11

What Limits the Effectiveness of Antibullying Programs? A Thematic Analysis of the Perspective of Students

Charles E. Cunningham, Cailin Mapp, and Heather Rimas McMaster University

Lesley Cunningham Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Hamilton,

Ontario, Canada

Stephanie Mielko McMaster University

Tracy Vaillancourt University of Ottawa

Madalyn Marcus Waterstone Clinic, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Objective: We used qualitative methods to explore the views of students regarding design and imple- mentation factors limiting the effectiveness of the antibullying programs. Method: Using a purposeful strategy, we recruited 97 Grades 5 to 8 students from 12 demographically stratified schools. Interviewers conducted thirteen 45-min focus groups. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded thematically. Results: Three higher order themes emerged. First, students felt that antibullying presentations, posters, and activities sometimes failed to engage students. Antibullying communications that were boring, repetitive, negatively worded, or delivered by presenters lacking credibility were of limited value. Second, students felt that ineffective monitoring and consequences undermined antibullying programs. Students thought teachers failed to detect many bullying episodes, did not respond quickly enough when bullying was reported, adopted ineffective consequences, and failed to sustain helpful programs. Teachers who responded unfairly, were influenced by reputational biases, or dealt with students disrespectfully compromised antibullying interventions. Third, some students disengaged and pushed back by failing to attend to presentations, denying their involvement in bullying, discrediting programs and speakers, disrupting antibullying activities, and defiantly victimizing peers. Conclusions: Poor design and implementation may limit the outcome of antibullying programs. Pushback from a small group of students may have a negative influence on the responses of a wider group of peers. A negative response from students may reduce the commitment of the educators who implement antibullying initiatives. From the perspective of students, schools need to develop more engaging presentations, improve monitoring and supervision, develop more effective responses to bullying, and deal with students in an unbiased and respectful way.

Keywords: bullying, school, prevention programs, psychological reactance, qualitative methods

Epidemiological studies suggest that bullying and victimization remain significant public health concerns (Perlus, Brooks-Russell, Wang, & Iannotti, 2014) with victimization linked to an increase in both health and mental health problems (Due et al., 2005; Fekkes,

Pijpers, Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006; Rudolph, Troop-Gordon, Hessel, & Schmidt, 2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that, on average, prevention programs yield small, though statistically significant, reductions in bullying and

This article was published Online First January 14, 2016. Charles E. Cunningham, Cailin Mapp, and Heather Rimas, Department of

Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University; Lesley Cun- ningham, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Hamilton, Ontario, Can- ada; Stephanie Mielko, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University; Tracy Vaillancourt, Department of Counseling, Faculty of Education, and School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa; Madalyn Marcus, Waterstone Clinic, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lesley Cunningham is now at the Ontario Ministry of Education. Madalyn Marcus is now at the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Department, South Lake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, Ontario.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MOP 123437, the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient–Centred Health Care

held by Charles E. Cunningham and a Canada Research Chair from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research held by Tracy Vaillancourt. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the social workers who assisted in the conduct of focus groups: Kelly Duffy-Kariam, Jenny Athana- siou, Carol Jovanovic, and Rose Mary Jankowski. During this study, Lesley Cunningham who is married to Charles E. Cunningham was employed by a participating School Board and the Ontario Ministry of Education. Family members of Stephanie Mielko were employed by a participating School Board.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charles E. Cunningham, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Chedoke Site, Evel Build- ing, Room 163, 565 Sanatorium Road, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L9C 7N4. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Psychology of Violence © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 6, No. 4, 596–606 2152-0828/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039984

596

victimization (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). For example, a meta-analysis of 44 evaluations reported that bullying decreased by 20% to 23% while victimization decreased by 17% to 20% (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Effect sizes were smaller in North American than in European studies, and smaller for randomized versus nonrandomized designs (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). In response to these data, Espelage (2013) asked: “Why are bully prevention programs failing in U.S. schools?” A more recent meta-analysis using a three-level hierarchical model examining age as a within-study moderator suggested that, although antibul- lying programs reduce bullying by younger students, programs work poorly beyond Grade 7 (Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015). Indeed, Yeager and colleagues (2015) concluded that, for students in Grade 8 and above, antibullying programs may produce iatrogenic effects.

This study’s qualitative methods explored the views of students regarding factors that limit the effectiveness of antibullying pro- grams. Students bring a unique perspective to efforts to understand the effectiveness of these initiatives. They may observe bullying incidents that are not detected by adults (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000), understand contextual contributors (Vaillancourt et al., 2010), and provide valuable suggestions regarding opportunities to improve antibullying efforts (Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006; Cunningham, Cunningham, Ratcliffe, & Vaillancourt, 2010). Stu- dents are in close touch with the attitudes of their peers and the response of strategically important subgroups to different compo- nents of antibullying programs. In a study using quantitative pref- erence modeling methods, latent class analysis showed that wit- nesses and victims were more likely to be members of a subgroup of Grade 5 to 8 students preferring mandatory uniforms, increased supervision, security cameras, and significant consequences for perpetrators (Cunningham, Vaillancourt, Cunningham, Chen, & Ratcliffe, 2011). Students involved as bullies, in contrast, were more likely to be members of a subgroup that opposed uniforms, preferred more limited supervision, rejected video surveillance, and advocated less severe consequences.

Although educators may be confident in their ability to deal with bullying (Boulton & Boulton, 2012), many students feel that not enough is being done (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007; Varjas, Hen- rich, & Meyers, 2009). Middle school students rate most antibul- lying strategies as less useful than do their teachers (Crothers & Kolbert, 2004). Indeed, 61.5% of middle school students believed intervention by educators made bullying incidents worse (Brad- shaw & Sawyer, 2007).

Boulton and Boulton (2012) posed the question: “Are pupils unreceptive to teachers’ anti-bullying initiatives and if so why?” In a qualitative study, participants in Grades 5 to 8 described students who responded to their school’s efforts to prevent bullying by disrupting presentations, destroying materials, and victimizing their peers as a defiant response to antibullying activities (Cun- ningham et al., 2010). There is increasing evidence that prevention initiatives may prompt processes such as psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Chadee, 2011; Rains, 2013), social con- tagion, or peer deviancy training (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011; Hels- eth et al., 2015) that might limit the effectiveness of antibullying programs. Psychological reactance theory posits that individuals value decision control (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Accordingly, attempts to influence decisions, change attitudes, or prevent par-

ticipation in high risk activities may elicit a negative emotional response, counterproductive cognitions, attempts to reassert per- sonal control, and, under some circumstances, an increase in behaviors the program is designed to prevent (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Chadee, 2011; Rains, 2013). Previous studies suggest psy- chological reactance, a response familiar to many parents (Rum- mel, Howard, Swinton, & Seymour, 2000), may have limited the effectiveness of messages designed to reduce racial discrimination (Legault, Gutsell, & Inzlicht, 2011), substance abuse (Dillard & Shen, 2005), and exposure to violent media (Bushman, 2006).

