bully/victim problems in school: facts and intervention

16
European Journal ofPsychology ofEducation 1991, Vol. XlI, ltD 4,495-510 e 1997, I.S.P.A. Bully/victimproblems in school: Facts and intervention Dan Olweus University ofBergen, Norway Bully/victim problems among school children are a matter of con- siderable concern in Scandinavia and, more recently, in a number of other countries as well. Estimates based on the author's large-scale surveys indicate that some 9% ofthe students in grades 1 through 9 are fairly regular victims of bullying and that 6-7% engage in bullying oth- ers with some regularity. It is argued that it is a fundamental democrat- ic right for a child to be spared the oppression and repeated humilia- tion implied in bullying. The author has developed a school-based intervention programme against bullying, the effects of which were evaluated in 42 schools over a period of two years. Analyses indicate that the frequency of bully/victim problems decreased by 50-70%. In addition, the prevalence of antisocial behaviours in general such as vandalism, theft, drunkenness and truancy showed a substantial drop. The main content ofthe "core" programme as well as its key principles are presented. The overriding goal of the programme can be described as a "restructuring ofthe social environment". The programme empha- sizes behaviours and attitudes characterized by a combination of posi- tive involvement from teachers and parents, firm limits to unacceptable behaviour ("we don t accept bullying in our class/school"), and consis- tent use of non-hostile non-corporal sanctions on rule violations. Explanations of the positive results include changes in the opportunity and reward "structures" for bullying behaviour. Introduction "For two years, Johnny, a quiet 13-year-old, was a human plaything for some of his classmates. The teenagers badgered Johnny for money, forced him to swallow weeds and drink milk mixed with detergent, beat him up in the rest room and tied a string around his neck, leading him around as a 'pet'. When Johnny's torturers were inter- rogated about the bullying, they said they pursued their victim because it was fun". (newspaper clipping presented in Olweus, 1993a, p. 7) The research programme reported in this article was supported by grants from the William T. Grant Foundation, USA, the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, the Norwegian Research Council for Social Research (NAVFl, and in earlier phases, from the Swedish Delegation for Social Research (DSF), and the Norwegian Ministry of Education which is gratefully acknowledged.

Upload: lexuyen

Post on 04-Feb-2017

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

European Journal ofPsychology ofEducation1991, Vol. XlI, ltD 4,495-510e 1997, I.S.P.A.

Bully/victimproblems in school:Facts and intervention

Dan OlweusUniversity ofBergen, Norway

Bully/victim problems among school children are a matter ofcon­siderable concern in Scandinavia and, more recently, in a number ofother countries as well. Estimates based on the author's large-scalesurveys indicate that some 9% ofthe students in grades 1 through 9 arefairly regular victims ofbullying and that 6-7% engage in bullying oth­ers with some regularity. It is argued that it is a fundamental democrat­ic right for a child to be spared the oppression and repeated humilia­tion implied in bullying. The author has developed a school-basedintervention programme against bullying, the effects of which wereevaluated in 42 schools over a period of two years. Analyses indicatethat the frequency of bully/victim problems decreased by 50-70%. Inaddition, the prevalence ofantisocial behaviours in general such asvandalism, theft, drunkenness and truancy showed a substantial drop.The main content ofthe "core" programme as well as its key principlesare presented. The overriding goal ofthe programme can be describedas a "restructuring ofthe social environment". Theprogramme empha­sizes behaviours and attitudes characterized by a combination ofposi­tive involvement from teachers and parents, firm limits to unacceptablebehaviour ("we don t accept bullying in our class/school"), and consis­tent use of non-hostile non-corporal sanctions on rule violations.Explanations ofthe positive results include changes in the opportunityand reward "structures" for bullying behaviour.

Introduction

"For two years, Johnny, a quiet 13-year-old, was a human plaything for some of hisclassmates. The teenagers badgered Johnny for money, forced him to swallow weedsand drink milk mixed with detergent, beat him up in the rest room and tied a stringaround his neck, leading him around as a 'pet'. When Johnny's torturers were inter­rogated about the bullying, they said they pursued their victim because it was fun".(newspaper clipping presented in Olweus, 1993a, p. 7)

The research programme reported in this article was supported by grants from the William T. Grant Foundation,USA, the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, the Norwegian Research Council for Social Research(NAVFl, and in earlier phases, from the Swedish Delegation for Social Research (DSF), and the Norwegian Ministry ofEducation which is gratefully acknowledged.

