Traditional Bullying Prevention Programs

Abstract

This paper explores the controversy surrounding the increasing number of bullying cases in schools. The effectiveness of traditional anti-bullying prevention programs in schools have been center of much debate. This research studies the dynamics of bullying identified in the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP). The OBPP consists of a traditional authoritarian system in schools administered by teachers and school staff to remediate bullying. Furthermore, the application of self-regulation and proper conflict resolution skills are discussed to improve the long-term effectiveness of traditional anti-bullying programs such as the OBPP.

Keywords: bullying, violence prevention, self-regulation, school intervention strategies

Emotional

Most families trust schools to provide a safe positive environment that fosters academic enrichment and the development of social skills. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In recent years there has been an enormous support to implement anti-bullying programs in schools (As cited in Limber et al.,2018). The most implemented and well-known anti-bullying program is the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP).

Make sure your essay is 100% unique

Our experts will write for you an essay on any topic, with any deadline and requirements from scratch

127 our experts are available
right now

Get custom essay

This program was proposed by Dan Olweus, a psychology professor in Norway. The OBPP aims to reduce and prevent bullying through the involvement of the entire school community to create a positive environment encouraging awareness of aggressive behavior, supervision, and the implementation of rules by teachers and staff against bullying (Olweus, 1994). In Norway, The OBPP has been proven to successfully yield positive social attitudes and decrease the reporting of bullying within ranges of 20 to 70 percent (Olweus, 1994).

The results of the OBPP in the reduction of bullying in Norway have been remarkable. However, analysis of the effectiveness of the program when implemented in the United States showed smaller effects in the reduction of bullying (Ridgy, 2011; Limber et al., 2018). It is possible that the greater racial and ethnic diversity and differences in school dynamics in the United States can play a determining factor on how students perceive and respond to bullying and prevention programs (Limber et al., 2018). This paper explores a new approach proposing the pairing of the school-wide OBPP with socio-emotional cognitive initiatives involving self-regulation and problem-solving skills.

The Dynamics of Bullying

Bullying is a multifaceted issue in our schools. It involves individual students in conflict, bystanders, school staff, parents, and at some point, the communities they live in. During a typical school day, school staff and students can witness aggressive behavior and bullying in their hallways, playgrounds and even the classroom. In the United States, Bullying has been detected in most schools and is estimated to affect, to different extents, as many as 70 percent of students (Beaty &Alexeyev, 2008). Students can be exposed to bullying in different ways such as being bullied, bullying others, or a combination of both (Beaty &Alexeyev, 2008).

Olweus (1994) defines bullying as the victimization of a student overtime and repeatedly to intentionally “inflict or attempt to inflict injury or discomfort” using physical force, verbal aggression, social isolation or other ways that can be harmful (p.1173). In his research, he categorizes bullying as peer abuse due to the harmdoing intended through means of physical and verbal aggression or social exclusion. This definition highlights that for an incident to be identified as intentional and ultimately as bullying; it must be harming and reoccurring in more than one occasion.

Assessments have been created to measure the prevalence, frequency, and type of bulling in schools based on anonymous surveys administered to students and teachers. The Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ) assesses the extent, type, and most likely location of bullying in schools (Olweus, 1994). This survey is given to students to complete anonymously prior to the intervention and regularly thereafter to measure changes in bullying and understand how students experience bullying (Olweus, 1994).

An important tendency found in Olweus’s research (1994) was that the bullying was more prevalent in younger students, especially those in kindergarten through 7th grade. This can indicate that younger students are at higher risk to be susceptible to bullying and/or older students have been able to develop socio-emotional skills and proper problem-solving skills to deal with pre-existing bullying (Olweus, 1994, p.1174). Previous research has identified prevalent family dynamics and characteristics among children who bully others or become victims.

Victims of Bullying

In general, victims are more likely to be more anxious, sensitive, submissive, non-assertive, and insecure than other students (Olweus, 1994). Another characteristic is the victim’s tendency to cry and withdraw instead of retaliating or reporting the abuse to an adult (Olweus, 1994, p. 1179). For this reason, these students are more likely to be victimized. The research of Nansel and colleagues (2003) concluded that victims of bullying have poorer social and emotional adjustment, tend to have a hard time making new friends, and have fewer relationships with peers.

