School Bullies’ Quest for Power: Implications for Group Dynamics and Intervention

Bullying is characterized by an inequality of power between perpetrator and target. Findings that bullies can be highly popular have helped redefine the old conception of the maladjusted school bully into a powerful individual exerting influence on his peers from the top of the peer status hierarchy. Study I is a conceptual paper that explores the conditions under which a skillful, socially powerful bully can use the peer group as a means of aggression and suggests that low cohesion and low quality of friendships make groups easier to manipulate. School bullies’ high popularity should be a major obstacle for antibullying efforts, as bullies are unlikely to cease negative actions that are rewarding, and their powerful position could discourage bystanders from interfering. Using data from the Finnish program KiVa, Study II supported the hypothesis that antibullying interventions are less effective with popular bullies in comparison to their unpopular counterparts. In order to design interventions that can address the positive link between popularity and aggression, it is necessary to determine in which contexts bullies achieve higher status. Using an American sample, Study III examined the effects of five classroom features on the social status that peers accord to aggressive children, including classroom status hierarchy, academic level and grade level, controlling for classroom mean levels of aggression and ethnic distribution. Aggressive children were more popular and better liked in fifth grade relative to fourth grade and in classrooms of higher status hierarchy. Surprisingly, the natural emergence of status hierarchies in children’s peer groups has long been assumed to minimize aggression. Whether status hierarchies hinder or promote bullying is a controversial question in the peer relations’ literature. Study IV aimed at clarifying this debate by testing the effects of the degree of classroom status hierarchy on bullying. Higher hierarchy was concrrently associated with bullying and predictive of higher bullying six months later. As bullies’ quest for power is increasingly acknowledged, some researchers suggest teaching bullies to attain the elevated status they yearn for through prosocial acts. Study V cautions against such solutions by reviewing evidence that prosocial behaviors enacted with the intention of controlling others can be as harmful as aggression.Siirretty Doriast

Differential effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and unpopular bullies

This study utilized data from the evaluation of the Finnish KiVa program in testing the prediction that school bullies' high perceived popularity would impede the success of anti-bullying interventions. Multiple-group structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted on a subsample of 911 third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders identified as perpetrators of bullying. They belonged to 77 Finnish schools, including 39 schools implementing the KiVa program and 38 control schools. Data on peer-reported bullying and perceived popularity were collected before program implementation and one year later. Controlling for sex, age, and initial levels of bullying, KiVa participation resulted in lower rates of bullying (indicated by fewer peer nominations) after one year for bullies of low and medium popularity. However, there was no significant effect for those high in popularity, suggesting that popular bullies are less responsive to anti-bullying interventions than less popular bullies.</p

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).</p

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.</p

Does defending victimized peers put youth at risk of being victimized?

Defending peers who have been bullied is often thought to put defenders at risk of becoming victimized themselves. The study investigated the concurrent and prospective associations between defending and (peer-and self-reported) victimization, and examined popularity and classroom norms as potential moderators. Participants included 4085 Finnish youth (43.9% boys; Mage = 14.56, SD = .75; 97% born in Finland). Concurrently, defending was positively associated with self-reported victimization in classrooms with high bullying-popularity norms (b = .28, SE = .16). Defending was negatively associated with peer-reported victimization in classrooms with high defending-popularity norms (b = −.07, SE = .03). Defending was not significantly associated with future victimization, suggesting that it is generally not a risk factor for victimization.</p

Different Approaches to Address Bullying in KiVa Schools: Adherence to Guidelines, Strategies Implemented, and Outcomes Obtained