The Current Study

We used qualitative methods to explore the possibility that antibullying programs in Grades 5 to 8 elicit a response interfering with the program’s implementation and effectiveness. Qualitative methods have made an important contribution to studies of bully- ing (Forber-Pratt, Aragon, & Espelage, 2014; Guerra, Williams, & Sadek, 2011; Mishna, Wiener, & Pepler, 2008; Varjas et al., 2009). Although quantitative studies examining the recommendations of students provide clues as to factors limiting the effectiveness of antibullying programs (Cunningham et al., 2011), a qualitative approach allowed an in-depth analysis of design and implementa- tion processes that might influence outcome. The range of ideas discussed in focus groups encouraged exploration of themes that might not emerge in individual interviews. Groups provided a supportive context in which students could exchange ideas, con- sider opposing views, critique existing programs, and suggest alternatives ( Barbour & Kitzinger, 1999). Specifically, we present a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of focus group narra- tives addressing three questions:

1. What components of school-based antibullying activities do students believe to be ineffective or counterproduc- tive?

2. How do students respond to these dimensions of antibul- lying programs?

3. Via what mechanisms might their responses limit the effectiveness of antibullying initiatives?

Method

Participants

This study was approved by the university/hospital research ethics board, and the review panels of the participating school boards. The study was conducted in a Canadian community of more than 520,000 residents. We adopted a purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 2002). Members of the research team from the Board of Education advised that the utility of our findings would be enhanced if participating schools reflected the diversity of this region. We stratified schools into sociodemographically diverse quadrants to ensure that the sample included schools from low, medium, and high risk areas. Four Catholic and eight public (Patton, 2002) junior kindergarten to Grade 8 schools were ran- domly selected. We contacted principals, described the project, and determined their willingness to send recruitment consents to

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

597WHAT LIMITS ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS

parents. All schools agreed to participate. School demographics, derived via the methods described by DeLuca and colleagues (DeLuca, Buist, & Johnston, 2012) are described in Table 1.

The reactant student responses noted in a previous study are thought to increase during Grades 5 through 8 (Grandpre, Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003; Rummel et al., 2000). Systematic reviews, moreover, suggest this period marks a transition during which the effectiveness of antibullying programs declines (Yeager et al., 2015). Recruitment, therefore, focused on students in Grades 5 through 8. The 38 boys and 59 girls whose parents returned a signed consent, and who signed a student assent, joined one of six focus groups for boys (two Grade 5, one Grade 6, two Grade 7, and one Grade 8) or seven focus groups for girls (one Grade 5, two Grade 6, one Grade 7, and three Grade 8). Focus groups ranged in size from 5 to 12 students (M � 8).

Context of the Study: Antibullying Programming

Schools conducted antibullying activities according to the Prov- ince of Ontario’s Safe and Accepting Schools Act. This protocol included a series of evidence-informed components developed in collaboration with PREVNet (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2015). A website provided educational resources, videos, a model bullying prevention plan with evidence-informed guidelines, and school climate surveys (Ontario Ministry of Education, Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network [PREVNet] in collaboration with the Accepting Schools Expert Panel, 2013). Mandated components included a provincial code of conduct, a standard definition of bullying, a school-based bullying prevention policy, and a Bullying Awareness and Prevention week. Schools were required to have a Safe Schools Team that included a prin- cipal, teacher, nonteaching staff, parent, student, and community partner. This team reviewed and planned antibullying activities in response to a biennial School Climate Survey collected by each school. When bullying occurs, students are encouraged to “Tell an adult whom you trust—a teacher, the principal, the school bus driver or the lunchroom supervisor—about what happened or

report it anonymously” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). Bullying was reported to principals using a standardized form, teaching staff were required to respond “immediately” using a standardized protocol (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009), and incidents were dealt with according to a progressive disciplinary strategy coupled with support for victims and perpetrators (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2012a).

Focus Group Procedures

Focus groups were conducted by five school social workers with formal training in interviewing skills, experience working with students, familiarity with the Ministry of Education’s antibullying protocols, contextual knowledge regarding participating schools and the way in which individual schools dealt with bullying. A member of the research team was present to obtain assent, set up recording equipment, assist with the logistics of the group, and record observations. Focus groups were conducted according to a three-page interview guide. After obtaining signed student assent, the Ministry’s definition of bullying (Ontario Ministry of Educa- tion, 2012b) was presented. The interview guide provided semi- structured questions designed to initiate discussion. As in a previ- ous study, Cunningham et al. (2010) asked, for example, “Can anyone give us an example of something that schools are doing to stop bullying?” Follow-up prompts were designed to encourage discussion (e.g., “Could you tell us a little more about this exam- ple?”) and engage members of the group (e.g., “What do other students think?”). After discussing antibullying activities in their schools, interviewers explored the positive and negative ways students responded to these initiatives: “Sometimes students do things that stop anti-bullying programs from working. Can anyone think of an example of things students do that stop anti-bullying programs from working better?” To create a comfortable setting (Patton, 2002), groups were located in the home schools of par- ticipants. To prevent older students from dominating conversa- tions, and to capture the differing perspective that students in Grades 5 to 8 might provide, we conducted separate groups at each

Table 1 Demographics of Each School’s Neighborhood

School (grade/gender)

Variables

Median income

Percent immigrants

High school dropouts

Single mother families

Children below

poverty line

Psychiatric- related ER

visits Overall rank

RR N R % R N� R % R % R N�

1 (5B) 5 31,575 1 44.7 1 200.0 1 27.6 1 68.5 1 62.0 5 2 (6B) 5 41,427 3 24.9 1 131.6 1 31.8 1 40.6 1 30.1 5 3 (7B) 5 48,221 4 16.9 1 183.3 1 29.4 1 36.2 1 41.5 5 4 (8G) 4 50,904 1 34.5 2 76.0 1 22.1 1 35.3 4 13.2 4 5 (6G) 3 63,491 1 34.6 2 92.7 4 10.1 3 12.5 4 9.9 3 6 (7B) 3 63,564 4 18.0 3 58.1 4 12.2 3 14.4 2 18.7 4 7 (5G) 3 66,539 2 32.6 2 67.9 2 19.8 3 20.1 4 10.6 2 8 (7G) 3 68,872 1 35.4 2 69.0 3 13.1 2 21.4 3 13.6 3 9 (5B) 3 68,872 1 35.4 2 69.0 3 13.1 2 21.4 3 13.6 3

10 (6G) 2 72,092 4 18.7 3 54.2 3 14.3 4 6.5 3 14.4 2 11 (8B) 1 86,826 4 18.9 4 34.6 3 15.5 4 11.9 4 10.4 2 12 (8G) 1 88,843 5 11.4 4 50.0 5 6.8 5 5.6 4 9.7 1

Note. N� � rate per 1,000. R � Quintile ranking of each school (1 � highest, 2 � high, 3 � middle, 4 � low, 5 � lowest); B � boy; G � girl. Overall rank � Quintile ranking on a composite variable based on 24 health, education, and demographic measures.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

598 CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

grade. Because boys and girls may have different views regarding antibullying programs (Cunningham et al., 2010, 2011), we con- ducted separate groups for boys and girls. Consistent with a previous study (Cunningham et al., 2010), students seemed com- fortable talking to peers their own grade and gender.