496 D.OLWEUS

Bullying among schoolchildren is certainly a very old phenomenon. The fact that somechildren are frequently and systematically harassed and attacked by other children has beendescribed in literary works, and many adults have personal experience of it from their ownschool days. Though many are acquainted with the bully/victim problem, it was not until fairlyrecently - in the early 1970's - that the phenomenon was made the object of more systematicresearch (Olweus, 1973a, 1978). Fora number of years, these efforts were largely confined toScandinavia. In the 1980's and early 1990's, however, bullying among school children hasattracted attention also in other countries such as Japan, Great Britain, the Netherlands,Australia, Canada, and the USA. There are now clear indications of an increasing societal aswell as research interest into bully/victim problems in several parts of the world.

What is meant by bullying?

I define bullying or victimization in the following general way (e.g., Olweus, 1993a,1996): A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and overtime, to negative actions on the part ofone or more other students. It is a negative action whensomeone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, injury or discomfort upon another - basi­cally what is implied in the definition of aggressive behaviour in the social sciences (Olweus,1973b). Negative actions can be carried out by physical contact, by words, or in other ways,such as making faces or unpleasant gestures, spreading rumours, and intentional exclusionfrom a group. Although children or young people who engage in bullying are very likely tovary in their degree of awareness of how the bullying is perceived by the victim, most or all ofthem probably realise that their behaviour is at least somewhat painful or unpleasant to thevictim.

In order to use the term bullying, there should also be an imbalance in strength (an asym­metric power relationship): The student who is exposed to the negative actions has difficultyin defending himself or herself and is somewhat helpless against the student or students whoharass. The actual and/or perceived imbalance in strength or power may come about in severaldifferent ways. The target of bullying may actually be physically weaker, or may simply per­ceive himself or herself as physically or mentally weaker than the perpetrator. Or there may bea difference in numbers, with several students ganging up on a single victim. A somewhat dif­ferent kind of imbalance may be achieved, when the "source" of the negative actions is diffi­cult to identify or confront as in social exclusion from the group, talking behind the person'sback, or when a student is being sent anonymous unpleasant notes. In line with this reasoning,we do not talk about bullying when there is a conflict or aggressive interchange between twopersons ofapproximately the same physical or mental strength.

It is also important to consider briefly the relationship between bullying and teasing. Ineveryday social interactions among peers in school, there occurs a good deal of teasing of aplayful and relatively friendly nature, which is often recurrent but which in most cases cannotbe considered bullying. On the other hand, when the repeated teasing is of a degrading andoffensive character and, in particular, is continued in spite of clear signs of distress or opposi­tion on the part of the target, it certainly qualifies as bullying. Here it is thus important to tryand distinguish between malicious and more friendly, playful teasing, although the linebetween them is sometimes blurred and the perception of the situation may to some extentdepend on the perspective taken, that ofthe target or ofthe perpetrator(s).

Thus bullying is characterized by the following three criteria: (a) it is aggressive behav­iour or intentional "hanndoing"; (b) which is carried out "repeatedly and over time" and (c) inan interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power. One might add that thebullying behaviour often occurs without apparent provocation. This definition makes it clearthat bullying can be considered a form of abuse, and I sometimes use the term peer abuse tolabel the phenomenon. What sets. it apart from other forms of abuse such as child abuse andwife abuse is the context in which it occurs and the relationship characteristics of the partiesinvolved.

It may also be useful to distinguish between direct bullying/victimization involving rela-

BULLYNICTIM PROBLEMS 497

tively open attacks on the victim and indirect bullying/victimization in the form of intentionalexclusion from a group, talking behind a victim's back, and spreading of malicious rumours.(See Olweus, 1996, for a more extended discussion of the term bullying including its relation­ship to aggression and violence.)

Basic facts about bully/victim problems

Prevalence

On the basis of our survey of more than 130.000 Norwegian students with myBully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1989; Olweus & Smith, in preparation), one can esti­mate that some 15% of the students in elementary and secondary/junior high schools (grades1-9, roughly corresponding to ages 7 through 16) in Norway were involved in bully/victimproblems with some regularity (Autumn 1983), either as bullies or victims (Olweus, 1985,1987,1991, 1993a, 1994). This percentage represents one student out of seven, or 84.000 stu­dents. Approximately 9%, or 52.000 students, were victims, and 41.000, or 7%, bullied otherstudents (sel~ Figures 1 and 2). Some 9.000 students were both victim and bully (1.6% of thetotal of 568.000 students or 17% of the victims). A total of 5% of the students were involvedin frequent bullying situations (as bullies or victims or bully/victim) occurring about once aweek or more frequently. As the prevalence questions in the Questionnaire refer to only partof the autumn term, there is little doubt that the figures presented actually underestimate thenumber of students involved in such problems during a whole year (Figures I and 2).