At the same time, the majority of children who have been bullied tend to come from families who are overprotective and shielding. Parents may notice their child’s social deficiencies and try to avoid conflict with the belief that the child will not able to cope (Beaty & Alexeyev, 2008). Therefore, opportunities to resolve conflict constructively and develop internal and interpersonal problem-resolution skills are greatly minimized for these children (Johnson & Johnson, 2014). Olweus (1994) theorized that this tendency to overprotect and shield vulnerable children may be “both a cause and a result of bullying” (p. 1179).

Another less common victim profile has also been identified: the provocative victim, or the bully-victim (Olweus, 1994). This type of victim both bullies others and is bullied (Olweus, 1994). The provocative victim displays a combination of anxious and aggressive patterns, and sometimes their behavior is rated as irritable and hyperactive (Olweus,1994). They often create tension around them and have attention deficits, and thus creating a negative response from the majority of their classmates. When bullied, this type of victim is reactive and often fights back using physical and verbal aggression (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005).

Research performed by Pelligrini (1998) showed that provocative bully victims are perceived by their peers and teachers as hot-tempered and may often respond with hostility and aggression to other students who unintentionally provoke them (as cited in Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005, p.105). In their family-dynamics, the parents of bully-victims tend to be inconsistent, using over-protection and neglect, and many times abusiveabuse. These children claim that their parents lack warmth yet teach them “power-assertive skills” to defend themselves against bullying and other aggressions at school (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005, p.106).

Students Who Bully others

The term “bully” is generally used to classify students who bully others. This term positions the bully as the responsible agent at fault who needs punishment to correct their aggressive behavior, yet there has been early research changing this perception. Olweus (1994) explained that bullies use aggression towards peers to enforce power, and lack very little empathy towards their victim. Simultaneously, the typical profile of a bully includes impulsivity, a need to dominate others, and a low tolerance for frustration.

Olweus’s extensive research indicates bullies are more likely to have parents who are permissive of aggressive behavior, have a very little involvement and warmth during early years of development, and employ “physical punishment and violent emotional outburst” as a way to resolve conflict during child-rearing (p.1181). According to Olweus, this maladaptive parental practice can lead to the development of an aggressive reaction pattern for the child. The findings of Nansel et al., (2003) indicate that when aggressive behavior is present in early stages of development in forms of bullying, this aggressive pattern is likely to continue and develop into more serious aggressive behavior during adolescence.

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) is a systematic comprehensive whole-school policy program for intervention and prevention of bullying in schools. It was designed ideally for Elementary and Middle school children, and fully relies on school staff for implementation and to act as authority figures. The most fundamental principle of the program is that “is based on an authoritative adult-child interaction, or a child-reading model applied to the school setting” (Olweus, 1994, p. 1186).

In this sense, school adults act as advocates and role models, in a daily basis, of pro-social behavior, anti-bullying principles, and positive peer interactions. For example, elementary school children are taught the importance of including friends who are often excluded, how to be a responsible and a kind friend, and to identify common types of bullying and to report it immediately to a school adult if bullying takes place (Olweus, 1994).

Intervention

The program generates constant anti-bullying awareness by holding schoolwide family events as well as teacher-led class meetings. It also posts and enforces schoolwide rules against bullying. The OBPP supports “monitoring and surveillance” of students’ behavior at all times during the school day and in identified at-risk areas, such as the cafeteria and playgrounds (Olweus, 1994).

The OBPP relies on the traditional school punishments used to manage discipline problems. When bullying is witnessed and reported, the class teacher and school counselor arrange a “serious talk” with the students involved and consequently with the parents. Upon initial meetings, the school faculty decides the appropriate consequence to administer to the identified bully and later sessions are scheduled to discuss anti-bullying principles and provide support to the victim (Peterson & Skiba, 2001).

Combining OBPP and Socio-Emotional Cognitive Initiatives

Since the breakthroughs in bullying research of Dr. Dan Olweus in the early 1990’s, new research has further explored the perception of the “evil bully” who needs to be sanctioned and punished. For the purpose of this paper, it is imperative to understand new findings and perspectives in regard to this connotation. Andreou, Vlachou, & Didaskalou (2005) found that children who bully others have difficulty processing social information, lack problem-solving skills, and tend to “act-out” using aggressive behavior when confronted with internal conflict. Therefore, it can be expected that children who bully others may lack important cognitive and socio-emotional skills for self-regulation.

