The Effectiveness of School-Based Anti-Bullying Programs

Abstract

Youth violence, including bullying and other serious violent behaviors, has received increased political and scientific attention over the past several decades. Although violent behavior among youth and in the schools has declined over the past decade, the victimization of children by other children in school settings remains a major issue of concern. In response, a number of prevention and intervention programs have been developed to reduce the incidence of bullying and violence in schools. This meta-analysis attempted to examine the effect of school-based anti-bullying programs. Results suggested a significant effect for anti-bullying programs ( r = .12). However, this result seemed to be slightly influenced by publication bias and did not meet the adopted threshold for “practical significance.” The effect for programs targeted specifically at at-risk youth was slightly better, but overall, anti-bullying programs produce little discernible effect on youth participants. Reasons that anti-bullying programs may produce little effective change are discussed.

The mediating role of shame in the relationship between childhood bullying victimization and adult psychosocial adjustment

“…A study found that the second most important reason for disclosing bullying victimization (after stopping the bullying) was for the victim to feel better about him/herself (Boulton et al, 2017), which may correspond to reducing shame. Although efforts to prevent bullying are complex and the effectiveness of anti-bullying programmes have been discussed (Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007), efforts that engage bystanders by emphasizing that the bullying is not the victim’s fault (‘Kids who are bullied sometimes feel bad about themselves afterwards. This is not right!…”

Bullying of children and adolescents with autism spectrum conditions: a ‘state of the field’ review

“…Ttofi and Farrington 2011), the effects of bullying interventions are not always practically significant and are more likely to influence knowledge and attitudes rather than actual behaviour (Merrell et al 2008). Of particular note is the finding that programmes which include a component targeting students deemed to be 'at risk' produce slightly better outcomes (Ferguson et al 2007). Whitted and Dupper (2005) suggest that, 'the most effective approaches for preventing or minimising bullying in schools involve a comprehensive, multilevel strategy that targets bullies, victims, bystanders, families and communities' (169).…”

“…There is certainly no shortage of evidence, and the last decade has seen the publication of a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g. Smith et al 2004;Ferguson et al 2007;Merrell et al 2008). However, despite some positive outcomes (see, e.g.…”

Schoolchildren's social representations on bullying causes

“…When positive effects have been identified, the gains have often been short term (for meta-analyses, see Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007;Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; also see Smith et al, 2004). Bosacki, Marini, and Dane (2006) argue that, although quantitative research provides a lot of critical information about bullying, it -does not give children an opportunity to discuss their own understanding of bullying experiences in their own voices‖ (p. 232).…”