Analysis of Focus Group Data

We used an approach similar to the thematic analytic procedures described by Braun and Clarke (2006). “Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data,” organizing data, and interpreting the results (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Audio recordings of focus groups were transcribed verbatim and potentially identifying content was removed. Three investigators reviewed the transcripts and identified potential codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Rather than imposing a theoretically-based framework, codes, and more general organiz- ing themes, were identified inductively (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Codes were based on the explicit semantic content of the tran- scripts rather than more latent constructions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This constitutes a more descriptive, less interpretive ap- proach to analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Codes were designed to identify statements that addressed (a) design and implementa- tion factors perceived by students to influence the effectiveness of antibullying programs, (b) the response of students, and (c) the influence of student responses on the program (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We met frequently to develop definitions and compose a manual (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Patton, 2002). Before analyzing data, coders reached a criterion of at least 85% agreement with line-by-line standard transcripts on two consecutive training ses- sions. During coding, reliability checks were conducted on a biweekly basis. Agreement with standard transcripts averaged 96.7%.

Digital transcripts were entered into NVivo-10 with each focus group treated as a source. Codes were entered as nodes, definitions were integrated as properties, and nodes were organized into a thematic framework. During coding and reliability checks, dis- agreements were resolved consensually, definitions were clarified, new codes were composed, transcripts were recoded, and more general organizing themes were developed. The percentage of groups in which each theme or code occurred was extracted from NVivo (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As part of a larger mixed method project, the themes identified here informed the development of the attributes and attribute levels included in a discrete choice conjoint experiment modeling the influence of design and imple- mentation factors on the response of students to antibullying programs.

We used several strategies to increase the rigor and credibility of our analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, we identified theoret- ical, empirical, and personal biases that might influence the con- duct of the study or interpretation of the data (positionality) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For example, students in a previous study de- scribed peers who responded defiantly to antibullying initiatives (Cunningham et al., 2010). Experimental analyses identified fea- tures of antibullying programs that seemed to contribute to these responses (Cunningham et al., 2011). These studies, which were interpreted as consistent with psychological reactance theory (Cunningham et al., 2011), informed our interview guide. To balance a potential bias in favor of reactant responses, the focus

group guide began with questions encouraging participants to discuss ways in which their schools prevented bullying, and ex- amples of the ways students supported antibullying programs. Although an inductive approach ensured that codes were grounded in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the organization of codes was informed by psychological reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Second, we present three to four quotes representing each subcode within higher order themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Three analysts reached a consensus that quotes reflected the tran- scripts and supported our conclusions. Third, our sample was large enough to determine whether critical ideas converged across groups and to permit a saturation of themes (Patton, 2002). Our sampling strategy secured the perspective of boys and girls from different grades, from ethnically and economically diverse areas of the community, and from schools with both a Catholic and public approach to the Ministry of Education’s antibullying strategy. Fourth, a diverse team with experience conducting focus groups, utilizing qualitative methods, and implementing prevention pro- grams in educational settings limited the potential bias of a single investigator. Finally, we searched transcripts for conflicting evi- dence, and considered alternative interpretations of the data (Pat- ton, 2002).

Results

Results are organized into a set of higher order themes and more specific subthemes (Table 2). We examine features of antibullying programs students thought were ineffective, the response of stu- dents to these design limitations, and consider the perspective of students regarding the influence of these responses on the pro- gram’s outcome.

Presentations and Posters Often Fail to Engage Students

Boring presentations are of limited effectiveness. Although assemblies, presentations, and posters were an integral part of antibullying programs, 69% of the study’s focus groups concluded that these activities often failed to engage students. A Grade 7 girl complained:

It [antibullying assembly] was more something that you have to like pay like strong attention to because some kids were not. Like they were chatting and they weren’t that engaged into it because it was just a PowerPoint, like a few pictures and . . . but just more talking.

A Grade 8 girl expressed a similar view:

Well, sometimes it could be boring to some people so they would just, like zone out and not listen.” Another Grade 8 girl noted, “It’s just one person at the front talking and it just gets boring . . . So like, a big, school-wide assembly doesn’t really work.

Repetitive messages lose their influence. In 38% of groups students argued that repetitive presentation limited the effective- ness of antibullying communications. A Grade 5 girl thought, “But like what she said, like, the posters, I find that they say the same message over and over and over.” A Grade 8 girl felt repeated exposure eroded the influence of antibullying messages: “like, with the poster, after . . . like, what she said, after you see it, like, over and over and over again, you . . . that’s when you start to

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

599WHAT LIMITS ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS

ignore it and it doesn’t really make an impact on you.” Grade 8 boys expressed a similar view: “There are so many posters, that sometimes you just tune them out. . . .” A Grade 8 girl described the resistance repetitive messages elicit: “. . . after you read them [anti-bullying posters], like, four times, you really don’t want to read them anymore.”

Students dislike negatively worded antibullying messages. While students simply tuned out antibullying messages that were boring or repetitive, 54% of the groups indicated they reacted more strongly to negatively worded communications. A girl from Grade 7, for example, argued, “. . . if you watch a video it has to have that appeal to kids our age instead of just saying ah, ‘don’t do this, don’t do that’, okay.” A boy from Grade 7 said, “I think they just put posters up saying ‘don’t bully’ but I don’t think that’s really useful. I think that’s just stupid.” A girl from Grade 8 shared this view, “. . . the posters are so repetitive, don’t bully, this, that, don’t . . . I don’t like them.”