We examined the extent to which school personnel implementing the KiVa® antibullying program in Finland during 2009–2015 systematically employed the program-recommended approaches (confronting or non-confronting), used one or the other depending on the bullying case (case-specific approach), or used their own adaptation when talking to perpetrators of bullying, and whether they organized follow-up meetings after such discussions. In addition to investigating adherence to program guidelines, we tested how effective these different approaches were in stopping bullying. Finally, we tested the contribution of follow-up meetings and the number of years KiVa had been implemented in a school to the effectiveness of the interventions, using reports from both school personnel and victimized students. The data were collected annually across 6 years via online questionnaires and included responses from 1221 primary and secondary schools. The school personnel were more likely to use the confronting approach than the non-confronting approach. Over time, rather than sticking to the two program-recommended approaches, they made adaptations (e.g., combining the two; using their own approach). Two-level regression analyses indicated that the discussions were equally effective, according to both personnel and victimized students, when the confronting, non-confronting, or a case-specific approach had been used. The discussions were less effective when the personnel used their own adaptation or could not specify the method used. Perceived effectiveness was higher in primary school and when follow-up meetings were organized systematically after each intervention, but unrelated to the number of years KiVa had been implemented. Over the past decades, growing awareness of the negative outcomes of school bullying (Reijntjes et al. <a title="Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009 ." href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-020-01178-4#ref-CR29">2010) has in many countries led to normative regulation, such as schools being required to have a policy, or an action plan against bullying (Salmivalli 2018). School personnel are thus faced with a demand to do something to address bullying. At the same time, numerous antibullying programs have been developed and evaluated in different parts of the world (Gaffney et al. <a title="Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001 ." href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-020-01178-4#ref-CR11">2019). Such programs often combine preventive actions (such as student lessons or improved supervision) with targeted interventions (i.e., procedures for intervening in actual bullying cases, such as discussions with the students involved). Evaluation studies have, however, mainly estimated the effects of whole programs (without distinguishing prevention from intervention components), and the few studies that have compared the effectiveness of different approaches in targeted interventions only assessed short-term effectiveness on the basis of a single student informant (Garandeau et al. <a title="Garandeau, C. F., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Tackling acute cases of school bullying in the KiVa anti-bullying program: A comparison of two approaches. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9861-1 ." href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-020-01178-4#ref-CR12">2014, <a title="Garandeau, C. F., Vartio, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). School bullies’ intention to change behavior following teacher interventions: Effects of empathy arousal, condemning of bullying, and blaming of the perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17, 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0712-x ." href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-020-01178-4#ref-CR13">2016). Consequently, we know little about the relative effectiveness of different approaches used when a case of bullying has already occurred, and even less about how school personnel implement guidelines provided to address such cases. The present study investigates the extent to which school personnel implementing the KiVa® antibullying program (Kärnä et al. <a title="Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Alanen, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011a). Going to scale: A nonrandomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for grades 1–9. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 796–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029174 ." href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-020-01178-4#ref-CR16">2011a) in Finland employ the program-recommended approaches (confronting vs. non-confronting) when discussing with bullying perpetrators, how this changes over a period of 6 years, and how effective the chosen approaches (whether program-recommended or something else) are perceived to be by the school personnel and by the students who have been victimized.</div

Classroom Popularity Hierarchy Predicts Prosocial and Aggressive Popularity Norms Across the School Year

This study examined the coevolution of prosocial and aggressive popularity norms with popularity hierarchy (asymmetries in students' popularity). Cross-lagged-panel analyses were conducted on 2,843 secondary school students (N-classrooms = 120; M-age = 13.18; 51.3% girls). Popularity hierarchy predicted relative change in popularity norms over time, but not vice versa. Specifically, classrooms with few highly popular and many unpopular students increased in aggressive popularity norms at the beginning of the school year and decreased in prosocial popularity norms at the end of the year. Also, strong within-classroom asymmetries in popularity predicted relatively higher aggressive popularity norms. These findings may indicate that hierarchical contexts elicit competition for popularity, with high aggression and low prosocial behavior being seen as valuable tools to achieve popularity

Examining the Potential Mental Health Costs of Defending Victims of Bullying: A Longitudinal Analysis

It has been speculated that defending victims of bullying is stressful for youth, and may contribute to poor mental health among those who regularly intervene to defend their victimized peers. However, the extant literature is thus far primarily limited to correlational, single-informant studies. The current study examined the concurrent and prospective mental health costs (e.g., social anxiety, depressive symptoms) of peer-reported defending among 4085 youth (43.9% boys; Mage=14.56, SD =0.75). Moreover, we examined two potential moderators (victimization and popularity) of the association between defending and internalizing problems. Analyses revealed that there was no evidence of a direct, positive relationship between defending and internalizing symptoms. However, a positive, concurrent association was found between defending and social anxiety, but only among youth who reported that they were also victims – the association was negative among non-victimized youth. In addition, both peer-reported victimization and social status were found to moderate the longitudinal relationship between defending and later symptoms of depression. Specifcally, among low-status highly victimized youth, defending was associated with an increased risk of experiencing symptoms of depression, whereas high-status youth who were rarely seen as victims reported decreased symptoms of depression at T2 if they also had a reputation for defending others. The fndings suggest that defending others is likely not a risk factor for youth who are not already vulnerable and/or have the protection of high status, and may actually have a protective efect for these youth.</p

Bullying Prevention in Adolescence: Solutions and New Challenges from the Past Decade

Bullying among youth at school continues to be a global challenge. Being exposed to bullying may be especially hurtful in adolescence, a vulnerable period during which both peer group belonging and status become key concerns. In the current review, we first summarize the effectiveness of the solutions that were offered a decade ago in the form of anti-bullying programs. We proceed by highlighting some intriguing challenges concomitant to, or emerging from these solutions, focusing especially on their relevance during adolescence. These challenges are related to (1) the relatively weak, and highly variable effects of anti-bullying programs, (2) the complex associations among bullying, victimization, and social status, (3) the questions raised regarding the beneficial (or possibly iatrogenic) effects of peer defending, and (4) the healthy context paradox, that is, the phenomenon of remaining or emerging victims being worse off in contexts where the average levels of victimization decrease. We end by providing some suggestions for the next decade of research in the area of bullying prevention among adolescents.</p