Research Proposal
wjk_14
new_article_1.pdf
Bullying prevention programs: the importance of peer intervention, disciplinary methods and age variations
Maria M. Ttofi & David P. Farrington
Published online: 12 August 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Objectives The aim of this paper is to respond to the commentary of Peter K. Smith, Christina Salmivalli, and Helen Cowie (Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2012), who raise concerns regarding some of the findings of our systematic review and meta- analyses on the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs. They target three findings in particular: (1) the significant association of ‘Work with Peers’ with greater victimization; (2) the significant association of ‘Disciplinary Methods’ with less bullying perpetration and victimization; and (3) the age variations in effectiveness, suggesting larger effect sizes for older age students. Methods We provide explicit information and further detailed analyses on the rela- tionship between these features and effect sizes, including heterogeneity tests and results from weighted regression analyses. For one element in particular (work with peers), we present further research findings from evaluations conducted by Smith, Salmivalli, and Cowie (and also findings from other independent researchers) which support our previous findings. New within-program analyses to examine variations in effect sizes with the age of the students are also presented. Results Evaluations conducted by Smith, Salmivalli and Cowie (and by other inde- pendent researchers) indicate the same research conclusions: although peer support schemes appear effective based on attitudinal surveys, these schemes are not related to actual levels of bullying or victimization and, in fact, are quite often related to an increase in bullying and victimization. Our definition of ‘disciplinary methods’ did not include the zero-tolerance approach or any type of harsh discipline as suggested in the commentary. In all relevant cases, ‘disciplinary methods’ included sanctions within a warm and loving framework, following the Olweus bullying prevention guide- lines. While most programs that utilized firm disciplinary methods were inspired by Olweus, the relationship between disciplinary methods and less victimization was not driven by the Olweus program (which was not related to the victimization effect size). Larger effect sizes (i.e. reductions in bullying and victimization) for programs imple- mented with older students is a robust result also found in a more recent systematic review regarding the effects of anti-bullying programs on bystander intervention. In
J Exp Criminol (2012) 8:443–462 DOI 10.1007/s11292-012-9161-0
M. M. Ttofi (*) : D. P. Farrington Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, UK CB3 9DA e-mail: [email protected]
within-program analyses, most results suggested that effect sizes were greater for younger students, but these results were driven by the less controlled evaluations. The most controlled evaluation (randomized experiment) provided the opposite result. Conclusions More research is clearly needed on the effectiveness of bullying pre- vention programs with students of different ages, and we also recommend random- ized experiments to assess the importance of different intervention components.
Keywords Bullying prevention . Meta-analysis . Peer support schemes . Disciplinary methods . Age variations
Introduction
Involvement in school bullying as either a perpetrator or victim is a traumatic experience with both concurrent and long-term negative effects (Ttofi and Farrington 2008a). Findings from a recent systematic review (Ttofi et al. 2011b; Farrington et al. 2012) clearly show that bullying perpetration at school is a significant predictor of offending up to about 6 years later (range in years: 0.42–16.50; M05.84; SD04.56), even after controlling for other major childhood risk factors (adjusted OR: 1.89; 95 % CI: 1.60–2.23). Bullying perpetration is also a significant predictor of violence (adjusted OR02.04; 95 % CI: 1.69–2.45) an average of 6 years later in life (Ttofi et al. 2012). Results are equally disheartening for the victims of school bullying (Ttofi et al. 2011a; Farrington et al. 2012). Bullying victimization is a significant predictor of depression up to about seven years later (range in years: 1.00–36.00; M07.13; SD08.79), even after controlling for other major childhood risk factors (Adjusted OR: 1.71; 95 % CI: 1.49–1.96).
In light of these results, it comes as no surprise that a great deal of money and energy has been invested in intervention efforts aiming to reduce school bullying. Several bullying prevention programs have been evaluated using controlled method- ological designs (Farrington and Ttofi 2009; Ttofi and Farrington 2011). Notably, these evaluations provide information about elements included in their bullying prevention strategies as well as information about their implementation procedures. In our meta-analytic work, correlational analyses were conducted in order to inves- tigate which program components and implementation features are most strongly correlated with effect sizes across programs. In total, 20 intervention components and 12 implementation features were related to effect sizes.
In their commentary, Peter Smith, Christina Salmivalli, and Helen Cowie (Smith et al. 2012) focus on our findings that: (1) programs including work with peers tend to have smaller effect sizes, (2) programs including firm disciplinary methods tend to have larger effect sizes, and (3) programs tend to work better with older students (those aged 11 or older). We welcome their commentary, because it encourages us to study these issues in more detail.
Smith and colleagues state that “the attempt to examine the effects of various program elements or design features is innovative, and provides a useful basis for further discussion. However, we believe that it is quite premature to take such firm policy recommendations from those analyses …” We do not agree that we make firm policy recommendations. After saying “it seems from our results that work with peers
444 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
should not be used” (which does not seem to us to be a firm policy recommendation), we go on to say “it should be borne in mind, however, that we have discovered the program elements that are most highly correlated with effectiveness. This does not prove that they cause effectiveness, but this is the best evidence we have at present” (Ttofi and Farrington 2011: 44). We agree that our results should not be the basis for ‘firm policy recommendations’ but we also believe that they should at least be taken into account in designing future bullying prevention programs. Our weighted regression analyses showed that work with peers and disciplinary methods were related to effect size after controlling for all other program components and implementation features.
We have re-read all 44 evaluations and summarize the key results in Table 1. In particular, we give as much information as possible about the ages of the students, work with peers, and disciplinary methods. In creating this table, we discovered errors in the coding of the Ciucci and Smorti (1998) evaluation. This was published in Italian and we have discovered that the original translation was incorrect in regard to the age of the students (previously 7.5, correct 13.5) and whether the program involved work with peers (previously yes, correct no). Table 2 shows the corrected table of effect sizes (Odds Ratios) versus categories of variables. Compared to the original tables in our article (Ttofi and Farrington 2011: 41–42), there are no changes in the Odds Ratios and only minimal changes in the p values.
Effects of peer support schemes on school bullying
Smith and colleagues argue that there are definitional problems with the element we coded as “Work with Peers” because this is a multi-faceted concept. We disagree. In our Campbell Collaboration Report (Farrington and Ttofi 2009: 64) we carefully defined this element as involving the formal engagement of peers in tackling bully- ing. We only included a program as including ‘work with peers’ if it included peer mediation, peer mentoring, or engagement of bystanders in bullying situations. Thus, the Karna et al. (2011) program was coded as including work with peers. If there were merely classroom discussions about bullying, awareness raising, or the formulation of rules for bystander intervention, we would not code this as work with peers. The Ciucci and Smorti (1998) evaluation was coded as not having work with peers because they only had role playing exercises and ‘quality circles’ for bullying awareness, but no formal engagement of peers in tackling bullying.
Table 1 clearly shows that all programs that included this element did indeed include a formal engagement of students in the school anti-bullying strategy. Al- though different programs defined this group of students as ‘Peer Mediators’, ‘Peer Supporters’ or ‘Peer Buddies’, essentially this element refers to the same latent construct, namely: “peer support strategies which use the student peer group both to prevent and respond to bullying” (Thompson and Smith 2011: 35). Taking into account this definition, we were surprised to read in the commentary that these schemes “are not designed to prevent bullying but only to support victims after the bullying had taken place.”