Individuals lacking credibility compromise antibullying activities. In 62% of groups, participants thought the response of students was influenced by the credibility of those conducting antibullying activities. A Grade 8 girl, for example, wondered whether some teachers were committed to the reduction of bully- ing: “. . . they’ll just say don’t do it and they won’t be serious . . .” Another member of this group suggested “. . . they don’t really care.” A Grade 6 girl argued that, “it sometimes will get worse because the bully thinks that the teacher doesn’t care so the bully thinks that it’s okay and they might do it more often because he thinks that he’s not going to get in trouble. . . .” A girl from a second Grade 8 group commented on the importance of the rela- tionship between students and presenters:

. . . your teacher would be trusted, like, you know them better. Like, your teacher is with you every day for the rest of the year, except for weekends . . . they watch you, they take care of you if you fall . . . And some random person coming in and telling you that . . . not to bully, it’s like, “I don’t know you. You have no reason to tell me what to do.”

A member of a Grade 8 boys group complained about students involved in antibullying programs who were “. . . sitting there and trying to give you the stern talking to because that’s their job, not because they truly mean it.”

The Organization of Monitoring and Supervision Limits Detection of Bullying

Teachers fail to detect bullying. Concerns regarding moni- toring and supervision emerged in 54% of groups. A boy in Grade 7 noted, “Like he said, there are not a lot of teachers around.” A Grade 8 girl extended this observation to classrooms, “Well, kind of like what they them two said, and kind of what I said before, they . . . they don’t notice it happening in their classroom.” Others thought playground supervisors failed to detect bullying because they were distracted by cell phones and conversations with col- leagues. A boy in Grade 6 recommended: “They should just go up to them and like not just sit there and text and talk.” A girl from Grade 6 noted:

On the yard, sometimes the teachers are all talking to each other and if someone got hurt and they’re bullying someone and they’re being physical, like a student has to go up to them and they do not see it right away so the student has to go up to them and tell them.

Delayed responses compromise adult interventions. Participants felt that, when students reported bullying, teachers did not respond quickly enough to solve the problem. This theme emerged in 77% of the study’s focus groups. For example, a girl in Grade 6 observed:

The teachers are just all in a group and if you go up to them and try to ask them something, they’ll be like “wait, hold on,” and then when they get to the problem, stuff already happened and it’s already done with.

A girl in Grade 8 questioned the usefulness of reporting bully- ing:

Table 2 Higher Order Themes and Subtheme Percentages

Higher order theme Groups (%)

Subtheme code Presentations and posters often fail to engage students

Boring presentations are of limited effectiveness 69 Repetitive messages lose their influence 38 Students dislike negatively worded antibullying messages 54 Individuals lacking credibility compromise antibullying activities 62

The organization of monitoring and supervision limits detection of bullying Teachers fail to detect bullying 54 Delayed responses compromise adult interventions 77 Consequences for perpetrators are ineffective 62 Unfair or disrespectful processes undermine antibullying interventions 62 A failure to sustain programs limits their effectiveness 31

Some students undermine programs by disengaging and pushing back Students fail to attend to antibullying activities 77 Denial elicited by antibullying presentations insulates students from their message 31 Students discredit antibullying programs and presenters 54 Students disrupt antibullying activities 38 Some students victimize peers during or immediately after antibullying activities 62

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

600 CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

Other times it [reporting] just doesn’t help because the teachers do not react. They react, but they do not. Like, they say, “Hey, no bullying,” . . . And then they just, kind of, like let it go and then it happens again and it’s like, “Okay. You’re just making a mountain out of a mole hill . . .” and they just keep saying, “Oh, it’s nothing. It’s nothing.”

While some students thought delayed responses were the result of distractions, others attributed delays to conflicting time de- mands. A girl in Grade 8, for example, noted that:

Sometimes they may get to busy too actually, like, remember, ‘Oh I have to talk to this kid about bullying this kid.’ So they get too busy with . . . and caught up with things that they need to do that they don’t really focus on the bullying problems.

Consequences for perpetrators are ineffective. When teach- ers responded, students questioned the effectiveness of the conse- quences incurred by those involved as perpetrators. This theme emerged in 62% of the study’s focus groups. A Grade 5 girl argued that, “They don’t have enough consequences.” A girl in Grade 8 expressed a similar view, “The teachers don’t really enforce the rules.” Students were critical of detentions or suspensions. A boy in Grade 8 felt that: “. . . even if they get caught, like, ripping down a poster and vandalizing it, how people usually just give them detention, but detention, it—it doesn’t really do much . . .” This Grade 5 boy, questioned the utility of suspensions for bullying: “Everyone loves PA days. Suspension is like an extended PA day and they’re just staying home, do whatever you want.”

Unfair or disrespectful processes undermine antibullying interventions. Students in 62% of groups felt that disrespectful treatment, reputational biases, and unfair processes compromised antibullying programs. Students responded negatively when anti- bullying activities were delivered in the context of disrespectful relationships with teachers. A boy from Grade 7, for example, noted: “And we just don’t really listen because we feel like we’re being treated like little kids.” A boy from Grade 8 argued that disrespectful treatment elicited a disrespectuful response:

I think—one of the things that I really believe in when it comes to schools is meeting in the middle. Like, teachers—like I said, espe- cially with this one teacher, we’ve had a problem with her all year and it’s because she doesn’t treat us, like, with respect, like we’re Grade 8s . . . And so when she leaves the room, it’s hectic. When she’s in the room it’s hectic. No one has any respect for her.

Students also complained that the response of some educators was biased by the reputation of students involved in bullying episodes. A Grade 5 boy, for example, said that, “. . . some teachers actually have a favorite student and if that favorite student is the bully then they [the teacher] . . . feel like oh, well she would never do anything like that or he will never do anything like that.” Reputational biases undermined programs by discouraging stu- dents from seeking help. A Grade 5 boy noted, “. . . they do that and it’s just like okay well what can I do now cause these are, this person is her favorite and she’s not gonna do anything.” This Grade 8 boy concluded that reputational biases compromised antibullying programs by emboldening perpetrators:

. . . in some of the classes I am in, like, there’s some kids I know that are teacher pet. Like, they’re teacher favorites . . . It makes them—I think it just enforces their mindset of 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Like, I’m invincible; the teacher is going to side with me every time.

Paradoxically, a Grade 8 boy felt reputational biases made it difficult for students involved as perpetrators to change: “we will want to get better maybe sometimes . . . And then she will just keep a grudge on that person forever almost.” In addition to disrespect- ful treatment and reputational biases, students also reacted to unfair processes. A Grade 8 boy who believed he was unfairly sent to the office when a teacher misinterpreted his attempts to assist another student, stated: “. . . it’s like you get sent down to the office, and then it makes you even more angry, so you want to find a way to get back at them.”