Self-Regulation

Self-regulation is a critical cognitive process in development which facilitates social adaptation. Individuals who are able to master this skill throughout different developmental stages are able to face challenges and conflict constructively. In order for students to self-regulate, schools must provide opportunities for children to strengthen the necessary skills and attitudes for self-regulation (Mischel, DeSmet, & Kross, 2014).

For an individual to self-regulate their emotions, some important cognitive and emotional processes take precedence. In the case of bullying, the way a child encodes or perceives a situation can determine if a “maladaptive reaction pattern” is automatically triggered (Mischel, DeSmet, & Kross, 2014, p. 313). Other important factors in self-regulation are if the child knows that he or she is expected to attempt to self-regulate and has an environment which supports the regulated response (Mischel, DeSmet, & Kross, 2014, p. 313 -314). As previously discussed, most children who bully come from families who are lenient with resolving conflict in aggressive ways and sometimes encourage it (Olweus, 1993; Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005).

Socio-Emotional Cognitive Initiatives

In his own research findings, Olweus mentioned the importance of socio-emotional factors such as ability to cope and resolve conflict in children’s susceptibility to induce bullying and victimization. However, the OBPP program lacks enough necessary tools and opportunities to help elementary children develop stronger socio-emotional skills and to support these cognitive processes’ development. The work of Levine and Tamburrino (2014) explains the importance to foster emotional opportunities for children to understand bullying, develop problem solving skills, and to teach children how to be assertive if bullying happens.

The authors encourage teachers to invest time into “addressing conflict” with students while sitting in a circle and teach children how to recognize their own emotions and the emotions of others (p.274). Another recommendation for a program as systematic as the OBPP would be to integrate daily check-in for students at the start of the day to share how each student feels with the class. This kind of activity can allow students to create an emotional connection and support understanding among peers.

School-based Social Emotional (SEL) programs prioritize children’s social emotional attitudes for learning and adjustment. Second Step is one of the most well-known initiatives addressing internal conflict and self-regulation of emotions for elementary students. This educational program focuses on training elementary students the necessary cognitive and socio-emotional skills for learning and school adaptation (Leff, Waasdorp, & Crick, 2010). Second Step reinforces empathy, self-regulation through emotion management, and problem-solving skills.

A research evaluation of this program showed that Second Step has helped students increase social and emotional competence to improve peer relationships, and reduce disruptive behavior patterns (Low, Cook, Smolkowski, & Buntain-Ricklefs, 2015). Students in SEL programs are more likely to report bullying in regard to homophobic name calling and sexual abuse in schools (Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, 2015).

Conclusion

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program targeting elementary schools have created an organizational approach based on accountability and awareness to prevent bullying. The OBPP has been a tremendous foundation for educators to address bullying intervention and prevention. It provides a proactive authoritative system which children can follow to model behavior. School adults serve as role models and advocators for positive peer interactions and the enforcement of rules and guidelines.

Although this may be a supported program against bullying, the OBPP fails to address more deeply aggressive behavior rooted in cognitive deficiencies and social-emotional skills. Further anti-bullying initiatives can be more successful if they combine the proactive schoolwide structure of the OBPP with programs that take into account the development of fundamental cognitive and social skills that children need to participate in less aggressive behaviors of bullying, and to ultimately optimize student’s ability to deal with bullying.