We consider that the evidence about the effectiveness of peer support schemes in reducing bullying is not encouraging. To be sure, these schemes have been found to be effective in increasing the self-esteem and feelings of responsibility of the students
Update of bullying prevention program research 445
T a b le
1 E v al u at io n st u d ie s w it h ac co m p an y in g p ro g ra m /e v al u at io n el em
en ts
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
R an d o m iz ed
ex p er im
en ts
B u ll i an d P u p e
1 .1 4 (0 .5 1 – 2 .5 8 )
1 .6 9 (0 .7 6 – 3 .7 8 )
X X
S tu d en ts fr o m
tw o m id d le
sc h o o ls an d o n e
h ig h sc h o o l (B al d ry
an d F ar ri n g to n 2 0 0 4 :
4 ) 1 3 .2
in ex p er im
en ta l g ro u p ; 1 3 .5
in co n tr o l g ro u p (B al d ry
an d F ar ri n g to n
2 0 0 4 : 5 ) M ea n A g e:
1 3 .3 5
P ro je ct
p lo u g h sh ar es
p u p p et s
fo r p ea ce
1 .1 4 (0 .5 3 – 2 .4 6 )
N /A
X X
S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
3 an d 4 fr o m
2 p u b li c
sc h o o ls (B er an
an d S h ap ir o 2 0 0 5 : 7 0 4 )
M ea n A g e:
9 .5 0
S h o rt v id eo
in te rv en ti o n
0 .9 3 (0 .3 8 – 2 .2 7 )
N /A
X X
P ar ti ci p an ts d ra w n fr o m
tw o re g is tr at io n
cl as se s fr o m
Y ea rs 7 ,8 ,9 ,1 0 ac co rd in g ly ;
m o d al
ag es 0 11 , 1 2 , 1 3 , an d 1 4 y ea rs
re sp ec ti v el y (B o u lt o n an d F le m in g to n
1 9 9 6 : 3 3 5 ) M ea n A g e:
1 3 .0 0
F ri en d ly
S ch o o ls
0 .7 7 (0 .5 1 – 1 .1 5 )
1 .0 7 (0 .7 9 – 1 .4 3 )
T h e w h o le -s ch o o l p la n n in g an d st ra te g y
m an u al
in cl u d es
S tr at eg ie s fo r P ee r
S u p p o rt an d so ci al
p ro b le m -s o lv in g
(C ro ss
et al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 9 2 ) an d th e F ri en d ly
S ch o o ls cu rr ic u lu m
in cl u d es
ac ti v it ie s
w h ic h p ro m o te
p ee r an d ad u lt su p p o rt
fo r st u d en ts w h o ar e b ei n g b u ll ie d
(C ro ss
et al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 9 3 )
X T h e fr ie n d ly
sc h o o ls in te rv en ti o n w as
p ro v id ed
fo r th e fi rs t 2 y ea rs
o f th is
(l o n g it u d in al ) 3 -y ea r st u d y, w h en
th e st u -
d en t co h o rt w er e in
G ra d es
4 an d 5 (C ro ss
et al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 9 1 ) M ea n A g e:
8 .6 0
S .S .G R IN
0 .8 7 (0 .6 3 – 1 .2 1 )
1 .0 4 (0 .7 5 – 1 .4 5 )
X X
T h ir d -g ra d e st u d en ts fr o m
11 p u b li c
el em
en ta ry
sc h o o ls (D
eR o si er
an d
M ar cu s 2 0 0 5 : 1 4 2 ) m ea n ag e:
9 .0 0
D ut ch
an ti -b ul ly in g
p ro gr am
1 .1 2 (0 .7 4 – 1 .6 9 )
1 .2 5 (0 .9 5 – 1 .6 5 )
X S ch o o ls w er e as k ed
to in cl u d e in
th ei r
ac ti v it ie s th e co re
p ro g ra m
as d es cr ib ed
b y O lw eu s (F ek k es
et al ., 2 0 0 6 : 6 4 0 )
C h il d re n fr o m
th e 3 h ig h es t g ra d es
o f
el em
en ta ry
sc h o o ls , ag ed
9 – 1 2 (F ek k es
et al . 2 0 0 6 : 6 3 9 ) M ea n A g e:
1 0 .1 0
S P C an d C A P S L E p ro g ra m
1 .6 6 (1 .1 0 – 2 .5 0 )
1 .3 9 (1 .0 2 – 1 .9 1 )
T h e C A P S L E p ro g ra m
ta rg et s al l ac to rs ,
in cl u d in g b y st an d er s (F o n ag y et
al .
2 0 0 9 : 6 0 8 ), an d in cl u d es
P ee r M en to rs
(F o n ag y et
al . 2 0 0 9 : 6 1 0 )
X S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
3 to
5 fr o m
n in e
el em
en ta ry
sc h o o ls (F o n ag y et
al . 2 0 0 9 :
6 0 8 ) M ea n A g e:
9 .0 0
446 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
S te p s to
re sp ec t
1 .0 4 (0 .8 1 – 1 .3 4 )
1 .0 9 (0 .7 6 – 1 .5 6 )
X X
C h il d re n in
G ra d es
3 to
6 (F re y et
al . 2 0 0 5 :
4 8 1 ) M ea n A g e:
1 0 .5 0
A n ti -b u ll y in g in te rv en ti o n
in A u st ra li an
se co n d ar y
sc h o o ls
1 .4 6 (0 .9 3 – 2 .2 8 )
1 .2 6 (0 .6 7 – 2 .3 6 )
X X
S tu d en ts fr o m
G ra d es
7 to
1 0 , w it h an
ag e
ra n g e o f 1 2 to
1 5 (H
u n t 2 0 0 7 : 2 2 ) M ea n
A g e:
1 4 .0 0
Y o u th
m at te rs
1 .1 7 (0 .5 7 – 2 .4 1 )
1 .6 3 (0 .7 8 – 3 .4 1 )
X X
S tu d en ts in
G ra d e 4 fr o m
el em
en ta ry
sc h o o ls (J en so n an d D ie te ri ch
2 0 0 7 : 2 8 7 )
M ea n A g e:
9 .8 4
K iV a E ff ec t si ze s fo r K iV a
ar e b as ed
o n em
ai l
co m m u n ic at io n w it h A n tt i
K ar n a (M
ay 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 )
an d ar e b as ed
o n ch il d re n w it h
k n o w n m ea su re s b o th
b ef o re
an d af te r th e
in te rv en ti o n . S ee
fu rt h er
d et ai ls (a n d ra w
d at a fo r
co m p u ta ti o n o f ef fe ct
si ze s fo r al l p ro g ra m s)
in C am
p b el l R ep o rt : F ar ri n g to n
an d T to fi (2 0 0 9 ).
1 .3 8 (0 .9 2 – 2 .0 6 )
1 .5 5 (1 .2 8 – 1 .8 8 )
P ee r su p p o rt fo r th e v ic ti m s (S al m iv al li
et al ., 2 0 0 9 : 4 4 6 ); p ro so ci al
an d h ig h -
st at u s cl as sm
at es , al o n g w it h te ac h er s,
su p p o rt v ic ti m iz ed
ch il d re n (K
ar n a
et al ., 2 0 11 : 3 1 3 )
P ro ce d u re s fo r h an d li n g th e ac u te
b u ll y in g ca se s (K
ar n a et
al ., 2 0 11 :
3 1 3 ); se e al so
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n
w it h S al m iv al li (J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 ; an d ,
Ja n u ar y 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 (f o r m o re
in fo :
se e: T to fi et al . 2 0 0 8 ; F ar ri n g to n an d
T to fi 2 0 0 9 : 7 1 ); S ee
al so
K ar n a et al .
su b m it te d p ap er , ch ap te r II I,
p ag e 7 (f ro m
K ar n a 2 0 1 2 P h D
th es is ) o n co n fr o n ti n g v er su s
n o n -c o n fr o n ti n g ap p ro ac h
S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
4 to
6 , b as ed
o n th e fi rs t
p h as e o f th e p ro g ra m
ev al u at io n (K
ar n a et
al . 2 0 11 : 3 1 4 ) M ea n A g e:
11 .5 0
B eh av io ra l p ro g ra m
fo r b u ll y in g
b o y s
0 .6 8 (0 .1 6 – 2 .9 0 )
N /A
X X
M al e st u d en ts ag ed
1 2 to
1 6 (M
ey er
an d
L es ch
2 0 0 0 : 5 9 ) M ea n A g e:
1 4 .5 0
E x p ec t re sp ec t
0 .9 9 (0 .6 3 – 1 .5 8 )
0 .7 0 (0 .5 0 – 0 .9 7 )
T h e B u ll y p ro o f cu rr ic u lu m
is u se d
w h ic h fo cu se s o n th e w il li n g n es s
o f b y st an d er s to
in te rv en e (R o se n b lu th
et al . 2 0 0 4 : 2 1 3 ); st ru ct u re d le ss o n s
en h an ci n g sk il ls o f ‘C o u ra g eo u s
B y st an d er s’
(i b id , p . 2 1 4 ); fu rt h er
d ev el o p m en t o f th e p ro g ra m
in to
th e
S u m m er
T ee n L ea d er sh ip
P ro g ra m ,
b ey o n d th e cu rr en t ev al u at io n b u t
b as ed
o n th e sa m e p ee r in te rv en ti o n
p ri n ci p le s (i b id , p . 2 3 1 ).
X S tu d en ts ag ed
1 0 to
11 (R o se n b lu th
et al .