A failure to sustain programs limits their effectiveness. Although students criticized repetitive presentations, 31% of focus groups concluded that inconsistent implementation and mainte- nance limited the influence of potentially effective initiatives. In discussing the antibullying activities at their school, a Grade 6 girl noted that, “Last year my class didn’t do it.” When the interviewer inquired how this had effected bullying at their school, she noted, “That more bullying started to gain more, like more people were getting bullied.” A girl in Grade 6 expressed a similar view: “Doing the anti-bullying projects [internet research and discus- sion] more because last year there wasn’t as much bullying going around in my class than there was in other classes because we did it a lot.” A girl from Grade 8 thought discontinuing promising programs reversed their influence:

Well, at my old school we had a lady come in and she sat down and we did this thing called [a mentoring group for at risk girls (e.g., victims) that built life skills and confidence]. But she didn’t stay for too long which I thought was the problem because we were all starting to feel better . . . and then the lady left and all things just returned back to normal.

Some Students Undermine Programs by Disengaging and Pushing Back

Participants in 100% of groups suggested that antibullying ac- tivities sometimes elicited student responses which limited the effectiveness of these initiatives. These ranged from nonparticipa- tion and denial of involvement, to more active efforts to discredit, disrupt, or defy programs.

Students fail to attend to antibullying activities. The in- tended effect of antibullying presentations and assemblies was compromised when students failed to pay attention. This theme was discussed in 77% of the study’s groups. A Grade 6 boy described a typical response:

So we usually start assemblies off like with our principal talking about just things that are happening in school and a lot of kids aren’t paying attention. Like I know whenever I sit beside people they’re always like talking to their friends even though they’re like way across like the gym.

This Grade 8 girl described antibullying assemblies, “So, like— well, you’re in an assembly, a gymnasium . . . And then usually, like, you listen for, like, the first five minutes and then just tune out for the rest.” A Grade 5 boy characterized the response of older students: “Yeah, they don’t listen and it’s mainly the Grade 8s ‘cause it’s almost the end of the year that they can act like cool again, then fool around in assembly.” This Grade 8 boy emphasized the importance of developmentally appropriate antibullying presentations:

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

601WHAT LIMITS ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS

And I know especially when we have assemblies now in this—even if it’s directed to us but, again, it’s more directed to the younger kids, and I know a lot of kids, my friends and stuff like that, will sit there and talk through it because it‘s—it’s directed at a younger kids’ level. And so they just believe, before the person even opens their mouth, that it’s not directed to them, they’re not a part of it, it doesn’t affect them.

Denial elicited by antibullying presentations insulates stu- dents from their message. Other students subverted antibullying messages by minimizing the problem, trivializing the presentation, or denying their involvement. This response was discussed in 31% of the study’s groups. A Grade 5 girl, for example, thought, “They’d prob- ably deny everything, like they’ll say ‘oh well that’s unusual, that will never happen’, like even though it does happen.” A boy in Grade 8 concluded that, “The most—the most common thing I know is—is a lot of them, like, turn it [an anti-bullying assembly] into a joke. Like, because, like I say, they don’t want to face themselves . . .” A Grade 8 girl suspected that antibullying presentations eliciting denial com- pounded the problem: “It’s denial. Like, people get worse after because they deny that they are part of it.”

Students discredit antibullying programs and presenters. Some students undermined antibullying initiatives by discrediting the program or its presenters. This subtheme was recorded in 54% of groups. A Grade 7 girl noted, “Sometimes they actually make fun of it [an anti-bullying presentation].” A student in a Grade 8 girls group concluded that: “And, like, well, for like the bully or whoever might influence other students by saying, ‘Oh, this pre- sentation was stupid.’” Others criticized or ridiculed speakers. A girl in Grade 5, for example, observed that: “They, usually they talk in assemblies, they’ll bother other people or they may even gossip about the teacher.” A Grade 8 girl described a similar example, “Well, there are some kids that act out and like, mock the people at the front.” Others discouraged their peers from partici- pating. A Grade 8 girl, for example, said that, “They could tell people, like, that these bullying programs don’t really work. Like, they’ve been to it and it doesn’t really do anything, and then not many people will go.”

Students disrupt antibullying activities. Although some stu- dents refused to participate in antibullying activities, discredited speakers, or criticized programs, others engaged in a more active effort to disrupt these initiatives. This subtheme emerged in 38% of groups. A Grade 8 boy concluded, “. . . it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re always going to have kids that are going to undermine whatever you’re trying to get across . . .” A Grade 8 girl noted: “Like, some people, like, during the presentations . . . they’d just, like, talk and, like, ignore it so, like, they won’t be getting . . . information and, like, disturbing people around them . . .” Similar to students in 54% of groups, a Grade 8 girl thought students were likely to react to strong, unilateral messages: “They think, you know, ‘Okay. This person’s trying to tell me what to do. You don’t have a right,’ so they start rebelling, they’re talking during the presentation.” A Grade 6 boy said students also reacted to peers trying to prevent bullying: “The students trying to make them [anti-bullying programs] work, pushing too hard to make them work. So there’re going to be a few kids that try and push back because they’re trying too hard to make it work.”

Some students victimize peers during or immediately after antibullying activities. In 62% of groups, students suggested that bullying sometimes occurred during, immediately following,

or as a direct response to, antibullying activities. A Grade 8 girl described students who defiantly victimized peers: “Yeah, I think they don’t, like, they don’t really care what the teacher says. ‘We’ll just keep doing it.’” A girl from Grade 8 said that, “Bullies would want to be like ‘okay, so this is really boring, I want to get out and bully more.’” A girl from Grade 6 noted, “And another thing about wearing pink shirt day, some people won’t wear them and won’t even care about anti-bullying but they’ll still like bully people on the same day, on pink shirt day.” A Grade 8 girl thought that bullying actually worsened in response to antibullying presenta- tions: “Kind of, when they rebel . . . like, some . . . I find that the bullying gets worse after the presentation.” The approach to bul- lying that students adopted was also influenced by the disciplinary components of antibullying programs. This Grade 6 girl worried that disciplinary strategies might encourage students to shift to more surreptitious bullying strategies, “Well, the teacher probably thinks that if you’re on the wall you’re going to think about not doing it again but they’re probably going to think about doing it again, just not getting caught . . .”

Discussion

Meta-analyses suggest that the impact of antibullying programs has been limited, especially in North American contexts (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). The effectiveness of these programs, moreover, may decrease during the middle school years (Yeager et al., 2015). This study makes several contributions to our understanding of these findings. First, we explored the perceptions of students in Grades 5 to 8 regarding design and implementation factors that might limit the effectiveness of the antibullying initiatives. Sec- ond, building on previous qualitative studies (Cunningham et al., 2010), we explored the way in which students responded to fea- tures of programs they disliked. Finally, we considered the per- spective of students regarding the mechanisms via which the response of their peers might undermine these programs.

