Can Healthier Contexts Be Harmful? A New Perspective on the Plight of Victims of Bullying

With rising awareness of the negative effects of school bullying on victims' psychosocial adjustment, schools worldwide are intervening more to try to reduce bullying among their students. However, even when these interventions succeed (i.e., lead to average decreases in bullying), some children continue to experience victimization. Recent studies suggest that their situation is particularly concerning: The adjustment difficulties commonly experienced by victims of bullying may be exacerbated in social contexts in which less victimization occurs, the proportion of victims has decreased, or an antibullying program is being implemented. The possibility that improved social contexts harm some individuals has been referred to as the healthy context paradox. Although strict evidence of this paradox is pending, in this article, we discuss plausible explanations for it, such as causal attributions for the bullying and opportunities for friendship, as well as possible implications for antibullying interventions

Effects of the KiVa Anti-Bullying Program on Affective and Cognitive Empathy in Children and Adolescents

Objective: As empathy is an important predictor of both bullying and defending behavior, many anti-bullying interventions aim to increase empathy among students. However, little is known on whether these interventions enhance both affective and cognitive empathy, and whether some students are more responsive than others to empathy-raising efforts. This study examined the effects of the Finnish anti-bullying program KiVa on changes in self-reported affective and cognitive empathy and tested whether these effects varied depending on students’ gender, initial levels of empathy, peer-reported bullying, and peer-perceived popularity, as well as school type (primary versus secondary school) and classroom bullying norms. Method: Multilevel structural equation modeling analyses were conducted on pretest and posttest (1 year later) data from a sample of 15,403 children and adolescents (Mage = 13.4; 51.5% girls) in 399 control and 462 intervention classrooms from 140 schools participating in the evaluation of KiVa in 2007–2009. Results: KiVa had a positive effect on affective empathy, but not cognitive empathy. The effects of the program on both types of empathy did not depend on students’ gender, initial levels of empathy, bullying, or popularity, nor on school type or classroom bullying norms. Conclusion: Findings suggest that KiVa can raise students’ affective empathy regardless of students’ gender, status, initial empathy, or levels of bullying, and regardless of school type or classroom bullying norms

From indirect aggression to invisible aggression : A conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation

Contains fulltext : 55024.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)14 p

Le programme anti-harcèlement KiVa

The serious consequences of school bullying on children’s physical and mental health call for the implementation of effective intervention programs. The goal of this paper is to present the theoretical background, components and effects of the anti-bullying program KiVa, which was designed in Finland in 2006 at the request and with funding from the Ministry of Education. It is currently used in 90 % of Finnish comprehensive schools and in many countries across the world. KiVa is based on the view that students witnessing bullying play a key role in maintaining or stopping it. Therefore, the program targets all students. In Finland, its effectiveness was first demonstrated by a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and then during its nationwide rollout. KiVa significantly reduces bullying and reinforcement of the bullies’ behavior, and increases empathy for the victims. Furthermore, the program has been found to decrease children’s anxiety and depression, and to improve their school motivation, school achievement, and perception of peers. This paper pays special attention to the factors that mediate and moderate the effectiveness of the program

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

This study examines why the lower likeability of bullying perpetrators does not deter them from engaging in bullying behavior, by testing three hypotheses: (a) bullying perpetrators are unaware that they are disliked, (b) they value popularity more than they value likeability, (c) they think that they have nothing to lose in terms of likeability, as they believe that their targets and other classmates would dislike them anyway, regardless of their behavior. The first two hypotheses were examined in Study 1 (1,035 Dutch adolescents, M age = 14.15) and the third hypothesis was examined in Study 2 (601 Dutch adolescents, M age = 12.92). Results from regression analyses showed that those higher in bullying were not more likely to overestimate their likeability. However, they were more likely than others to find being popular more important than being liked. Moreover, those higher in bullying were more likely to endorse the belief that the victimized student or the other classmates would have disliked a bullying protagonist (in vignettes of hypothetical bullying incidents) before any bullying started. These findings suggest that adolescent bullying perpetrators may not be deterred by the costs of bullying in terms of likeability, possibly because they do not value likeability that much (Hypothesis 2), and because they believe they hardly have any likeability to lose (Hypothesis 3)

Le programme anti-harcèlement KiVa

The serious consequences of school bullying on children’s physical and mental health call for the implementation of effective intervention programs. The goal of this paper is to present the theoretical background, components and effects of the anti-bullying program KiVa, which was designed in Finland in 2006 at the request and with funding from the Ministry of Education. It is currently used in 90 % of Finnish comprehensive schools and in many countries across the world. KiVa is based on the view that students witnessing bullying play a key role in maintaining or stopping it. Therefore, the program targets all students. In Finland, its effectiveness was first demonstrated by a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and then during its nationwide rollout. KiVa significantly reduces bullying and reinforcement of the bullies’ behavior, and increases empathy for the victims. Furthermore, the program has been found to decrease children’s anxiety and depression, and to improve their school motivation, school achievement, and perception of peers. This paper pays special attention to the factors that mediate and moderate the effectiveness of the program