2 0 0 4 : 2 1 3 ) M ea n A g e:
11 .0 0 (a ll m ea n s
w er e b as ed
o n th e as su m p ti o n th at
1 0 -1 1
is 1 0 .0 0 0 – 11 .9 9 9 )
Update of bullying prevention program research 447
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
P ro -A
C T + E
0 .9 5 (0 .6 3 – 1 .4 5 )
1 .1 5 (0 .6 4 – 2 .0 9 )
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
an d re in fo rc in g b y st an d er s,
fo ll o w in g th e S al m iv al li m o d el ;
co m m u n ic at io n v ia
em ai l w it h S p ro b er
(J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 9 ) co m p at ib le
w it h th e
tr an sl at io n w e re ce iv ed
fr o m
G er m an
co ll ea g u e
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s fo ll o w in g th e
O lw eu s m o d el ; co m m u n ic at io n
v ia
em ai l w it h S p ro b er
(J u n e 2 ,
2 0 0 9 ) co m p at ib le
w it h th e
tr an sl at io n w e re ce iv ed
fr o m
G er m an
co ll ea g u e
M ea n ag e 11 .0 3 (S p ro b er
et al . 2 0 0 6 : 1 4 4 )
B ef o re – A ft er
ex p er im
en ta l– co n tr o l co m p ar is o n s
B e- P ro x
1 .1 5 (0 .5 5 – 2 .4 0 )
3 .1 4 (1 .5 2 – 6 .4 9 )
X X
K in d er g ar te n ch il d re n b et w ee n ag es
5 an d 7
(A ls ak er
an d V al k an o v er
2 0 0 1 : 1 8 0 )
M ea n A g e:
6 .2 0
G re ek
an ti -b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
1 .7 5 (1 .2 0 – 2 .5 7 )
1 .4 8 (1 .0 1 – 2 .1 6 )
X N o te : th e au th o rs
in d ic at e o n p ag e
6 9 6 th at
th e th eo re ti ca l fo u n d at io n o f
th e p ro g ra m
is in fl u en ce d b y th e id ea s
p re se n te d b y S al m iv al li 1 9 9 9 ; b u t th er e
is n o m en ti o n o f p ee r in te rv en ti o n at
al l
in th e p ro g ra m
d es cr ip ti o n (A
n d re o u
et al . 2 0 0 7 : 6 9 7 – 6 9 8 )
X S tu d en ts fr o m
G ra d es
4 to
6 (A
n d re o u et al .
2 0 0 7 : 6 9 7 ) M ea n A g e:
1 0 .2 3
S ea tt le
tr ia l o f th e O lw eu s
p ro g ra m
N /A
1 .0 1 (0 .8 5 – 1 .1 8 )
X X N o te : th is is a tr ia l o f th e O B P P, b u t
th er e is n o m en ti o n o f d is ci p li n ar y
m et h o d s o n th e re le v an t ta b le
w it h
O B P P co m p o n en ts ; it is al so
in d ic at ed
th at
th ey
co u ld
n o t co ll ec t
in fo
o n in d iv id u al -l ev el co m p o n en ts
(B au er
et al . 2 0 0 7 : 2 6 9 )
M id d le
sc h o o l st u d en ts in
G ra d es
6 to
8 (B au er
et al . 2 0 0 7 : 2 6 7 ) M ea n A g e: 1 3 .0 0
D ar e to ca re : b u ll y -p ro o fi n g y o u r
sc h o o l p ro g ra m
N /A
1 .0 4 (0 .2 8 – 3 .8 8 )
X X
S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
4 to
6 (B er an
et al . 2 0 0 4 :
1 0 4 ) E x ac t ag e w as
n o t as k ed
(e m ai l w it h
B er an , M ay
2 6 , 2 0 0 9 ) M ea n A g e:
11 .0 0
P ro g et to
P o n ta ss ie v e F o r th is
ev al u at io n , co d in g o f el em
en ts
w as
b as ed
o n a tr an sl at io n o f
th e p ap er . F u rt h er
to a se co n d
m o re
re ce n t tr an sl at io n , w e
d is co v er ed
a m is ta k e in
th e m ea n ag e o f th e ch il d re n ; it
1 .2 0 (0 .5 8 – 2 .4 7 )
1 .2 1 (0 .7 0 – 2 .1 2 )
X X
S tu d en ts fr o m o n e se co n d ar y sc h o o l ag ed
11 to
1 5 (C iu cc i an d S m o rt i 1 9 9 8 : 1 4 9 )
M ea n A g e:
1 3 .5
448 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
w as
al so
fu rt h er cl ar if ie d th at a
fo rm
al p ee r in te rv en ti o n w as
n o t in
p la ce
as st at ed
to u s
b ef o re .
T ra n st h eo re ti ca l- b as ed
an ti -
b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
1 .6 5 (1 .1 5 – 2 .3 6 )
1 .7 9 (1 .2 3 – 2 .6 0 )
X X
S tu d en ts o f ag es
11 to
1 7 ; i. e. fr o m
m id d le
sc h o o ls , in
G ra d es
6 to
8 , an d h ig h
sc h o o ls , in
G ra d es
9 to
1 2 (E v er s et
al .
2 0 0 7 : 3 9 9 ) M ea n A g e:
1 4 .5 0
S .S .T
P ro g ra m
N /A
0 .7 1 (0 .1 4 – 3 .7 1 )
X X
9 y ea rs
an d 6 m o n th s in
th e ex p er im
en ta l
g ro u p ; an d 9 y ea rs
an d 1 0 m o n th s in
th e
co n tr o l g ro u p (F o x an d B o u lt o n 2 0 0 3 :
2 3 5 )
S ta re
b en e A
sc u o la
0 .7 6 (0 .1 5 – 3 .8 4 )
0 .4 0 (0 .1 2 – 1 .4 0 )
X X
S tu d en ts fr o m
2 p ri m ar y sc h o o ls in
G ra d es
1 , 3 an d 5 (G
in i et
al . 2 0 0 3 : 3 4 ) M ea n
A g e:
8 .5 0 (e m ai l co rr es p o n d en ce
w it h
G in i, Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 )
V iS C tr ai n in g p ro g ra m
1 .2 3 (0 .6 3 – 2 .4 2 )
1 .3 8 (0 .7 0 – 2 .7 2 )
A n in fo rm
al fo rm
o f ‘p ee r- m ed ia to rs ’ sc h em
e w as
im p le m en te d (e m ai l co m m u n ic at io n w it h
G o ll w it ze r, M ay
2 6 , 2 0 0 9 )
X S tu d en ts fr o m
G ra d e 6 an d G ra d e
8 (G
o ll w it ze r et
al . 2 0 0 6 : 1 2 7 ; an d
co m m u n ic at io n v ia
em ai l) M ea n A g e:
1 3 .5 0
G ra n ad a an ti -b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
2 .5 6 (0 .3 3 – 1 9 .6 3 )
1 .9 7 (0 .2 3 – 1 6 .7 8 )
P ee r m ed ia ti o n sc h em
e (e m ai l co m m u n ic at io n
w it h M ar ti n , M ay
2 8 , 2 0 0 9 )
X 8 %
ag e 1 0 ; 8 6 %
ag e 11 ; an d 6 %
ag e 1 2
(M ar ti n et
al . 2 0 0 5 : 3 7 7 ; em
ai l
co m m u n ic at io n w it h M ar ti n : M ay
2 8 ,
2 0 0 9 ) M ea n A g e:
11 .5 0
S o u th
C ar o li n a im
p le m en ta ti o n
o f th e O lw eu s p ro g ra m
1 .5 2 (1 .2 4 – 1 .8 5 )
1 .0 6 (0 .9 1 – 1 .2 3 )
T h er e w er e d ev ia ti o n s fr o m
th e in it ia l p ro g ra m ,
o n e o f w h ic h is th e p re se n ce
o f a ‘P ee r b u d d y ’
sc h em
e fo r th e su p p o rt o f v ic ti m iz ed
st u d en ts
(M el to n et
al . 1 9 9 8 : 7 8 )
C re at io n o f ru le s an d u se
o f co n si st en t
sa n ct io n s fo r v io la ti n g ru le s
(M el to n et
al . 1 9 9 8 : 7 1 ; 7 7 -7 8 )
S tu d en ts fr o m
G ra d es
4 to
8 (M
el to n et
al .
