Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: who considered it useful, who benefited? (Updated)

This digest found in

Gender
Inclusion

What effects did the intervention have?

Questionnaire responses showed that before the intervention:

verbal bullying was most frequently observed, followed by indirect bullying (indirect bullying refers to actions designed to humiliate or exclude other pupils, such as talking behind somebody’s back, passing notes about another pupil, excluding another child from the group, referring to a particular child in a denigrator or scornful way, etc), attacks on property and physical bullying;
girls had observed significantly more indirect bullying than boys; boys had observed significantly more attacks on property than girls;
most students had healthy attitudes to bullying initially, regarding it as an anti-social activity; and
43% of students believed that bullying was not their business; nevertheless, 70% of students believed that they could have an effect on bullying. (These apparently contradictory findings might mean that some students believed they could have an effect if they chose to intervene.)

After the intervention it was found that that:

girls evaluated the campaign more positively than boys;
self-reported bullying declined after the intervention – this decline was strong amongst the group of seventh-grade girls who had responded most to the campaign, but weaker amongst boys;
students who were not themselves victims reported more bullying of others, which may have reflected either a greater awareness of bullying or a greater inclination to get involved as a result of the campaign;
the proportions of boys and girls who believed that they could influence bullying in their class increased but the effect was only significant among girls; and
there was an increase in pro-bullying attitudes among some boys - boys’ mean scores on the pro-bullying component of the five point attitude scale (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) rose from 0.90 to 1.14.

Whilst the campaign seemed to have had a positive effect amongst girls, a number of boys did not think that it was beneficial. The report suggested reasons for this:

the boys may have valued the programme less because all the peer counsellors were girls and because they were uncomfortable in the small group discussion format used;
the initial anti-bullying attitudes held by many of the girls may have pre-disposed them to want to do something about it and to believe that they could do so. This may have prompted them to responded more positively than the boys to the campaign; and
bystanders might not have been able to influence the most active bullies.

The study acknowledged the difficulties involved in making generalisations about boys because of the small number of boys who reported being bullied. It also pointed out that there was no control group.

Your path: Home > Welcome to The Research Informed Practice Site (TRIPS) > Themes > Inclusion > Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: who considered it useful, who benefited?WedMar171608022004 > What effects did the intervention have?
Research Home Themes \| Find digests \| About the digests resources glossary researchers contact TRIPS Introduction Why was the study carried out? What do we know about previous attempts to stop bullying? Targeting the bystanders? What were the main anti-bullying activities? What effects did the intervention have? What data were collected? Implications Where might I find more information? Send us your feedback Collated digests To view/remove/add notes and save your collated digests click here Get Word Reader Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: who considered it useful, who benefited? (Updated) This digest found in Gender Inclusion Send to a friend Word doc 80KB Printer friendly Collate for later What effects did the intervention have? Questionnaire responses showed that before the intervention: verbal bullying was most frequently observed, followed by indirect bullying (indirect bullying refers to actions designed to humiliate or exclude other pupils, such as talking behind somebody’s back, passing notes about another pupil, excluding another child from the group, referring to a particular child in a denigrator or scornful way, etc), attacks on property and physical bullying; girls had observed significantly more indirect bullying than boys; boys had observed significantly more attacks on property than girls; most students had healthy attitudes to bullying initially, regarding it as an anti-social activity; and 43% of students believed that bullying was not their business; nevertheless, 70% of students believed that they could have an effect on bullying. (These apparently contradictory findings might mean that some students believed they could have an effect if they chose to intervene.) After the intervention it was found that that: girls evaluated the campaign more positively than boys; self-reported bullying declined after the intervention – this decline was strong amongst the group of seventh-grade girls who had responded most to the campaign, but weaker amongst boys; students who were not themselves victims reported more bullying of others, which may have reflected either a greater awareness of bullying or a greater inclination to get involved as a result of the campaign; the proportions of boys and girls who believed that they could influence bullying in their class increased but the effect was only significant among girls; and there was an increase in pro-bullying attitudes among some boys - boys’ mean scores on the pro-bullying component of the five point attitude scale (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) rose from 0.90 to 1.14. Whilst the campaign seemed to have had a positive effect amongst girls, a number of boys did not think that it was beneficial. The report suggested reasons for this: the boys may have valued the programme less because all the peer counsellors were girls and because they were uncomfortable in the small group discussion format used; the initial anti-bullying attitudes held by many of the girls may have pre-disposed them to want to do something about it and to believe that they could do so. This may have prompted them to responded more positively than the boys to the campaign; and bystanders might not have been able to influence the most active bullies. The study acknowledged the difficulties involved in making generalisations about boys because of the small number of boys who reported being bullied. It also pointed out that there was no control group.