Peer victimization and empathy for victims of bullying: A test of bidirectional associations in childhood and adolescence

Anti-bullying interventions often assume that knowing how it feels to be bullied increases empathy for victims. However, longitudinal research on actual experiences of bullying and empathy is lacking. This study investigated whether within-person changes in victimization predicted changes in empathy over 1 year using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models. Self- and peer-reported victimization, and cognitive and affective empathy for victims were measured in a sample of 15,713 Finnish youth (Mage = 13.23, SDage = 2.01, 51.6% female; 92.5% had Finnish-speaking parents; data was collected in 2007-2009 when information about participants' race/ethnicity was not available due to ethical guidelines for the protection of personal information). Results indicated small, positive longitudinal associations from victimization to cognitive empathy. Implications for empathy-raising interventions are discussed

Decreases in the proportion of bullying victims in the classroom: Effects on the adjustment of remaining victims

Sharing a classroom environment with other victimized peers has been shown to mitigate the adverse effects of peer victimization on children’s social and psychological adjustment. By extension, this study hypothesized that classroom reductions in the proportion of victims would be harmful for children who remain victimized. Data were collected at the end of 2 subsequent school years from 4,466 fourth- to sixth-graders (mean age=11 years), as part of the implementation of the Finnish anti-bullying program KiVa (an acronym for Kiusaamista Vastaan, ‘‘against bullying’’). Multiple regression analyses were conducted on a subsample of 170 stable victims (children reporting being victimized at least 2–3 times a month at both time points) to test whether a decrease in the proportion of victims in their classrooms had an effect on their adjustment at Time 2. Stable victims felt more depressed, more socially anxious and were less liked at Time 2 in classrooms where the proportion of victims had decreased in 1 year compared to stable victims in classrooms where it had increased or remained the same. These effects were not moderated by the intervention status of the classroom. Paradoxically, an improved social environment can be detrimental for some children. These findings point to the necessity to maintain anti-bullying intervention efforts especially when successful

School Bullies’ Intention to Change Behavior Following Teacher Interventions: Effects of Empathy Arousal, Condemning of Bullying, and Blaming of the Perpetrator

This study examines how bullies’ perceptions of how they were treated by a teacher (or other school personnel) during discussions aimed at putting an end to bullying influenced their intention to change their behavior. After each discussion, which took place as part of the implementation of an anti-bullying program, bullies anonymously reported the extent to which they felt that the teacher aroused their empathy for the victim, condemned their behavior, or blamed them. Half of the schools implementing the program were instructed to handle these discussions in a confrontational way—telling the bully that his behavior is not tolerated—while the other half were instructed to use a non-confronting approach. Schools were randomly assigned to one of the two approaches. A total of 341 cases (188 in primary and 153 in secondary schools) handled in 28 Finnish schools were analyzed. Regression analyses showed that attempts at making bullies feel empathy for the victim and condemning their behavior both increased bullies’ intention to stop. Blaming the bully had no significant effect. Bullies’ intention to change was the lowest when both empathy-arousal and condemning behavior were low. The effects of empathy arousal were stronger when condemning the behavior was low (and vice versa), suggesting that teachers tackling bullying should make sure to use at least one of these strategies. When choosing not to raise the child’s empathy, clear reprobation of the behavior is key

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators?

This study examines why the lower likeability of bullying perpetrators does not deter them from engaging in bullying behavior, by testing three hypotheses: (a) bullying perpetrators are unaware that they are disliked, (b) they value popularity more than they value likeability, (c) they think that they have nothing to lose in terms of likeability, as they believe that their targets and other classmates would dislike them anyway, regardless of their behavior. The first two hypotheses were examined in Study 1 (1,035 Dutch adolescents, M age = 14.15) and the third hypothesis was examined in Study 2 (601 Dutch adolescents, M age = 12.92). Results from regression analyses showed that those higher in bullying were not more likely to overestimate their likeability. However, they were more likely than others to find being popular more important than being liked. Moreover, those higher in bullying were more likely to endorse the belief that the victimized student or the other classmates would have disliked a bullying protagonist (in vignettes of hypothetical bullying incidents) before any bullying started. These findings suggest that adolescent bullying perpetrators may not be deterred by the costs of bullying in terms of likeability, possibly because they do not value likeability that much (Hypothesis 2), and because they believe they hardly have any likeability to lose (Hypothesis 3)