1 9 9 8 : 8 6 ) M ea n A g e:
11 .0 0
B u ll y -p ro o fi n g y o u r sc h o o l
p ro g ra m
1 .7 4 (1 .4 5 – 2 .0 9 )
1 .2 6 (1 .0 5 – 1 .5 1 )
X X
S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
3 to
5 fr o m
se v en
el em
en ta ry
sc h o o ls an d st u d en ts in
G ra d es
6 to
8 fr o m
th re e m id d le
sc h o o ls
(M en ar d et al .2 0 0 8 : 1 7 ) M ea n A g e: 11 .5 0
Update of bullying prevention program research 449
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
B ef ri en d in g in te rv en ti o n
p ro g ra m
1 .6 0 (0 .8 1 – 3 .1 6 )
1 .4 2 (0 .8 4 – 2 .3 9 )
B ef ri en d in g In te rv en ti o n w h ic h en ab le s
p u p il s to
ap p ly
h el p in g an d p ro -s o ci al
at ti tu d es
in ev er y d ay
in te ra ct io n s
(M en es in i et
al . 2 0 0 3 : 3 )
X S tu d en ts fr o m
tw o m id d le
sc h o o ls w it h an
ag e ra n g e o f 11
to 1 4 (M
en es in i et
al .
2 0 0 3 : 4 ) M ea n A g e:
1 3 .0 0
O B P P ; B er g en
2 1 .7 9 (0 .9 8 – 3 .2 6 )
1 .4 3 (1 .0 4 – 1 .9 5 )
X F ir m
d is ci p li n e ag ai n st b u ll ie s at
th e
sc h o o l le v el
an d se ri o u s ta lk s
[s ep ar at el y ] w it h th e b u ll y an d
v ic ti m
al o n g w it h th ei r p ar en ts
(O lw eu s an d L im
b er
2 0 1 0 : 3 8 0 ,
3 8 2 )
S P S S o u tp u ts an d im
p le m en ta ti o n d et ai ls
fo r al l O B P P ev al u at io n s w er e g iv en
to u s
v ia
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n w it h O lw eu s
(M ay
6 , 2 0 0 8 ) an d co m p ar ed
ac ro ss
p u b li sh ed
re p o rt s M ea n A g e:
1 2 .0 0
T o ro n to
an ti -b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
1 .6 9 (1 .2 2 – 2 .3 5 )
0 .9 4 (0 .7 1 – 1 .2 4 )
A P ee r In te rv en ti o n S ch em
e w it h st u d en ts
b ei n g en co u ra g ed
to in te rv en e w h en
w it n es si n g b u ll y in g (P ep le r et
al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 3 5 )
C ar ef u ll y fo ll o w ed
th e O lw eu s
p ro g ra m
(a n d sp ec if ic al ly
th e
B er g en
in te rv en ti o n ) at
th e
cl as sr o o m
an d in d iv id u al
le v el ; an d se p ar at e ta lk s w it h
ch il d re n in v o lv ed
in se ri o u s ca se s
o f b u ll y in g an d th ei r p ar en ts
(P ep le r et
al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 2 7 – 1 2 8 )
S tu d en ts in
th re e sc h o o ls fr o m
k in d er g ar te n
to G ra d e 6 , ag es
5 – 11
(P ep le r et al . 2 0 0 4 :
1 2 6 ) M ea n A g e:
8 .0 0
E co lo g ic al
an ti -b u ll y in g
p ro g ra m
1 .1 9 (0 .7 0 – 1 .9 9 )
0 .7 9 (0 .4 7 – 1 .3 3 )
A P ee r M ed ia ti o n sc h em
e, ca re fu ll y fo ll o w in g
th e P ea ce m ak er s P ro g ra m , w as
in p la ce
(R ah ey
an d C ra ig
2 0 0 2 : 2 8 6 )
X T h e m ea n ag e o f ch il d re n w as
9 .4 0 (R ah ey
an d C ra ig
2 0 0 2 : 2 8 4 )
S h o rt in te n si v e in te rv en ti o n in
th e C ze ch
R ep u b li c
(I m p le m en ta ti o n o f th e
O lw eu s p ro g ra m )
2 .5 2 (0 .6 0 – 1 0 .5 2 )
2 .4 6 (0 .6 2 – 9 .7 3 )
X T h e tw o -p ag e p ap er
d o es
n o t d es cr ib e
in d et ai l th e in te rv en ti o n co m p o -
n en ts , b u t it is st at ed
th at
th e
O B P P w as
ca re fu ll y im
p le m en te d
(R ic an
et al . 1 9 9 6 : 3 9 9 )
C h il d re n fr o m el em
en ta ry
cl as se s in G ra d e 4
(R ic an
et al . 1 9 9 6 : 3 9 9 ) M ea n A g e: 1 0 .0 0
O th er
ex p er im
en ta l- co n tr o l
co m p ar is o n s
N o rw
eg ia n an ti -b u ll y in g
p ro g ra m
1 .2 0 (0 .9 1 – 1 .5 9 )
1 .5 9 (1 .2 0 – 2 .1 1 )
X X
F ir st -g ra d e st u d en ts fr o m
el em
en ta ry
sc h o o ls
(G al lo w ay
an d R o la n d 2 0 0 4 : 4 6 ) M ea n
A g e:
7 .0 0
450 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
B .E .S .T
0 .7 6 (0 .3 3 – 1 .7 6 )
0 .6 5 (0 .2 8 – 1 .5 0 )
A p ee r in te rv en ti o n sc h em
e w as
in p la ce
(i n fo rm
at io n g iv en
v ia
em ai l, Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 )
V ar io u s d is ci p li n ar y ac ti o n s fo r
b u ll y in g -r el at ed
b eh av io rs , in cl u d -
in g d et en ti o n ; b u t n o t ze ro -t o le ra n ce
p o li cy , w h ic h w as
in p la ce
fo r o th er
sc h o o l m at te rs
(K ai se r- U rl ey
2 0 0 3 :
9 2 – 9 3 )
S tu d en ts in G ra d e 7 (K
ai se r- U rl ey
2 0 0 3 : 8 5 )
M ea n A g e:
1 2 .0 0
S A V E
1 .6 3 (0 .8 4 – 3 .1 4 )
2 .1 2 (1 .1 5 – 3 .9 1 )
E le m en ts fr o m
v ar io u s p ee r in te rv en ti o n
sc h em
es , in cl u d in g co n fl ic t m ed ia ti o n
an d p ee r su p p o rt (O
rt eg a et
al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 7 2 )
X C h il d re n fr o m
3 p ri m ar y (8 – 1 2 y ea rs ) an d
tw o se co n d ar y (1 2 – 1 6 y ea rs ) sc h o o ls
(O rt eg a et
al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 6 8 ) M ea n A g e:
1 3 .5 0
K ia
K ah a
1 .2 0 (1 .0 1 – 1 .4 2 )
1 .3 5 (1 .1 4 – 1 .6 0 )
X X
S tu d en ts ra n g in g in
ag e fr o m
8 to
1 3 , w it h a
m ea n ag e o f 1 0 .6 0 (R as k au sk as
2 0 0 7 : 1 6 )
A g e- co h o rt d es ig n s
R es p ec t p ro g ra m
1 .3 4 (1 .1 3 – 1 .5 8 )
1 .1 8 (0 .9 9 – 1 .3 9 )
X X
S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
5 to
7 (a g ed
11 – 1 3 ) in
p ri m ar y sc h o o ls an d st u d en ts in
G ra d es
8 – 1 0 (a g ed
1 4 – 1 6 ) in
se co n d ar y sc h o o ls
(E rt es v ag
an d V aa la n d 2 0 0 7 : 7 1 9 ) M ea n
A g e:
1 4 .5 0
O B P P ; B er g en
1 1 .6 9 (1 .2 5 – 2 .2 8 )
2 .8 9 (2 .1 4 – 3 .9 0 )
X F ir m
d is ci p li n e ag ai n st b u ll ie s at
th e
sc h o o l le v el
an d se ri o u s ta lk s
[s ep ar at el y ] w it h th e b u ll y an d
v ic ti m
al o n g w it h th ei r p ar en ts
(O lw eu s an d L im
b er
2 0 1 0 : 3 8 0 ,
3 8 2 )
S P S S o u tp u ts an d im
p le m en ta ti o n d et ai ls
fo r al l O B P P ev al u at io n s w er e g iv en
to u s
v ia
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n w it h O lw eu s
(M ay
6 , 2 0 0 8 ) an d co m p ar ed
ac ro ss
p u b li sh ed
re p o rt s M ea n A g e:
1 2 .0 0
O B P P ; O sl o 1
2 .1 4 (1 .1 8 – 3 .8 7 )
1 .8 1 (1 .2 3 – 2 .6 6 )
X F ir m
d is ci p li n e ag ai n st b u ll ie s at
th e
sc h o o l le v el
an d se ri o u s ta lk s
[s ep ar at el y ] w it h th e b u ll y an d
v ic ti m
al o n g w it h th ei r p ar en ts