_ GIRLS 0 BOYS

PERCENT VICTIMS

2 3 456 7 8 9

rElOYS 17.5 14.5 13 10.6 8.4 8 7.7 6.4

~i1RLS 16 12.2 11.5 8.9 5.5 3.3 3.5 3

Figure 1. Percentage of students in different grades who reported being exposed to direct bul­lying (n for boys=42.390; n for girls=40.940)

It is apparent, then, that bullying is a considerable problem in Norwegian schools, a prob­lem that affects a very large number of students. Data from other countries (in large measurecollected with my Bully/Victim Questionnaire) such as Sweden (Olweus, 1992b), Finland(Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, & King, 1982), Great Britain (Smith, 1991; Whitney & Smith,1993), USA (perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988), Canada (Ziegler & Rosenstein-Marmer, 1991), TheNetherlands (Haeselager & van Lieshout, 1992; Junger, 1990), Japan (Hirano, 1992), Ireland(O'Moore &. Brendan, 1989), Spain (Ruiz, 1992), and Australia (Rigby & Slee, 1991), indi-

498 D.OLWEUS

cate that this problem also exists outside Norway and with similar or even higher prevalencerates.

_ GIRLS 0 BOYS

PERCENT BULLIES

14

1210

86

4

2o +---,--t'---,---+.---,.->(-..,.--+--,,-+---,-----..,<--.,--f--,.--r

23456 789

BOYS 9.8 9.9 9.7 11.7 11.7 8.1 12.8 12.7GIRLS 5.2 4.6 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.2 3 2.1

Figure 2. Percentage of students in different grades who reported having bullied other students(n for boys=42.324; n for girls=40.877)

There are many more boys than girls who bully others, and a relatively large percentageof girls report that they are mainly bullied by boys. Also, there is a somewhat higher percent­age of boys who are victims of bullying. Although direct bullying is thus a greater problemamong boys, there occurs a good deal of bullying among girls as well. Bullying with physicalmeans is less common among girls, however; girls typically use more subtle and indirect waysof harassment such as slandering, spreading of rumours, intentional exclusion from the group,and manipulation of friendship relations (e.g., depriving a girl of her "best friend"). Suchforms of bullying may be more difficult to detect by adults. We have also found that it is theyounger and weaker students who are most exposed to bullying. Although most bullyingoccurs among students at the same grade level, a good deal of bullying is also carried out byolder students towards younger ones (More details about bullying in different grades andamong boys and girls etc. are given in Olweus, 1993a).

There is a good deal of evidence to indicate that the behaviour patterns involved inbully/victim problems are fairly stable over time. This means that being a bully or a victim issomething that is likely to continue for substantial periods of time, unless systematic efforts(from adults) are made to change the situation (Olweus, 1977, 1978).

Three common "myths" about bullying

A common view holds that bully/victim problems are a consequence of large classesand/or schools: the larger the class or the school, the higher the level of bully/victim problems.Closer analysis of this hypothesis" making use of the Norwegian survey data from more than700 schools and several thousand classes (with great variations in size) resulted in the conclu­sion that the size of the class or the school is of negligible importance for the relative frequen­cy or level ofbully/victim problems in the class or the school (Olweus, 1993a).

Second, in the general debate it has been commonly maintained that bullying is a conse­quence of competition and striving for grades in school. More specifically, it has been arguedthat the aggressive behaviour of the bullies toward their environment can be explained as areaction to failure and frustration in school. However, this hypothesis failed to receive support

BULLYNICTIM PROBLEMS 499

from detailed analyses of (longitudinal) data. Thus, although there was a moderate associationbetween aggressive behaviour and poor grades, there was nothing in the results to suggest thatthe behaviour of the aggressive boys was a consequence of poor grades and failure in school(Olweus, 1983).