References

1. Andreou, E., Vlachou, & Didaskalou. (2005). The Roles of Self-Efficacy, Peer Interactions and Attitudes in Bully-Victim Incidents: Implications for Intervention Policy-Practices. School Psychology International, 26(5), 545-562
2. Beaty, Lee A., & Alexeyev, Erick B. (2008). The Problem of School Bullies: What the Research Tells Us. Adolescence (San Diego): An International Quarterly Devoted to the Physiological, Psychological, Psychiatric, Sociological, and Educational Aspects of the Second Decade of Human Life, 43(169), 1-9.
3. Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown. (2015). Clinical trial of Second Step© middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 52-63.
4. Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Conflict Resolution in Schools. In P. Coleman, M. Deutsch., & E. Marcus (Eds.) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. (Chapter 47). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
5. Leff, Stephen S., Waasdorp, Tracy Evian, & Crick, Nicki R. (2010). A Review of Existing Relational Aggression Programs: Strengths, limitations, and future directions. (Report). School Psychology Review, 39(4), 508-535.
6. Levine, Emily, & Tamburrino, Melissa. (2014). Bullying among Young Children: Strategies for Prevention. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 271-278.
7. Limber, Olweus, Wang, Masiello, & Breivik. (2018). Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A large scale study of U.S. students in grades 3–11. Journal of School Psychology, 69, 56-72.
8. Low, Cook, Smolkowski, & Buntain-Ricklefs. (2015). Promoting social–emotional competence: An evaluation of the elementary version of Second Step®. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 463-477.
9. Mischel, W., DeSmet, A. L., & Kross, E. (2014). Self-Regulation in the Service of Conflict Resolution. In P. Coleman, M. Deutsch., & E. Marcus (Eds.) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. (310-352). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
10. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Haynie, D., Ruan, W., & Scheidt, P. (2003). Relationships Between Bullying and Violence Among US Youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(4), 348-353.
11. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at School: Basic Facts and Effects of a School-based Intervention Program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, And Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190.
12. Peterson, Reece L., & Skiba, Russell. (2001). Creating School Climates That Prevent School Violence. Social Studies, 92(4), 167-75.
13. Rigby, K. K. R. edu. a. (2011). What Can Schools do about Cases of Bullying? Pastoral Care in Education, 29(4), 273–285.
14. Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in School: An Overview of Types, Effects, Family Characteristics, and Intervention Strategies. Children & Schools, 27(2), 101–110.
15. Andreou, E., Vlachou, & Didaskalou. (2005). The Roles of Self-Efficacy, Peer Interactions and Attitudes in Bully-Victim Incidents: Implications for Intervention Policy-Practices. School Psychology International, 26(5), 545-562 https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_ericEJ723472&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
16. Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown. (2015). Clinical trial of Second Step© middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 52-63. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0193-3973(14)00140-3&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
17. Limber, Olweus, Wang, Masiello, & Breivik. (2018). Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A large scale study of U.S. students in grades 3–11. Journal of School Psychology, 69, 56-72. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0022-4405(18)30052-9&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
18. Low, Cook, Smolkowski, & Buntain-Ricklefs. (2015). Promoting social–emotional competence: An evaluation of the elementary version of Second Step®. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 463-477. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_sciversesciencedirect_elsevierS0022-4405(15)00069-2&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
19. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Haynie, D., Ruan, W., & Scheidt, P. (2003). Relationships Between Bullying and Violence Among US Youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(4), 348-353. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_ama481307&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
20. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at School: Basic Facts and Effects of a School-based Intervention Program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, And Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_wj10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
21. Levine, Emily, & Tamburrino, Melissa. (2014). Bullying among Young Children: Strategies for Prevention. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 271-278. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_ericEJ1036222&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
22. Beaty, Lee A., & Alexeyev, Erick B. (2008). The Problem of School Bullies: What the Research Tells Us. Adolescence (San Diego): An International Quarterly Devoted to the Physiological, Psychological, Psychiatric, Sociological, and Educational Aspects of the Second Decade of Human Life, 43(169), 1-9. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_gale_ofa186383142&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
23. Rigby, K. K. R. edu. a. (2011). What can schools do about cases of bullying? Pastoral Care in Education, 29(4), 273–285. http://remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=67366596&site=ehost-live
24. Leff, Stephen S., Waasdorp, Tracy Evian, & Crick, Nicki R. (2010). A review of existing relational aggression programs: Strengths, limitations, and future directions. (Report). School Psychology Review, 39(4), 508-535. https://onesearch.cuny.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_gale_ofa246715469&context=PC&vid=bb&search_scope=everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US
25. Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Conflict Resolution in Schools. In P. Coleman, M. Deutsch., & E. Marcus (Eds.) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. (Chapter 47). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
26. Mischel, W., DeSmet, A. L., & Kross, E. (2014). Self-Regulation in the Service of Conflict Resolution. In P. Coleman, M. Deutsch., & E. Marcus (Eds.) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. (310-352). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.