(O lw eu s an d L im
b er
2 0 1 0 : 3 8 0 ,
3 8 2 )
S P S S o u tp u ts an d im
p le m en ta ti o n d et ai ls
fo r al l O B P P ev al u at io n s w er e g iv en
to u s
v ia
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n w it h O lw eu s
(M ay
6 , 2 0 0 8 ) an d co m p ar ed
ac ro ss
p u b li sh ed
re p o rt s M ea n A g e:
1 2 .0 0
O B P P ; N at io n al
N o rw
ay 1 .7 8 (1 .5 4 – 2 .0 6 )
1 .5 9 (1 .4 5 – 1 .7 3 )
X F ir m
d is ci p li n e ag ai n st b u ll ie s at
th e
sc h o o l le v el
an d se ri o u s ta lk s
[s ep ar at el y ] w it h th e b u ll y an d
S P S S o u tp u ts an d im
p le m en ta ti o n d et ai ls
fo r al l O B P P ev al u at io n s w er e g iv en
to u s
v ia
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n w it h O lw eu s
Update of bullying prevention program research 451
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
v ic ti m
al o n g w it h th ei r p ar en ts
(O lw eu s an d L im
b er
2 0 1 0 :
3 8 0 , 3 8 2 )
(M ay
6 , 2 0 0 8 ) an d co m p ar ed
ac ro ss
p u b li sh ed
re p o rt s M ea n A g e:
1 2 .0 0
O B P P ; O sl o 2
1 .7 5 (1 .3 5 – 2 .2 6 )
(1 .4 8 1 .2 5 – 1 .7 7 )
X F ir m
d is ci p li n e ag ai n st b u ll ie s at
th e
sc h o o l le v el
an d se ri o u s ta lk s
[s ep ar at el y ] w it h th e b u ll y an d
v ic ti m
al o n g w it h th ei r p ar en ts
(O lw eu s an d L im
b er
2 0 1 0 : 3 8 0 ,
3 8 2 )
S P S S o u tp u ts an d im
p le m en ta ti o n d et ai ls
fo r al l O B P P ev al u at io n s w er e g iv en
to u s
v ia
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n w it h O lw eu s
(M ay
6 , 2 0 0 8 ) an d co m p ar ed
ac ro ss
p u b li sh ed
re p o rt s M ea n A g e:
1 3 .0 0
D o n eg al
an ti -b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
2 .1 2 (0 .8 1 – 5 .5 5 )
1 .9 9 (0 .9 8 – 4 .0 7 )
S tu d en ts en co u ra g ed , v ia
a P ee r L ea d er sh ip
sc h em
e, to
su p p o rt b u ll ie d st u d en ts
(O ’M
o o re
an d M in to n 2 0 0 4 : 2 7 8 ; al so ,
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n , Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 )
X A v er ag e o f 9 to
1 0 y ea r o ld
st u d en ts (e m ai l
co m m u n ic at io n , Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 ) M ea n
A g e:
1 0 .0 0
C h u la
V is ta
im p le m en ta ti o n o f
th e O lw eu s p ro g ra m
1 .3 0 (0 .9 3 – 1 .8 3 )
0 .9 2 (0 .7 1 – 1 .2 1 )
X D ev el o p m en t o f ru le s, sa n ct io n s an d
p o si ti v e co n se q u en ce s (P ag li o cc a et
al . 2 0 0 7 : 4 3 – 4 9 )
S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
3 th ro u g h 6 (P ag li o cc a
et al . 2 0 0 7 : 1 4 ; an d ap p en d ix
B ) M ea n
A g e:
1 0 .0 0
F in n is h an ti -b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
1 .3 1 (1 .0 7 – 1 .6 1 )
1 .3 0 (1 .0 6 – 1 .6 0 )
X S al m iv al li et
al . (2 0 0 5 : 4 7 3 ) d is tr ib u te d
th e P ar ti ci p an t R o le
Q u es ti o n n ai re
an d
h ig h li g h t th e im
p o rt an ce
o f u ti li zi n g
p ee r- g ro u p p o w er
(i b id , p . 4 6 7 ), b u t
th er e is n o ex p li ci t m en ti o n o f an y
ty p e o f w o rk
w it h p ee rs
(i .e . st u d en ts
b ei n g in v o lv ed
in a fo rm
al w ay
as P ee r
S u p p o rt er s, B u ll y in g B u d d ie s, et c. ) in
th e
p ag es
d es cr ib in g th e p ro g ra m
(p p . 4 7 0 – 4 7 2 ).
T h is is al so
ac k n o w le d g ed
in th e K ar n a
et al . (2 0 11 : 3 1 3 ) p ap er
w h er e it is in d ic at ed
th at
th is ev al u at io n “m
ai n ly
co n si st ed
o f
te ac h er
ed u ca ti o n (m
ak in g th e ac tu al
p ro g ra m
co n te n t ra th er
lo o se ) w it h o u t
co n cr et e m at er ia ls th at
te ac h er s co u ld
u ti li ze
w h en
w o rk in g w it h st u d en ts an d cl as s-
ro o m s. It al so
la ck ed
a p ro g ra m
m an u al
n ee d ed
fo r ac cu ra te
re p li ca ti o n .”
X S tu d en ts in
G ra d es
4 , 5 , an d 6 , ag ed
9 to
1 2
(S al m iv al li et
al . 2 0 0 5 : 4 7 0 ) M ea n A g e:
11 .0 0
452 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
T a b le
1 (c o n ti n u ed )
N am
e o f p ro g ra m
B u ll y in g O R
(9 5 %
C I)
V ic ti m iz at io n O R
(9 5 %
C I)
W o rk
w it h p ee rs
D is ci p li n ar y m et h o d s
A v er ag e ag e
S h ef fi el d an ti -b u ll y in g p ro g ra m
1 .3 3 (1 .1 2 – 1 .6 0 )
1 .1 4 (1 .0 0 – 1 .2 9 )
A n u m b er
o f p ee r in te rv en ti o n sc h em
es , (s u ch
as a
‘L is te n in g P h o n e L in e’
th at
v ic ti m s co u ld
ca ll ,
o p er at ed
b y o th er
st u d en ts ) ap p li ed
in v ar y in g
d eg re es
ac ro ss
sc h o o ls (W
h it n ey
et al . 1 9 9 4 : 2 4 –
2 7 ; S m it h et
al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 0 1 )
X P ri m ar y an d se co n d ar y sc h o o l st u d en ts
in v o lv ed
(S m it h et
al . 2 0 0 4 : 1 0 0 ), b u t
re su lt s ar e b as ed
o n ra w
d at a th at
w er e
se n t to
F ar ri n g to n an d T to fi b y M ik e
E sl ea
an d P et er
S m it h (f o r m o re
d et ai ls ,
se e F ar ri n g to n an d T to fi , 2 0 0 9 : 5 7 ) M ea n
A g e:
1 2 .5 0
F o r so m e p ro g ra m
ev al u at io n s, ef fe ct
si ze s w er e co m p u te d af te r o b ta in in g m o re
d et ai le d in fo rm
at io n v ia
em ai l co m m u n ic at io n ; In te re st ed
re ad er s ar e st ro n g ly
ad v is ed
to se ek
fu rt h er
in fo rm
at io n fr o m
o u r co m p re h en si v e C am
p b el l C o ll ab o ra ti o n R ep o rt (F ar ri n g to n an d T to fi 2 0 0 9 ), w h ic h li st s re fe re n ce s to
al l ev al u at io n s
N /A
N o t av ai la b le , O R O d d s R at io , C I C o n fi d en ce
In te rv al , O B P P O lw eu s B u ll y in g P re v en ti o n P ro g ra m
Update of bullying prevention program research 453
involved as peer supporters (Cowie et al., 2008). Some evaluations also show that users of peer support schemes find them useful. The same schemes, however, have been repeatedly found to be non-effective in reducing actual levels of school bullying and victimization and, in some cases, were correlated with an increase in bullying and victimization (Cowie et al. 2008: 65). This is found not only in the work of Smith, Salmivalli, and Cowie but also in the work of other researchers.