Third, a widely held view explains victimization as caused by external deviations. It isargued that students who are fat, are red-haired, wear glasses, or speak with an unusual dialectetc. are particularly likely to become victims of bullying. This explanation is quite commonamong students. Also this hypothesis received no empirical support (Olweus, 1978). It wasconcluded that external deviations playa much smaller role in the origin of bully/victim prob­lems than generally assumed (see also Junger, 1990). In spite of the lack of empirical supportfor this hypothesis, it seems still to enjoy considerable popularity. Some probable reasons whythis is so have been advanced, and the interested reader is referred to this discussion (Olweus,1978, 1993a).

All these hypotheses have thus failed to receive support from empirical data.Accordingly, one must look for other factors to find the origins of these problems. Theresearch evidence collected so far and presented in Bullying at school - what we know andwhat we can do (Olweus, 1993a), and summarized in the next few pages, clearly suggests thatpersonality characteristics/typical reaction patterns, in combination with physical strength orweakness in the case of boys, are quite important for the development of these problems inindividual students. At the same time, environmental factors such as the teachers' attitudes,routines, and behaviour playa major role in determining the extent to which the problems willmanifest themselves in a classroom or a school (see Olweus, I993a).

What characterizes the typical victims?

A relatiively clear picture of both the typical victims and the typical bullies has emergedfrom research (Olweus, 1973a, 1978, 1981a, 1984; Bjorkqvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982;Boulton & Smith, 1994; Farrington, 1993; Lagerspetz et aI., 1982; Perry et aI., 1988). By andlarge, this picture seems to apply to both boys and girls, although it must be noted that clearlyless research has so far been done on bullying among girls.

The typical victims are more anxious and insecure than students in general. Further, theyare often cautious, sensitive and quiet. When attacked by other students, they commonly reactby crying (at least in the lower grades) and withdrawal. Also, victims suffer from lowself-esteem, they have a negative view of themselves and their situation. They often look uponthemselves as failures and feel stupid, ashamed and unattractive.

The victims are lonely and abandoned at school. As a rule, they do not have a single goodfriend in their class. They are not aggressive or teasing in their behaviour, however, and,accordingly, bullying cannot be explained as a consequence of the victims themselves beingprovocative to their peers (see below). These children often have a negative attitude towardviolence and use of violent means. If they are boys, they are likely to be physically weakerthan other boys (Olweus, 1978).

1 have labelled this type of victim the passive or submissive victim, as opposed to the farless common type described below. In summary, it seems that the behaviour and attitude ofthe passive/submissive victims signal to others that they are insecure and worthless individu­als who will not retaliate if they are attacked or insulted. A slightly different way of describ­ing passive/submissive victims is to say that they are characterized by an anxious or submis­sive reaction pattern combined (in the case of boys) with physical weakness.

In-depth interviews with parents ofvictimized boys indicate that these boys were charac­terized by a certain cautiousness and sensitivity already at an early age (Olweus, 1993b). Boyswith such characteristics (perhaps combined with physical weakness) are likely to have haddifficulty in asserting themselves in the peer group and may have been somewhat disliked bytheir age mates. There are thus good reasons to believe that these characteristics contributed tomaking them victims of bullying (see also Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993). At the same time,it is obvious that the repeated harassment by peers must have considerably increased their anx­iety' insecurity, and generally negative evaluation of themselves.

500 D.OLWEUS

As mentioned earlier, there is also another smaller group of victims, the provocative vic­tims, who are characterized by a combination of both anxious and aggressive reaction patterns.These students often have problems with concentration, and behave in ways that may causeirritation and tension around them. Some of these students can be characterized as hyperac­tive. It is not uncommon that their behaviour provokes many students in the class, thus result­ing in negative reactions from a large part of, or even the entire class. The dynamics ofbully/victim problems in a class with provocative victims differ in part from problems in aclass with passive victims (Olweus, 1978).

A follow-up study of two groups of boys who had or had not been victimized by theirpeers in school showed that the former victims (mostly of the passive/submissive type) weremuch more likely to be depressed and had poorer self-esteem as young adults, at age 23(Olweus, 1993b). The pattern of findings clearly suggested that this was a consequence of theearlier, persistent victimization which thus had left its scars on their minds.

What characterizes the typical bullies?

