decreased by 17% – 20%. The effects were generally highest in the age‐cohort designs and lowest in the randomized experiments. It was not clear, however, that the randomized experiments were methodologically superior in all cases, because sometimes a very small number of schools (between three and seven) were randomly assigned to conditions, and because of other methodological problems such as differential attrition. Various program elements and intervention components were associated with a decrease in both bullying and victimization. Work with peers was associated with an increase in victimization. We received feedback from researchers about our coding of 40 out of 44 programs. Analyses of publication bias show that the observed effect sizes (for both bullying and victimization) were based on an unbiased set of studies. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS Results obtained so far in evaluations of anti‐bullying programs are encouraging. The time is ripe to mount a new long‐term research strategy on the effectiveness of these programs, based on our findings. The main policy implication of our review is that new anti‐bullying programs should be designed and tested based on the key program elements and evaluation components that we have found to be most effective. We recommend that a system of accrediting anti‐bullying programs should be developed, supervised by an international body such as the International Observatory on Violence in Schools.

Suggested Citation

  • David P. Farrington & Maria M. Ttofi, 2009. "School‐Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages -148.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:5:y:2009:i:1:p:i-148
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2009.6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2009.6
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2009.6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Yanhong & Carney, JoLynn V. & Kim, Hyunhee & Hazler, Richard J. & Guo, Xiuyan, 2020. "Victimization and students’ psychological well-being: The mediating roles of hope and school connectedness," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Hannah Gaffney & Maria M. Ttofi & David P. Farrington, 2021. "Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    3. Brian Moore & Stuart Woodcock & Dean Dudley, 2018. "Developing Wellbeing Through a Randomised Controlled Trial of a Martial Arts Based Intervention: An Alternative to the Anti-Bullying Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Sesha Kethineni & Susan Frazier‐Kouassi & Yuki Shigemoto & Wesley Jennings & Stephanie M. Cardwell & Alex R. Piquero & Kimberly Gay & Dayanand Sundaravadivelu, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of parent‐engagement programs to reduce truancy and juvenile delinquency: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), September.
    5. Nozaki, Yuko, 2019. "Why do bullies matter?: The impacts of bullying involvement on Adolescents' life satisfaction via an adaptive approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Ida Risanger Sjursø & Hildegunn Fandrem & James O’Higgins Norman & Erling Roland, 2019. "Teacher Authority in Long-Lasting Cases of Bullying: A Qualitative Study from Norway and Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-9, March.
    7. Seung-ha Lee & Hyun-jung Ju, 2019. "Mothers’ Difficulties and Expectations for Intervention of Bullying among Young Children in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Anthony J. Roberto & Jen Eden & Douglas M. Deiss & Matthew W. Savage & Leslie Ramos-Salazar, 2017. "The Short-term Effects of a Cyberbullying Prevention Intervention for Parents of Middle School Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-8, September.
    9. Emma Gorman & Colm Harmon & Silvia Mendolia & Anita Staneva & Ian Walker, 2021. "Adolescent School Bullying Victimization and Later Life Outcomes," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(4), pages 1048-1076, August.
    10. Kennedy, Reeve S., 2020. "Gender differences in outcomes of bullying prevention programs: A meta-analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    11. Rocheleau, Gregory C. & Rocheleau, Brandy N., 2022. "The relationship between food allergy severity and experiencing harms from bullying victimization," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    12. Anna Sorrentino & Anna Costanza Baldry & David P. Farrington, 2018. "The Efficacy of the Tabby Improved Prevention and Intervention Program in Reducing Cyberbullying and Cybervictimization among Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:5:y:2009:i:1:p:i-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.