Some evaluations of peer support schemes find no changes in the levels of either bullying or victimization. For example, Naylor and Cowie (1999: 475) found that the level of bullying in the 51 schools with an established system of Peer Support in place was not any lower than that reported in other schools (i.e. those without the scheme). Similarly, Houlston and Smith (2009) evaluated a peer counseling scheme (using a before–after design with no controls)1 that was implemented in an all-girls secondary school. Based on the data from students in Years 7 through 9, Houlston and Smith (2009) found that there were no reductions in self-reported bullying and victimiza- tion. Some evaluations also find little difference in other outcome measures. For example, in an evaluation comparing two UK secondary schools with a peer support system and two without (Cowie et al. 2008), very little difference was found between student perceptions of safety in schools with or without the peer support system in place. In fact, older students in schools without peer support responded that they felt safer in toilets and lessons than students in schools with a peer support system.
Some evaluations of peer support schemes find an increase in bullying or victimization. Cowie and Olafsson (2000) evaluated (using an uncontrolled design with before and after measures only) the effectiveness of a peer support service in a British high school set in a disadvantaged area using a quantitative questionnaire (distributed to 300 pupils) and qualitative interviews with a random sample of peer supporters. Cowie and Olafsson (2000: 84) found a significant increase in bullying following the implementation of the peer intervention scheme. Notably, the evaluation showed that
1 There was an age-equivalent ‘comparison’ group for the peer supporters but this is irrelevant to the implementation of the program.
Table 2 Relationships with bullying and victimization
Cat (n) OR Cat (n) OR QB p
Bullying
Work with peers No (26) 1.42 Yes (15) 1.35 0.73 ns
Disciplinary methods No (28) 1.31 Yes (13) 1.59 13.18 0.0003
Age of children 10− (17) 1.22 11+ (24) 1.50 14.58 0.0001 Based on Olweus No (25) 1.31 Yes (16) 1.50 6.45 0.011
Victimization
Work with peers No (26) 1.39 Yes (15) 1.13 19.25 0.0001
Disciplinary methods No (28) 1.21 Yes (13) 1.44 18.41 0.0001
Age of children 10− (17) 1.22 11+ (24) 1.34 3.85 0.050 Based on Olweus No (24) 1.32 Yes (17) 1.30 0.07 ns
Cat Category of variable, OR weighted mean Odds Ratio, QB heterogeneity between groups, ns not significant
454 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
bullied students (i.e. the users of the peer support scheme) gave clear preference to teachers over peer supporters when seeking assistance within the school framework (Cowie and Olafsson 2000: 85). Based on interviews with bullied students who were users of the peer support service, 43 % did not feel any safer in the school (Cowie and Olafsson 2000: 88).
In a further evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention (using a before–after uncontrolled design) in an Australian school with peers as helpers (i.e. a peer support scheme), Peterson and Rigby (1999) found no overall decrease in victimization across age, no decrease in victimization for Years 10 and 11 and, in fact, an increase in victimization for Year 9 students; there was a modest reduction of mean level of bullying victimization for Year 7 students only. Salmivalli (2001) reported similar findings in an evaluation of a Finnish peer counseling scheme for the prevention of bullying implemented in Grades 7 and 8 (with a before–after uncontrolled design). Specifically, she found that there was no reduction in self-reported and peer-reported victimization for boys in Grades 7 and 8 and for girls in Grade 8; reductions for self- and peer-reports of victimization were found only for girls in Grade 7 (see Salmivalli, 2001, tables 2–4, pp. 271–272). In fact, in some cases there was an increase in victimization both among boys and girls (see table 3, p. 271).
Peer support schemes are quite often implemented using uncontrolled designs (i.e. with before and after measures and no control groups) and their effectiveness is evaluated using attitudinal measures and not based on actual levels of bullying. An example of this is a recent evaluation of the national-wide ChildLine Peer Mentoring System in the United Kingdom by Smith and Watson (2004); the authors acknowledge the absence of data on incidents of bullying which would allow safe conclusions regarding the effectiveness of such schemes (Smith and Watson 2004: 35). The same is true of the evaluation of Thompson and Smith (2011). All the above evaluations were not included in our systematic review because they were implemented using an uncontrolled design (i.e. with no control group); many of them (unless otherwise indicated in the current text) were based on attitudinal surveys and did not measure actual levels of bullying.
Various authors have acknowledged the significant challenges in implementing peer support schemes. Challenges include hostile reactions towards the peer supporters by other students and school staff (Cowie, 1998) as well as poor communication and lack of commitment of the part of staff and students (Cowie et al. 2004). This is not to suggest that these schemes should be abolished. Potentially, peer support schemes may be useful as long as they are carefully implemented as in the KiVa program for example (Karna et al. 2011). As Cowie and Smith (2010: 191–192) aptly state: “Evidence is stronger in the first two areas (benefits for peer supporters and users) than in the latter area (benefits for school ethos, including peer relationships and bullying), but in all areas there is now scope for more focused and objective research.”
Future research should focus on very careful training of peer supporters as research suggests that peers can intervene in aggressive ways, thus reproducing the cycle of violence. Hawkins et al. (2001) conducted an innovative longitudinal naturalistic study (involving students being videotaped during recess and lunch) in two Canadian elementary schools in Toronto in the fall and spring terms of three consecutive years with the aim of examining peer interventions. Two researchers recoded the videotapes and the study had good inter-rater reliability. They found that peers were present during 88 % of bullying episodes, but that peers intervened only in 19 %. More
Update of bullying prevention program research 455
importantly, in 47 % of bullying episodes, peers intervened in a physically or verbally aggressive fashion rather than in an assertive way. The study also found that peer interventions towards the bully were more likely to be aggressive, whereas peer interventions towards the victim were more likely to be non-aggressive. Finally, the study also concluded that peer interventions were ‘effective’ in reducing bullying, because the bullying episode usually stopped within 10 s. However, it is questionable whether this is indeed a valid measure of ‘effectiveness’. These findings raise concerns about the possibility that peer interventions may reinforce the aggressive behavior of school bullies and promote a cycle of violence.
Effects of disciplinary methods on school bullying
In their commentary, Smith and colleagues (Smith et al. 2012) raise concerns about the definition of the intervention element that we coded as ‘Disciplinary Methods’ and argue that there is no evidence that zero-tolerance is effective in improving student behavior. In our Campbell Collaboration Report (Farrington and Ttofi 2009: 65) we clearly indicate that disciplinary methods refer to sanctions for bullying, but there is no mention of the zero-tolerance approach. This is also evident from Table 1. None of the programs involving ‘punitive’ disciplinary methods used a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach. Most are inspired by the program of Dan Olweus (1993: 87) who specifies the following range of sanctions for bullying: “serious individual talk with the student; making the student sit outside the principal’s office during some break periods; making the student spend one or more hours in another class, perhaps with younger students; making the student stay close to the supervising teacher during a number of recesses; sending the student for a serious talk with the principal; depriving the student of some privilege.”
We previously indicated that relevant findings “may be attributable to the big effects of the Olweus program, which included a range of firm sanctions, including serious talks with bullies, sending them to the principal, making them stay close to the teacher during recess time, and depriving them of privileges” (Farrington and Ttofi 2009: 71; Ttofi and Farrington 2011: 45). However, further results presented in Table 2 suggest that we can disentangle this element from the effects of programs based on Olweus, at least when it comes to victimization. Here, ‘disciplinary methods’ are significantly associated with larger effect sizes, but wheth- er the evaluation is based on the Olweus program is not significantly associated with larger effect sizes.
Implementing sanctions to deal with school bullying is a usual school policy, especially when tackling with more serious cases. In a content analysis of school anti- bullying policies from 115 primary schools and 27 secondary schools in a large British county, it was found that sanctions for bullying depending on the type and severity of the incident was present in the official policies of 51.3 % of primary and 55.6 % of secondary schools (Smith et al. 2008). In a study of a national random sample of American teachers regarding their perceptions and practices concerning anti-bullying activities, it was found that 86.3 % of them used “serious talks with both the bully and the victim” as an effective classroom-based bullying prevention activity (Dake et al. 2003).