A distinctive characteristic of the bullies is their aggression toward peers. But bullies areoften aggressive toward adults as well, both teachers and parents. Generally, bullies have amore positive attitude toward violence and use of violent means than students in general.Further, they are often characterized by impulsivity and a strong need to dominate others.They have little empathy with victims ofbullying. If they are boys, they are likely to be physi­cally stronger than boys in general, and the victim in particular.

A commonly held view among psychologists and psychiatrists is that individuals whoexhibit aggressive and tough behaviour are actually anxious and insecure "under the surface".The assumption that the bullies have an underlying insecurity has been tested in several of myown studies, also using "indirect" methods such as stress hormones (adrenaline and noradren­aline) and projective techniques. There was nothing in the results to support the commonview, they rather pointed in the opposite direction: the bullies demonstrated unusually littleanxiety and insecurity, or were roughly average on such dimensions (Olweus, 1981a, 1984,1986; see also Pulkkinen & Tremblay, 1992). They did not suffer from poor self-esteem.

These conclusions apply to the bullies as a group. The results do not imply that there can­not be individual bullies who are both aggressive and anxious. It should also be emphasizedthat there are students who participate in bullying but who do not usually take the initiative:these have been labelled passive bullies,followers, or henchmen. A group of passive bullies islikely to be fairly mixed and may also contain insecure and anxious students (Olweus, 1978).

Several studies have found bullies to be of average or slightly below average popularity(Bjorkqvist et al., 1982; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Olweus, 1973a, 1978; Pulkkinen & Tremblay,1992). Bullies are often surrounded by a small group of2-3 peers who support them and whoseem to like them (see also, Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest & Gariepy, 1988). The populari­ty of bullies decreases, however, in the higher grades and is considerably less than average ingrade 9 (around age 16). Nevertheless, bullies do not seem to reach the low level ofpopularitythat characterizes victims.

In summary, typical bullies can be described as having an aggressive reaction patternwhich, in the case ofboys, is combined with physical strength.

As regards the possible psychological sources underlying bullying behaviour, the patternof empirical findings suggests at least three, partly interrelated motives (in particular for malebullies). First, the bullies have a strong need for power and dominance: they seem to enjoybeing "in control" and subduing others. Second, considering the family conditions underwhich many of them have been reared (below), it is natural to assume that they have devel­oped a certain degree of hostility towards the environment; such feelings and impulses maymake them derive satisfaction from inflicting injury and suffering upon other individuals.Finally, there is an "instrumental component" to their behaviour. The bullies often coerce theirvictims to provide them with money, cigarettes, beer, and other things of value. In addition, itis obvious that aggressive behaviour is in many situations rewarded in the form of prestige.

BULLYNICTIM PROBLEMS 501

Bullying can also be viewed as a component of a more generally antisocial andrule-breaking (rconduct-disordered"} behaviour pattern. From this perspective, it is naturalto predict that youngsters who are aggressive and bulJy others, run an increased risk of laterengaging in other problem behaviours such as criminality and alcohol abuse (e.g., Loeber &Dishion, 1983; Olweus, 1979). In my folJow-up studies we have found strong support for thisview. Approximately 60% of boys who were characterized as bullies in grades 6-9 had beenconvicted of at least one officially registered crime by the age of 24. Even more dramatically,as much as 35-40% of the former bulJies had three or more convictions by this age, while thiswas true ofonly 10% ofthe control boys (those who were neither bullies nor victims in grades6-9). Thus, as young adults, the former school bullies had a fourfold increase in the level ofrelatively serious, recidivist criminality as documented in official crime records (Olweus,1993a). It is worth mentioning that the former victims had an average or somewhat belowaverage level of criminality in young adulthood.

Development ofan aggressive reaction pattern

In light of the characterization of the bulJies as having an aggressive reaction pattern ­that is, they display aggressive behaviour in many situations - it becomes important to exam­ine the question: What kind of rearing and other conditions during childhood are conducive tothe development of an aggressive reaction pattern? Very briefly, the following four factorshave turned out to be particularly important (based chiefly on my research with boys, Olweus,1980; see also Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).

1. The basic emotional attitude of the primary caretaker(s) toward the child during earlyyears (usualJy the mother). A negative emotional attitude, characterized by lack ofwarmth and involvement, increases the risk that the child will later become aggressiveand hostile toward others.

2. Permissiveness for aggressive behaviour by the child. If the primary caretaker is gen­erally permissive and "tolerant" without setting clear limits to aggressive behaviourtowards peers, siblings, and adults, the child's aggression level is likely to increase.