Factors Limiting the Effectiveness of Antibullying Programs

Students suggested that boring, repetitive presentations, strong top-down messages, and speakers lacking credibility reduced the potentially positive impact of antibullying initiatives. These results are consistent with previous research (Boulton & Boulton, 2012; Cunningham et al., 2010). Boulton and Boulton (2012) found that 89.1% of a sample of students from junior schools in England reported that they did not devote their full attention to the antibul- lying presentations at their schools.

The Ontario Ministry of Education’s antibullying guidelines indicate that bullying incidents should be dealt with promptly. Here, however, students were concerned that some playground supervisors were too distracted to detect and respond to bullying. Participants argued that when bullying was reported, a delayed response limited the effectiveness of adult interventions. Students also attributed this delay to a tendency to minimize the seriousness of bullying incidents. This seems consistent with studies finding that teachers consider bullying incidents less serious than do students (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007) or evidence that educators fail to respond to incidents students deem significant (Varjas et al., 2009).

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

602 CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

Although schools employed a progressive disciplinary protocol mandated by Ontario’s Ministry of Education, students questioned the effectiveness of the consequences incurred by those involved as perpetrators. This is consistent with previous studies (Cunning- ham et al., 2010; Varjas et al., 2009). In the present study, sus- pensions and detentions were often judged to be of limited value. Modeling studies predict that, although students value an approach that balances prevention with consequences for perpetrators, the introduction of more punitive strategies would reduce support for the program (Cunningham et al., 2011). Other investigators report that students would be more likely to report bullying if teachers separated students or involved parents and less likely to report incidents when perpetrators were dealt with more punitively (Cor- tes & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2014).

Previous research has linked the organizational justice percep- tions of educators to the health and performance of their students (Elovainio et al., 2011). In Finnish studies, low teacher-reported procedural justice (e.g., unfair decision processes) is associated with student dissatisfaction while low teacher-reported relational justice (e.g., disrespectful treatment) has been linked to lower student achievement, school avoidance, and an increase in mental health problems (Elovainio et al., 2011). Our findings suggest similar organizational principles influence the response of students to antibullying programs. As in previous studies (Hallinan, 2008), participants valued schools that treated students respectfully and dealt with bullying in a fair and unbiased manner.

Pushing Back

Students in a previous study described peers whose reaction to antibullying initiatives seemed to limit the program’s effectiveness (Cunningham et al., 2010). Our focus groups allowed students to explore these processes in considerable depth. Students suggested that the response of their peers ranged from a reluctance to par- ticipate in antibullying activities to an effort to undermine these programs. While some failed to attend to antibullying activities, others distracted their peers, ridiculed speakers, disrupted presen- tations, and bullied defiantly. Examples of these responses emerged in 92% of the study’s 13 focus groups.

The “push back” students described is consistent with the pre- dictions of psychological reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981), a model postulating that, in an effort to assert personal control, students may resist efforts to alter their attitudes and decisions. As a Grade 8 girl observed, “It’s an act of rebellion against somebody telling you what to do.” An unintended outcome of prevention programs eliciting psychological reactance may be an increase in the very behavior these initiatives are designed to prevent (Chadee, 2011; Rains, 2013).

Several factors support the suggestion that psychological reactance may be influencing the response of students to antibullying initiatives. First, reactance is most likely to be observed when prevention pro- grams attempt to limit behaviors students value (Chadee, 2011). Bullying can represent a source of status and social control that students involved as perpetrators, and the bystanders who encourage bullying (Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011), may be reluctant to abandon (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2003). Second, the repetitive messages students complained about are more likely to elicit psychological reactance than more engaging presentations (Quick, 2013). Third, students argued that top-down, negatively fo-

cused antibullying messages (“don’t bully”) often elicited rebellious responses. Indeed, strongly worded messages are more likely to elicit reactant responses (Legault et al., 2011; Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007). Finally, this study was conducted during Grades 5 to 8. Reactance is most likely to occur during the middle school years when a growing sense of independence and personal control emerges (Grandpre et al., 2003; Rummel et al., 2000). It is noteworthy, therefore, that antibullying programs that have reduced bullying and victimization among younger students appear less effec- tive in Grades 7 through 9 (Kärnä et al., 2013). A recent meta-analysis concluded that, although antibullying programs reduce bullying by younger students, programs work poorly and may elicit iatrogenic effects in students beyond Grade 7 (Yeager et al., 2015).

Students attributed negative responses to antibullying programs to a subset of their peers. This observation is consistent with research demonstrating individual differences in dispositional reactance (Miller, Burgoon, Grandpre, & Alvaro, 2006; Wiium, Aarø, & Het- land, 2009). Those with high dispositional reactance scores are more likely to engage in high risk behavior and to resist prevention initia- tives (Miller et al., 2006; Wiium et al., 2009). Modeling studies, for example, predict that students involved as perpetrators are more likely than victims or uninvolved peers to evidence reactant responses to hypothetical antibullying programs employing more controlling change strategies (Cunningham et al., 2011).

How Does the Response of Students Influence Program Effectiveness?

The mechanisms via which antibullying initiatives might elicit responses that undermine the program were recurrent focus group themes. Participants thought that students disrupting antibullying pre- sentations, discrediting speakers, or destroying materials, for example, limited the extent to which these initiatives influenced their peers. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Boulton & Boulton, 2012). According to students, the failure of playground supervisors to respond quickly enough to prevent the escalation of bullying episodes, and the belief that consequences adopted by schools did not inhibit bullying, discouraged students from reporting bullying and embold- ened perpetrators. This conclusion is supported by studies finding that students are less likely to report bullying to teachers in classrooms where teachers intervene less actively (Cortes & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2014). In classrooms where students are less likely to report bullying to teachers, victimization is more likely to occur (Cortes & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2014).

While antibullying programs may elicit responses that exert an indirect influence on bullying by limiting the effectiveness of antibullying activities, programs may also contribute to a more immediate increase in bullying. Antibullying presentations that failed to engage students, for example, seemed to prompt a defiant postpresentation increase in bullying. Consistent with psycholog- ical reactance theory, students thought strongly worded, negatively focused, antibullying messages were especially likely to trigger rebellious bullying.