456 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
Smith and colleagues argue that “restorative justice approaches feature implicitly in the contrast with disciplinary measures.” However, we never argued in our reports that punitive and non-punitive methods are mutually exclusive, and two programs (KiVa and Pro-ACT + E; see Table 1) were coded as having both elements. The importance of enforcing respectful sanctioning against bullying in a reintegrative and non-hostile way is something we have highlighted in our own research (Ttofi and Farrington 2008b). In our detailed Campbell Collaboration Report, we also explicitly said that future anti-bullying programs should be based on newer theories such as defiance theory and restorative justice approaches (Farrington and Ttofi 2009: 72). The importance of implementing disciplinary rules within a framework of care and respect is shown in other research. In a recent study based on a statewide sample of over 7,300 Grade 9 students and 2,900 high school teachers (Gregory et al. 2010), it was found that authoritative school discipline (i.e. consistent enforcement of fair disciplinary rules and availability of caring adults) was associated with less bullying and victimization even after controlling for size of school enrollment and proportion of ethnic minority and low-income students.
To conclude, punitive (“disciplinary”) and non-punitive approaches can be com- bined, they are not mutually exclusive, and their success can vary depending on the age of students as we have previously indicated in the KiVa program (Farrington and Ttofi 2009: 65, 71). This is also supported in a recent evaluation by Smith et al. (2007) of the Support Group Method (previously known as the No Blame Approach) based on results from 57 Local Authorities (LAs) and 59 schools in the UK. The SGM method falls under non-punitive approaches and is clearly a method that contradicts the punitive approach proposed by Olweus (Smith et al. 2007: 5). Smith and colleagues (2007: 12) acknowledge that a number of schools, even those favorable to a non-punitive approach such as the SGM, feel that: “some tougher sanctions may be necessary for hard core or persistent cases. Is sufficient acknowl- edgement given in the SGM to situations where it may not be appropriate or may need to be discontinued?” Similarly, Rigby and Barrington (2003), in a study involving 40 primary and secondary Australian schools, indicate that a number of school personnel believe that sanctions should be applied in situations where non- punitive approaches are unsuccessful. Punitive and non-punitive approaches can both be implemented depending on the specific characteristics of a bullying incident.
Within- and across-program age variations
Smith and colleagues (2012) argue that bullying prevention programs are more effective for younger students, and that within-program comparisons are more con- vincing than between-study program comparisons. It is true that more variables are controlled in within-program comparisons. It was possible to do within-program comparisons on age for 8 out of 44 evaluations, and Table 3 shows the results. The results are always shown separately for younger and older children in the evaluation, but the definition of ‘younger’ and ‘older’ varied considerably. For example, Middle School students were ‘younger’ in the Transtheoretical Program but ‘older’ in the Bully-Proofing your School Program. For this reason, we did not do a meta-analysis of Table 3.
Update of bullying prevention program research 457
Most of these comparisons show greater effect sizes for younger children. This was true for Bully-proofing your School Program, the Ecological Antibullying Program (victimization only), the Respect Program (bullying only), the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program/Oslo2, and the Finnish Program (bullying only). Only Bully and Pupe found a larger effect size for older children. There were no significant differences with the Transtheoretical Program or the Sheffield Program (according to our analyses of it as an age-cohort design).
Of the four age-cohort designs, three provide significant results favoring younger students for bullying perpetration and only one of them provides significant results favoring younger students for victimization. However, it should be borne in mind that: (1) older students are usually the ones victimizing younger students and (2) age- cohort designs are the least controlled design that we have included in our meta- analytic review. The findings from the most controlled methodological design (i.e. the randomized experiment on Bully and Pupe) provide significant results showing larger effect sizes for older students.
A more recent meta-analysis of the effects of school-based bullying prevention programs on bystander intervention indicated larger effect sizes for older students (high school) compared to younger (kindergarten through eighth grade) students (Polanin et al. 2012). Of course, these findings should not be used as an argument against the importance of early intervention. In various publications, we have stressed the importance of intervening early in life to ‘nip problems in the bud’ (Farrington et al. 2012; Ttofi et al. 2012).
We are left with conflicting results. Our meta-analysis of between-program com- parisons clearly shows that effect sizes are greater for older students, but in our weighted regression analyses, the age of the students was not related to effect size
Table 3 Odds ratios at different ages within programs
Bullying Victimization
Programs Younger Older p Younger Older p
Bulli and Pupe 0.51 (Age 11–13)
2.30 (Age 13–15)
0.010 0.95 (Age 11–13)
2.86 (Age 13–15)
0.057
Transtheoretical Anti- Bullying Program
1.54 (MS) 1.74 (HS) ns 2.26 (MS) 1.50 (HS) ns
Bully-proofing your School
2.02 (ES) 1.20 (MS) 0.0004 1.47 (ES) 0.85 (MS) 0.00002
Ecological Anti-bullying Program
1.29 (JS) 1.13 (SS) ns 1.38 (JS) 0.58 (SS) 0.027
Respect Program 1.55 (G5-7) 1.12 (G8-10) 0.008 1.28 (G5-7) 1.06 (G8-10) ns
OBPP/Oslo 2 2.22 (G4-7) 1.28 (G8-10) 0.0001 1.59 (G4-7) 1.20 (G8-10) 0.013
Finnish Anti-Bullying Program
1.65 (G4) 1.06 (G5) 0.003 1.37 (G4) 1.24 (G5) ns
Sheffield Anti-Bullying Program
1.20 (JS) 1.48 (SS) ns 1.17 (JS) 1.10 (SS) ns
MS Middle School, HS High School, ES Elementary School, JS Junior School, SS Secondary School, G Grade, Y Year, ns not significant
458 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
independently of other features such as the intensity of the program for students. The within-program comparisons suggest that effect sizes are greater for younger stu- dents, but this is based on only 8 evaluations (compared with 44 for the between- program comparisons). We can only conclude that more research is needed on the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs with students of different ages.
Concluding remarks
We are grateful to Peter K. Smith, Christina Salmivalli, and Helen Cowie for stimulating us to carry out more investigations of work with peers, disciplinary methods, and the age of students. We would like to conclude by saying that we carefully pointed out that our investigations regarding the relationships between program components and effect sizes did not prove necessarily causal effects, and we also pointed out that our weighted regression analyses “were severely limited by the small number of studies” (Ttofi and Farrington 2011: 43). We also recommended that information about implementation of programs should be provided (Ttofi and Farrington 2011: 47). As a final conclu- sion, we agree that the best method of assessing the effect of program components on effect size is in a randomized experiment. Indeed, as we had previously said (Ttofi and Farrington 2011: 47): “In order to investigate the effects of different program components, students could be randomly assigned to receive or not receive them.”
References
Alsaker, F.D., & Valkanover, S. (2001) Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J Juvonen & S Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school (pp.175–195). New York: Guilford.
Andreou, E., Didaskalou, E., Vlachou, A. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of a curriculum-based anti- bullying intervention program in Greek primary schools. Educational Psychology, 27, 693–711.
Baldry, A.C., & Farrington, D.P. (2004). Evaluation of an intervention program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in schools. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 1–15.
Bauer, N.S., Lozano, P., Rivara, F.P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus bullying prevention program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274.
Beran, T., & Shapiro, B. (2005). Evaluation of an anti-bullying program: Student reports of knowledge and confidence to manage bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 700–717.
Beran, T., Tutty, L., Steinrath, G. (2004). An evaluation of a bullying prevention program for elementary schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 19 , 99–116.
Boulton, M.J., & Flemington, I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school pupils' involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. School Psychology International, 17, 331–345.
Ciucci, E., & Smorti, A. (1998). Il fenomeno delle pretonenze nella scuola: problemi e prospettive di intervento [The phenomenon of bullying in school: problems and prospects for intervention]. Psichia- tria Dell’ Infanzia e Dell’ Adolescenza, 65, 147–157.
Cowie, H. (1998). Perspectives of teachers and pupils on the experience of peer support against bullying. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 4, 108–125.
Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a school with high levels of aggression. School Psychology International, 21, 79–95.
Cowie, H., & Smith, P. K. (2010). Peer support as a means of improving safety and reducing bullying and violence. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Eds.), Handbook of prevention research (pp. 177–193). New York: Routledge.
Cowie, H., Boardman, C., Dawkins, J., & Jennifer, D. (2004). Emotional health and well-being: A practical guide for schools. London: Sage.
Update of bullying prevention program research 459
Cowie, H., Hutson, N., Oztug, O., & Myers, C. (2008). The impact of peer support schemes on pupils’ perceptions of bullying, aggression and safety at school. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 13, 63–71.
Cross, D., Hall, M., Hamilton, G., Pintabona, Y., Erceg, E. (2004). Australia: The Friendly Schools project. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 187–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2003). Teacher perceptions and practices regarding school bullying prevention. Journal of School Health, 73, 347–355.