3. Use ofpower-assertive child-rearing methods such as physical punishment and violentemotional outbursts. Children of parents who make frequent use of these methods arelikely to become more aggressive than the average child. In other words, "violencebegets violence".

We can summarize these results by stating that too little love and care and too much free­dom in childhood are conditions that contribute strongly to the development ofan aggressivereaction pattern.

4. Finally, the temperament ofthe child which is in part inherited. A child with an activeand "hot-headed" temperament is more likely to develop into an aggressive youngsterthan a child with an ordinary or quieter temperament. The effect of this factor is lesspowerful than those of the two first-mentioned conditions.

The factors listed above can be assumed to be important for both younger and somewhatolder children, It can be added that, for adolescents, it is also of great significance whether theparents supervise the children's activities outside the school reasonably well (Patterson, 1986;Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984) and check on what they are doing and with whom.

It should also be pointed out that the aggression levels of the boys participating in theanalyses above were not related to the socio-economic conditions oftheir families, measuredin several different ways (Olweus, 1980). Similarly, there were no (or only very weak) rela­tions between the four childhood factors discussed and the socio-economic conditions of thefamily (Olweus, 1981a).

502 D.OLWEUS

A question offundamental democratic rights

The victims of bullying form a large group of students who are to a great extent neglectedby the school. We have shown that many of these youngsters are the targets of harassment forlong periods of time, often for many years (Olweus, 1977, 1978). It does not require muchimagination to understand what it is to go through the school years in a state of more or lesspermanent anxiety and insecurity and with poor self-esteem. It is not surprising that the vic­tims' devaluation of themselves sometimes becomes so overwhelming that they see suicide asthe only possible solution.

Bully/victim problems in school really concern some of our basic values and principles.For a long time, I have argued that it is afundamental democratic rightfor a child to feel safein school and to be spared the oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation involved inbullying. No student should be afraidof going to school for fear of being harassed or degrad­ed, and no parent should need to worry about such things happening to his or her child.

In 1981, I proposed the introduction of a law against bullying at school (01weus, 1981b).At that time, there was little political support for the idea. In 1994, however, this suggestionhas been followed up by the Swedish Parliament with a new school law article including for­mulations that are very similar to those expressed above. In addition, the associated regula­tions place responsibility for realization of these goals, including development of an interven­tion programme against bullying for the individual school, with the head teacher. At present, asimilar law is being discussed in Norway, and there seems to be considerable political supportfor the idea.

Effects of a school based intervention programme

Against this background, it is appropriate to briefly describe the effects of the interven­tion programme that I took part in developing and evaluating in connection with a nationwidecampaign against bully/victim problems in Norwegian schools.

The major goals ofthe programme were to reduce as much as possible existing bully/vic­tim problems and to prevent the development ofnew problems.

Evaluation of the effects of the intervention programme was based on data from approxi­mately 2500 students originally belonging to 112 grade 4-7 classes (modal ages were 11-14years at the start of the project) in 42 primary and secondary/junior high schools in Bergen,Norway. The subjects of the study were followed over a period of 2.5 years, from 1983 to1985 (see e.g., Olweus, 1991, for details).

The main findings of the analyses can be summarized as follows.

1. There were marked reductions of 50-70% in bully/victim problems over the periodstudied, with 8 and 20 months of intervention, respectively. By and large, these reduc­tions were obtained for both direct bullying (where the victim is exposed to relativelyopen attacks), for indirect bullying (where the victim is isolated and excluded from thegroup, involuntary loneliness), and for bullying others. The results generally appliedto both boys and girls and to students from all grades studied (see Figure 3).

2. There was no displacement of bullying from the school to the journey to and fromschool. There were reductions or no change with regard to bully/victim problems onthe way to and from school.

3. There were also clear reductions in general antisocial behaviour such as vandalism,fighting, pilfering, drunkenness, and truancy, particularly at the older ages (see Figure4).

4. In addition, we noted marked improvement as regards various aspects of the "socialclimate" of the class: improved order and discipline, more positive social relation­ships, and a more positive attitude to schoolwork and the school. At the same time,there was an increase in student satisfaction with school life.

BULLYNICTIM PROBLEMS 503

5. The intervention programme not only affected already existing victimization prob­lems, it also reduced considerably the number (and percentage) of new victims(O/weus, 1992a). The programme had thus both primary and secondary preventioneffects (Cowen, 1984).