Although a small group of students may evidence reactance, they may influence a wider group of students by modeling antisocial behavior, encouraging peers to disregard or disrupt the program, and reinforcing students who bully. These, processes, referred to as social contagion or deviancy training (Dishion & Dodge, 2005; Dishion & Tipsord, 2011), are thought to have limited the impact of several

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

603WHAT LIMITS ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS

major efforts to reduce conduct problems (Gottfredson, Cross, Wil- son, Rorie, & Connell, 2010; Rorie, Gottfredson, Cross, Wilson, & Connell, 2011). Deviancy training is likely to flourish in the relatively unstructured settings where bullying often occurs and the conse- quences for responses are perceived to be ineffective (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011; Helseth et al., 2015).

Some students perceive push back against antibullying programs to be a source of social status. As a Grade 8 girl noted, “If it’s a strict teacher, too, but, like the people that are bullying will just be like, ‘oh well if I don’t listen to this strict teacher, will it make me look like I’m more cool.’” Students with high status who resisted participation in prevention programs were more likely to elicit similar responses from peers. A negative response from an influential group of students, and the similarity-influence mechanisms via which these students change the attitudes of a wider group of like-minded peers (Sentse, Kiuru, Veenstra, & Salmivalli, 2014), may be compounded by the collective effect of students on the attitudes of the educators responsible for implementing antibullying initiatives. Modeling studies, for example, suggest that teachers would be more likely to support antibullying programs that were liked by a majority of students (Cunningham et al., 2009).

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered. First, this study was conducted in Canada, a country where bullying rates are relatively high (Craig et al., 2009). The study, moreover, was situated in the context of a provincially mandated antibullying strategy. It is unclear whether our findings could be transferred to European schools where antibullying programs appear to be more successful (Ttofi & Far- rington, 2011). Second, our decision to engage school social workers as focus group interviewers might have introduced a bias toward a more favorable evaluation of the school’s antibullying programs. The interview guide, therefore, was designed to encourage a balanced discussion. Indeed, students readily critiqued these programs. Third, to reduce disruptions to the school day, focus groups were limited to 45 min. This may have decreased the percentage of groups in which each theme was recorded. Moreover, given limited time, the interview guide did not specifically ask students how to improve programs. In the context of their discussions, however, suggestions regarding pro- gram improvements emerged. These are the focus of a separate analysis. Finally, because we were interested in a broad perspective, we did not attempt to screen for participants involved in different bullying roles. Whereas research reveals differences in the antibully- ing program preferences of students in various bullying roles, they share similar views on many issues (Cunningham et al., 2011). Al- though the composition of our groups might have influenced discus- sions, all groups devoted time to factors limiting the effectiveness of antibullying programs and recommendations for program improve- ment.

Research Implications

The model emerging from this study suggests that antibullying activities may elicit a negative response that may influence the attitudes of a wider group of peers. Researchers have developed strategies for measuring processes such as psychological reactance (Chadee, 2011; Rains, 2013) and deviancy training (Helseth et al., 2015) that may undermine the intended outcome of intervention

and prevention programs. Future studies should quantify the “push back” described by this study’s participants, determine its influ- ence on the response of peers, and estimate the extent to which reactance may compromise antibullying programs.

Students believe that the absence of effective consequences for bullying contributed to a sense of unfairness, discouraged reporting, and emboldened perpetrators. They questioned the effectiveness of detentions and suspensions. There is a need to study the credibility and effectiveness of different responses to bullying incidents. Students also suggested their response to antibullying programs was influenced by the extent to which the program was administered in a fair, unbiased, respectful manner, principles consistent with the conclu- sions of a very substantial body or organizational research (Colquitt et al., 2013). The potential links between student perceptions of the fairness of antibullying program processes, the respectfulness of their interaction with teachers, and their response to the school’s antibul- lying programs merits further study.

Our study focused on students in Grades 5 through 8, a period in early adolescent development when reactance is likely to be observed (Grandpre et al., 2003). Younger students may respond differently. Indeed, previous studies suggest that the impact of antibullying programs may vary as a function of age (Kärnä et al., 2013; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011; Yeager et al., 2015). Future studies need to understand the response of students to bullying prevention programs at different stages in their development. Al- though this study permitted an in depth exploration of the response of students to antibullying programs, future studies should quantify the relative importance of different design themes, identify seg- ments of students with different views, understand the perspective of the educators who implement these programs, and simulate their response to innovative design options.

Policy and Clinical Implications

Schools need to design engaging antibullying communications. This study suggests that programs pay particular attention to messages students perceive to be strongly worded, negatively focused, or developmentally inappropriate. Developers should conduct pretest trials examining the response of important sub- groups of students to different antibullying communication strat- egies (Fishbein, Hall-Jamieson, Zimmer, von Haeften, & Nabi, 2002). Positively-focused motivational messages, for example, are less likely to elicit reactant responses to materials designed or prevent racial discrimination (Legault et al., 2011).

From the perspective of this study’s participants, schools need to ensure a level of vigilant monitoring allowing educators to detect bullying and respond promptly when incidents are reported. Be- cause some students may bully in response to antibullying activ- ities, schools may need to increase postpresentation monitoring. Systematic reviews confirm that enhanced supervision is associ- ated with an increase in the effectiveness of antibullying programs (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Preliminary analyses from the quanti- tative stage of this project confirm that a prompt response to bullying incidents exerted a strong influence on the decision to report bullying or seek help (Cunningham, Rimas, Vaillancourt, et al., 2015). Teachers in a related project felt that competing curric- ulum demands limited the time available to implement antibully- ing programs and respond to individual incidents (Cunningham, Rimas, Mielko, et al., 2015). Ministries and boards need to ensure

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

604 CUNNINGHAM ET AL.

that staffing policies and procedures allow the enhanced supervi- sion and time needed to support prompt responses to bullying incidents. Finally, students were sensitive to a well established set of organizational justice principles (Colquitt et al., 2013); schools need to ensure fair, unbiased, respectful processes for dealing with bullying incidents and conducting antibullying activities.

References

Barbour, R. S. & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage.