DeRosier, M.E. & Marcus, S.R. (2005). Building friendships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of S.S.GRIN at one-year follow-up. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 140–150.
Ertesvag, S. K. & Vaaland, G. S. (2007). Prevention and reduction of behavioural problems in school: An evaluation of the Respect program. Educational Psychology, 27, 713–736.
Evers, K.E., Prochaska, J.O., Van Marter, D.F., Johnson, J.L., & Prochaska, J.M. (2007). Transtheoretical- based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools. Educational Research, 49, 397–414.
Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2009, 6.
Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., Ttofi, M. M., & Theodorakis, N. (2012). School bullying, depression and offending behaviour later in life: An updated systematic review of longitudinal studies. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F.I.M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P. (2006). Effects of antibullying school program on bullying and health complaints. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 638–644.
Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S.W., Vernberg, E.M., Nelson, J.M., Dill, E.J., Little, T.D., & Sargent, J.A. (2009). A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems- focused intervention to reduce aggression. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50 , 607–616.
Fox, C. & Boulton, M. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of a social skills training (SST) programme for victims of bullying. Educational Research, 45, 231–247.
Frey, K., Hirschstein, M.K., Snell, J. L., van Schoiack Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E.P., & Broderick, C.J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479–491.
Galloway, D. & Roland, E. (2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always the best? In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 37–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gini, G., Belli, B., & Casagrande, M. (2003). Le prepotenze a scuola: una esperienza di ricerca- intervento antibullismo [Bullying at school: an experience of research-intervention against bullying], Eta Evolu- tiva, 76, 33–45.
Gollwitzer, M., Eisenbach, K., Atria, M., Strohmeier, D., & Banse, R. (2006). Evaluation of aggression- reducing effects of the ‘Viennese Social Competence Training’. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 125–135.
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T. H., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: high school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 102, 483–496.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–525.
Houlston, C., & Smith, P. K. (2009). The impact of a peer counseling scheme to address bullying in an all- girl London secondary school: a short-term longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 79, 69–86.
Hunt, C. (2007). The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12 , 21–26.
Jenson, J.M. & Dieterich, W.A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8, 285–296.
Kaiser-Ulrey, C. (2003). Bullying in middle schools: A study of B.E.S.T. ––Bullying Eliminated from Schools Together–– an anti-bullying programme for seventh grade students. PhD thesis, Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Karna, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: grades 4–6. Child Development, 82, 311–330.
Martin, F.D.F., del. Martinez, M.C.P., & Tirado, J.L.A. (2005). Design, implementation and evaluation of a bullying prevention pilot program [Spanish: Diseno, aplicacion y evaluacion de un Programa Piloto para la Prevencion del Maltrato entre companeros]. Revista Mexicana de Psicologia, 22, 375– 384.
460 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
Melton, G.B., Limber, S.P., Flerx, V., Nation, M., Osgood, W., Chambers, J., Henggeler, S., Cunningham, P., & Olweus, D. (1998). Violence among rural youth. Final report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington DC.
Menard, S., Grotpeter, J., Gianola, D., & O’Neal, M. (2008). Evaluation of Bullyproofing your School: Final report. Downloaded from NCJRS: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/grants/ 221078.pdf.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children’s responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian Middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 1–14.
Meyer, N. & Lesch, E. (2000). An analysis of the limitations of a behavioral programme for bullying boys from a sub-economic environment. Southern African Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12 , 59–69.
Naylor, P., & Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging school bullying: the perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 467–479.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. Olweus, D. & Limber, S. (2010). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Implementation and Evalu-
ation over two decades. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 377 - 402). London: Routledge.
O’Moore, A.M., & Minton, S. J. (2004). Ireland: The Donegal primary school antibullying project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 275–288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, R., Del-Rey, R., & Mora-Mercan, J. A. (2004). SAVE Model: An anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 167–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pagliocca, P.M., Limber, S.P., & Hashima, P. (2007). Evaluation report for the Chula Vista Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Final report prepared for the Chula Vista Police Department.
Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., O’Connell, P., Atlas, R., & Charach. A. (2004). Making a difference in bullying: Evaluation of a systemic school-based program in Canada. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 125–140). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.
Peterson, L., & Rigby, K. (1999). Countering bullying at an Australian secondary school with students as helpers. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 481–492.
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65.
Rahey, L. & Craig, W.M. (2002). Evaluation of an ecological program to reduce bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 36, 281–295.
Raskauskas, J. (2007). Evaluation of the Kia Kaha anti-bullying programme for students in years 5-8. Wellington: New Zealand Police.
Rican, P., Ondrova, K., & Svatos, J. (1996). The effect of a short, intensive intervention upon bullying in four classes in a Czech Town. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794, 399–400.
Rigby, K., & Barrington, T. E. (2003). How Australian schools are responding to the problem of peer victimization in schools. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Rosenbluth, B., Whitaker, D.J., Sanchez, E., & Valle, L.A. (2004). The Expect Respect Project: Preventing bullying and sexual harassment in US elementary schools. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 211–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453-459
Salmivalli, C. (2001). Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: who considered it useful, who benefited? Educational Research, 43, 263–278.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and out- come. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465–487.
Salmivalli, C., Karna, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2009). From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bulling in schools: An international perspective (pp. 441–454). New York: Guilford.
Smith, P.K. & Watson, D. (2004). Evaluation of the CHIPS (ChildLine in Partnership with schools) programme. Research Report RR 570. London: DfES.
Update of bullying prevention program research 461
Smith, P. K., Salmivalli, C., & Cowie, H. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a commentary.Journal of Experimental Criminology, e-print ahead of publication, DOI: 10.1007/s11292-012-9142-3
Smith, P.K., Sharp, S., Eslea, M., & Thompson, D. (2004). England: the Sheffield project. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 99–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K., Howard, S., & Thomson, F. (2007). Use of the support group method to table bullying and evaluation from schools and local authorities in England. Pastoral Care in Education, 25, 4–13.
Smith, P. K., Smith, C., & Samara, M. (2008). A content analysis of school anti-bullying policies: progress and limitations. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(1), 1–12.
Sprober, N., Schlottke, P.F., & Hautzinger, M. (2006). ProACT + E: Ein Programm zur Pravention von "bullying" an Schulen und zur Forderung der positiven Entwicklung von Schulern: Evaluation eines schulbasierten, universalen, primar-praventiven Programms fur weiterfuhrende Schulen unter Einbe- ziehung von Lehrern, Schulern und Eltern. [ProACT + E: A programme to prevent bullying in schools and to increase the positive development of students. Evaluation of a school- based, universal, primary preventive programme for secondary schools that includes teachers, students and parents]. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, 35, 140–150.
Thompson, F. & Smith, P.K. (2011). The use and effectiveness of anti-bullying strategies in schools. Research Brief DFE-RR098; ISBN: 978-1-84775-885-9.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008a). Bullying: short-term and long-term effects, and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders, 3, 289–312.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008b). Reintegrative shaming theory, moral emotions and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352–368.
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.
Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., & Baldry, C.A. (2008). Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying: a systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011a). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 63–73.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011b). The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: a systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 80–89.
Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, e-print ahead of publication, DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002
Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K., & Sharp, S. (1994). The Sheffield Project: Methodology and findings. In P.K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20–56). London: Routledge.
Dr Maria M. Ttofi completed her MPhil and PhD Degrees at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, under the supervision of Professor David P. Farrington. Her PhD research focused on the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs and on the empirical testing of theories of teacher victim- ization, school bullying, and aggressive behavior in general. Maria’s interests are focused on systematic/ meta-analytic reviews, experimental research, school bullying/aggression and juvenile delinquency. She has recently completed a series of systematic/meta-analytic reviews on long-term adverse health and criminal outcomes of children involved in school bullying, in collaboration with professors Farrington and Lösel. For her contributions to psychological criminology, she was awarded the 2012 European Association of Psychology and Law Young Scholar Award.
Professor David P. Farrington, O.B.E. is Emeritus Professor of Psychological Criminology and Lever- hulme Trust Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. His major research interest is in developmental criminology, and he is Director of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of over 400 London males from age 8 to 56. He is also co-Investigator of the Pittsburgh Youth Study, which is a prospective longitudinal study of over 1,500 Pittsburgh males from age 7 to 35. In addition to 572 published journal articles and book chapters on criminological and psychological topics, he has published 91 books, monographs and government publications.
462 M.M. Ttofi, D.P. Farrington
Copyright of Journal of Experimental Criminology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