In the majority of comparisons for which reductions were reported above, the differencesbetween base line and intervention groups were significant/highly significant and with medi­urn, large, or even very large effect sizes (d-values at the classroom level of more than 1.0 forseveral variables).

Detailed analyses of the quality of the data and the possibility of alternative interpreta­tions of the findings led to the following conclusions (Olweus, 1991). It is very difficult toexplain the results obtained as a consequence of (a) underreporting by the students, (b) gradualchanges in the students' attitudes to bully/victim problems, (c) repeated measurement, and (d)concomitant changes in other factors, including general time trends.

In addition, a clear "dosage-response" relationship has been established in preliminaryanalyses at the class level (which is the natural unit of analysis in this case). Those classes thatshowed larger reductions in bully/victim problems had implemented three presumably essen­tial components of the intervention programme (including the establishment of class rulesagainst bullying and use of regular class meetings) to a greater extent than those with smallerchanges. This finding provides corroborating evidence for the hypothesis that the changesobserved were due to the intervention programme.

All in all, it was concluded that the changes in bully/victim problems and related behav­iour patterns were likely to be mainly a consequence ofthe intervention programme and not ofsome other irrelevant/actor. It was also noted that self-reports, which were implicated in mostof these analyses, are probably the best data source for the purposes of this study. At the sametime, largely parallel results were obtained for two peer rating variables and for teacher ratingsof bully/victim problems at the class level; for the teacher data, however, the effects weresomewhat weaker.

0.815 Being Bullied (direct and Indirect)

1).8 .. ,

......•......-v..

'"

0.1515

1).6

0.45

Effect Size d' 1.42Intervention X ••a7Control X •.59

Intervention F • 54.20 (p ••000Interv. x Grade F' 1.26 (n.e.)

108

~ Intervention Groupe

..... Control Groupe

e15

0.4

0.815

T

Grade

Figure 3. Effects of intervention programme on being exposed to direct as well as indirect bul­lying for boys and girls combined. Upper curve shows base line data (at Time 1,before intervention) for the grade 5, 6, and 7 (or year 12, 13 and 14) cohorts, thelower curve displays data for corresponding cohorts (originally in grade 4,5, and 6,or year 11, 12 and 13) at Time 2 (one year later), after 8 months exposure to theintervention programme

Total Antisocial Behavior

504

0.45

0.4

0.31S

0.3

0.21S

0.2

0.15

---- Intervention Groupe

..•.. Control Groupa

..'.

D.OLWEUS

..Effect Size d > 1.12Intervention X •.19Control X •.29

Intervention F • 44.77 (p •.000)Interv. x Grade F· 10.12 (p •.000)

4 6 8 1 8 9 ~

Grade

Figure 4. Effects of intervention programme on total scale of antisocial behaviour using thesame cohorts as in Figure 3

Briefcomments

The reported effects of the intervention programme must be considered very positive, inparticular since many previous attempts to systematicaIly reduce aggressive and antisocialbehaviour in preadolescents and adolescents have been relatively unsuccessful (e.g., Dumas,1989; Gottfredson, 1987; Kazdin, 1987).

The importance of the results is further accentuated by the fact that there has occurred ahighly disturbing increase in the prevalence ofviolence and other antisocial behaviour in mostindustrialized societies in the last decades. In Scandinavian countries, for instance, variousforms of registered criminality have typicaIly increased by 300-600 percent since the 1950'sor 1960's (see for example Stortingsmelding nr. 23. 1991-1992, 1992, for the development inNorway). Similar changes have occurred in most Western industrialized societies.

As mentioned above, we estimated that approximately 80,000 students in Norwegian ele­mentary and secondary/junior high schools were involved in buIly/victim problems in 1983.On the basis of the reported results the foIlowing conclusion can be drawn. If all elementaryand secondary/junior high schools in Norway used the intervention programme the way it wasused in Bergen, the number of students involved in bully/victim problems would be reducedby 40,000 or more in a relatively short period. Effective use of the intervention programmewould also have a number of additional positive effects, including lower levels of vandalism,pilfering, and other antisocial behaviour which would save society large amounts of money.