Boulton, M. J., & Boulton, R. (2012). Resistant to the message: Are pupils unreceptive to teachers’ anti-bullying initiatives and if so why? Educa- tional Studies, 38, 485–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011 .643112

Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361–383.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bushman, B. J. (2006). Effects of warning and information labels on attraction to television violence in viewers of different ages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2073–2078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .0021-9029.2006.00094.x

Chadee, D. (2011). Toward freedom: Reactance theory revisited. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Theories in social psychology (1st ed., pp. 13–43). New York, NY: Blackwell.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031757;10.1037/a0031757

Cortes, K. I., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2014). To tell or not to tell: What influences children’s decisions to report bullying to their teachers? School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 336–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ spq0000078

Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., . . . the HBSC Bullying Writing Group. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9

Craig, W., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 22–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034300211002

Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2004). Comparing middle school teachers’ and students’ views on bullying and anti-bullying interven- tions. Journal of School Violence, 3, 17–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/ J202v03n01_03

Crothers, L. M., Kolbert, J. B., & Barker, W. F. (2006). Middle school students’ preferences for anti-bullying interventions. School Psychology International, 27, 475–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034306070435

Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Ratcliffe, J., & Vaillancourt, T. (2010). A qualitative analysis of the bullying prevention and intervention recommendations of students in grades 5 to 8. Journal of School Vio- lence, 9, 321–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.507146

Cunningham, C. E., Rimas, H., Mielko, S., Mapp, C., Cunningham, L., Vaillancourt, T., . . . Marcus, M. (2015). What limits the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of teach- ers. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2015.1095100

Cunningham, C. E., Rimas, H., Vaillancourt, T., Mielko, S., Mapp, C., Cunningham, L., . . . Thabane, L. (2015, August). Modeling anti- bullying programs that motivate students to speak out and report bul- lying. Poster Presented at the 123rd American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, ON.

Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Cunningham, L. J., Chen, Y., & Ratcliffe, J. (2011). Modeling the bullying prevention program design recommendations of students from grades five to eight: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 521–537. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20408

Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, H., Deal, K., Cunningham, L., Short, K., & Chen, Y. (2009). Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 929–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10802-009-9324-2

DeLuca, P. F., Buist, S. & Johnston, N. (2012). The code red project: Engaging communities in health system change in Hamilton, Canada. Social Indicators Research, 108, 317–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-012-0068-y

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815

Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions for children and adolescents: Moving towards an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol- ogy, 33, 395–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-3579-z

Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412

Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt, P., . . . the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Bullying Working Group. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: International comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 128–132. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1093/eurpub/cki105

Elovainio, M., Pietikainen, M., Luopa, P., Kivimaki, M., Ferrie, J. E., Jokela, J., . . . Virtanen, M. (2011). Organizational justice at school and its associations with pupils’ psychosocial school environment, health, and wellbeing. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1675–1682. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.025

Espelage, D. L. (2013). Why are bully prevention programs failing in U.S. schools? Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 10, 121–124. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2013.849629

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., Fredriks, A. M., Vogels, T., & Verloove- Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117, 1568–1574. http://dx.doi .org/10.1542/peds.2005-0187

Fishbein, M., Hall-Jamieson, K., Zimmer, E., von Haeften, I., & Nabi, R. (2002). Avoiding the boomerang: Testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 238–245. http://dx.doi.org/10 .2105/AJPH.92.2.238

Forber-Pratt, A. J., Aragon, S. R., & Espelage, D. L. (2014). The influence of gang presence on victimization in one middle school environment. Psychology of Violence, 4, 8–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031835

Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A., Wilson, D., Rorie, M., & Connell, N. (2010). An experimental evaluation of the All Stars prevention curriculum in a community after school setting. Prevention Science, 11, 142–154. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0156-7

Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15, 349–366. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1207/S15327027HC1503_6

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

605WHAT LIMITS ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS

Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295–310. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01556.x

Hallinan, M. T. (2008). Teacher influences on students’ attachment to school. Sociology of Education, 81, 271–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 003804070808100303

Helseth, S. A., Waschbusch, D. A., Gnagy, E. M., Onyango, A. N., Burrows-MacLean, L., Fabiano, G. A., . . . Pelham, W. E., Jr. (2015). Effects of behavioral and pharmacological therapies on peer reinforce- ment of deviancy in children with ADHD-only, ADHD and conduct problems, and controls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 280–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038505

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030417

Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic effects of anti- prejudice messages: How motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22, 1472–1477. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427918

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Miller, C. H., Burgoon, M., Grandpre, J. R., & Alvaro, E. M. (2006). Identifying principal risk factors for the initiation of adolescent smoking behaviors: The significance of psychological reactance. Health Commu- nication, 19, 241–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1903_6

Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240.

Mishna, F., Wiener, J., & Pepler, D. J. (2008). Some of my best friends— Experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology Interna- tional, 29, 549–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034308099201

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Keeping our kids safe at school: Reporting and responding to incidents. Retrieved from http://www.edu .gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/KeepKidSafeSchool.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2012a). Bullying prevention and interven- tion (Policy Memorandum No. 144). Retrieved from http://www.edu .gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/144.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2012b). Progressive discipline and pro- moting positive student behaviour (Policy Memorandum No. 145). Re- trieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm145.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). Bullying we can all help stop it. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.on .ca/multi/english/BullyingEN.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). Safe and accepting schools. Re- trieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/safeschools.html

Ontario Ministry of Education, Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network. (PREVNet) in collaboration with the Accepting Schools Expert Panel. (2013). Working draft: Safe and accepting schools model bullying prevention and intervention plan. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/144.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 209–257). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perlus, J. G., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., & Iannotti, R. J. (2014). Trends in bullying, physical fighting, and weapon carrying among 6th- through 10th-grade students from 1998 to 2010: Findings from a national study.

American Journal of Public Health, 104, 1100–1106. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301761

Quick, B. L. (2013). Perceived message sensation value and psychological reactance: A test of the dominant thought disruption hypothesis. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 1024–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10810730.2013.768728

Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39, 47–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x

Rorie, M., Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A., Wilson, D., & Connell, N. M. (2011). Structure and deviancy training in after-school programs. Jour- nal of Adolescence, 34, 105–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adoles- cence.2010.01.007

Rudolph, K. D., Troop-Gordon, W., Hessel, E. T., & Schmidt, J. D. (2011). A latent growth curve analysis of early and increasing peer victimization as predictors of mental health across elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15374416.2011.533413

Rummel, A., Howard, J., Swinton, J. M., & Seymour, D. B. (2000). You can’t have that! A study of reactance effects & children’s consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8, 38–45. Re- trieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40470215

Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: As- sociations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol- ogy, 40, 668–676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090

Sentse, M., Kiuru, N., Veenstra, R., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). A social network approach to the interplay between adolescents’ bullying and likeability over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1409–1420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0129-4

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. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/s11292-010-9109-1

Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., . . . Cunningham, L. J. (2010). Places to avoid: Population- based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 40–54.

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157–176. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1300/J008v19n02_10

Varjas, K., Henrich, C. C., & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle school students’ perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8, 159–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15388220802074165

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78

Wiium, N., Aarø, L. E., & Hetland, J. (2009). Psychological reactance and adolescents’ attitudes toward tobacco-control measures. Journal of Ap- plied Social Psychology, 39, 1718–1738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1559-1816.2009.00501.x

Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol- ogy, 37, 36–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005

Received December 12, 2014 Revision received October 16, 2015

Accepted October 16, 2015 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

606 CUNNINGHAM ET AL.