Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Whether cases of bullying should be handled in a direct, condemning mode or in a manner that does not involve blaming the perpetrator is a controversial issue among school professionals. This study compares the effectiveness of a Confronting Approach where the bully is openly told that his behavior must cease immediately to a Non-Confronting Approach where the adult shares his concern about the victim with the bully and invites him to provide suggestions on what could improve the situation. We analysed 339 cases of bullying involving 314 children from grades 1 to 9 (mean age = 11.95). Cases were handled in 65 schools as part of the implementation of the KiVa anti-bullying program. In each school, a team of three teachers addressed cases coming to their attention by organizing discussions with the bullies using either a Confronting or a Non-Confronting Approach; schools were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Victims reported that bullying stopped in 78 % of the cases. Logistic regression analyses indicated that neither approach was overall more effective than the other, controlling for grade level, duration of victimization and type of aggression. The Confronting Approach worked better than the Non-Confronting Approach in secondary school (grades 7 to 9), but not in primary school (grades 1 to 6). The Confronting Approach was more successful than the Non-Confronting Approach in cases of short-term victimization, but not in cases of long-term victimization. The type of aggression used did not moderate the effectiveness of either approach.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Ahmad, Y., & Smith, P. K. (1990). Behavioral measures: bullying in schools. Newsletter of the Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 26–27.
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. CrossRef
Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). U.S. teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28, 837–856. CrossRef
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361–382.
Braithwaite, J. (2004). Restorative justice and de-professionalization. The Good Society, 13, 28–31. CrossRef
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2007). Expectations and perceptions at school transitions: the role of peer status and aggression. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 567–586. CrossRef
Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2012). Some common myths about centering predictor variables in moderated multiple regression and polynomial regression. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 339–362. CrossRef
Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 70–87. CrossRef
Fields, B. A. (2003). Restitution and restorative justice. Youth Studies Australia, 22, 44–51.
Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: a conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 612–625. CrossRef
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hauser, M. (2011). Bullies have enhanced moral competence to judge relative to victims, but lack moral compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 603–608. CrossRef
Haataja, A., Sainio, M., Turtonen, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Implementing the KiVa antibullying program: Predicting recognition of victimized students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Peer interventions in playground bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527. CrossRef
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Jackson, N. (2006, February 23). Bullying? It’s got to be punished…Tony Blair’s attack on the ‘No-Blame’ approach to bullying—once supported by Whitehall—has angered its advocates. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/bullying-its-got-to-be-punished-467400.html
Maines, B., & Robinson, G. (1992). The no blame approach. Bristol: Lucky Duck.
Olweus, D. (1988). Critical views on the Pikas method. Unpublished paper.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Pikas, A. (1989). The common concern method for the treatment of mobbing. In E. Roland & E. Munthe (Eds.), Bullying, an international perspective. London: Fulton.
Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the Shared Concern Method. School Psychology International, 23, 307–336. CrossRef
Reijntjes, A. H. A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244–252. CrossRef
Rigby, K., & Barnes, A. (2002). To tell or not to tell: the victimized student’s dilemma. Youth Studies, 21, 33–36.
Rigby, K., & Bauman, S. (2010). How school personnel tackle cases of bullying: A critical examination. In S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of school bullying: An international perspective (pp. 455–468). New York: Routledge.
Rigby, K., & Griffiths, C. (2010) Applying the method of shared concern in Australian schools: An evaluative study (Canberra, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relation). Available online at http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSafeSchools/Documents/covertBullyReports/MethodOFSharedConcern.pdf
Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (2008). Bullying: A complete guide to the Support Group Method. London: Sage.
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. CrossRef
Smith, P. K. (2010). Bullying in primary and secondary schools: Psychological and organizational comparisons. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 137–150). New York: Routledge.
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. CrossRef
Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193–212. CrossRef
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., & Sharp, S. (1994). Working directly with pupils involved in bullying situations. In P. K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 193–212). London: Routledge. CrossRef
Smith, P. K., Howard, S., & Thompson, F. (2007). Use of the Support Group Method to tackle bullying, and an evaluation from schools and local authorities in England. Pastoral Care in Education, 25, 4–13. CrossRef
Sullivan, K., Cleary, M., & Sullivan, G. (2004). Bullying in secondary schools: What it looks like and how to manage it. London: Paul Chapman.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Vartio, A. (2013). Bullying students’ experiences of a confronting versus a non-confronting approach. Unpublished master’s thesis, Åbo Akademi, Turku, Finland.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25. CrossRef
- Tackling Acute Cases of School Bullying in the KiVa Anti-Bullying Program: A Comparison of Two Approaches
Claire F. Garandeau
- Springer US