Basic principles

The intervention programme is built on a set offour key principles derived chiefly fromresearch on the development and modification of the problem behaviours concerned, in partic­ular, aggressive behaviour. It is thus important to try to create a school (and ideally, also ahome) environment characterized by (1) warmth, positive interest, and involvement fromadults, on one hand, and (2) firm limits to unacceptable behaviour, on the other. Third (3), incases of violations of limits and rules, non-hostile, non-physical sanctions should be consis­tently applied. Implied in the latter two principles is also a certain degree of monitoring andsurveiIlance of the students' activities in and out of school (Patterson, 1982, 1986). Finally (4),adults both at school and home should act as authorities at least in some respects.

BULLYNICTIMPROBLEMS 505

As regards the role of adults, the intervention programme is based on an authoritative(but not authoritarian) adult-child interaction or child rearing model (cf., e.g., Baumrind,1967) in which adults are encouraged to take responsibility for the children's total situation,not only their learning, but also their social relationships .

These four principles were "translated" into a number of specific measures to be used atthe school, class, and individual levels. It was considered important to work on all of theselevels, if possible. Space limitations prevent a description of the various measures but such anaccount carl be found in Bullying at school - what we know and what we can do (Olweus,1993a)l. Table 1 lists a set of core components which are considered, on the basis of statisticalanalyses and our experience with the programme, to be particularly important in any imple­mentation of the programme.

Table 1

Overview ofOlweus's core Programme

General Prerequisites++ Awareness and involvement on the part of adults

Measures at the School Level++ Questionnaire survey++ School conference day++ Better supervision during break and lunch times+ Formation ofco-ordinating group

Measures at the Class Level++ Class rules against bullying++ Regular class meetings with students+ Class PTA meetings

Measures at the Individual Level++ Serious talks with bullies and victims++ Serious talks with parents of involved students+ Teacher and parent use of imagination

Note. ++core component; +highlydesirable component.

With regard to implementation and execution, the programme is mainly based on a uti­lization of the existing social environment involving teachers and other school personnel, stu­dents, and parents. Non-mental health professionals thus play a major role in the desiredrestructuring ofthe social environment. Experts such as school psychologists, counsellors andsocial workers serve important functions as planners and co-ordinators, in counselling teachersand parents, and in handling more serious cases.

Additional characteristics ofthe intervention program

Further understanding of the programme can be gained from a brief description of the fol­lowing fOUJr major subgoals:

I) To increase awareness of the bully/victim problem and advance knowledge about it.Thi.s included dispelling some of the myths about the bully/victim problem and itscauses. Use of the BullyNictim Questionnaire for an anonymous survey is an impor­tant step in obtaining more specific knowledge about the frequency and nature of theproblems in a particular school.

2) To achieve active involvement on the part of teachers and parents. Active involve­ment implies among other things that the adults must recognize that it is their respon-

506 D.OLWEUS

sibility to control to a certain degree what goes on among the children and youngstersat school. One way of doing this is to provide adequate supervision during breaks andlunch time. Further, the teachers are encouraged to intervene in possible bullying situ­ations and to give an absolutely clear message to the students, that bullying is notaccepted in the school. Teachers are also strongly advised to initiate serious talks withvictims and bullies, and their parents, if a bully/victim problem has been identified inthe class. Again, the basic message should be that bullying is not tolerated in theschool and that it must stop. Such an intervention on the part of the school must beregularly followed up and closely supervised, otherwise the situation may easilybecome worse for the victim than before the intervention.

3) To develop clear rules against bullying: These include rules such as "We shall notbully other students"; "We shall try to help students who are bullied"; "We shall makeit a point to include students who become easily left out". Such rules can also serve asa basis for class discussions about what is meant by bullying behaviour in concrete sit­uations and what kind of sanctions should be used for students who break the rules.The behaviour of the students in the class should be regularly related to these rules inclass meetings . It is important that teachers make consistent use of sanctions in theform of non-hostile, non-physical punishment in cases of rule violations, but also givegenerous praise when the rules have been followed.

4) To provide support and protection for the victims. If followed, class rules against bul­lying certainly support children who tend to be victimized. In addition, the teachermay enlist the help of neutral or well-adjusted students (the silent majority) to allevi­ate the situation of the victims in various ways. Also, teachers are encouraged to usetheir imagination to help victimized students assert themselves in the class, to makethem valuable in the eyes of their classmates. Parents of victims are exhorted to helptheir children develop new peer contacts and to teach them in detail, maybe with thehelp of the school psychologist or some similar person, how to make new acquain­tances and to maintain friendships.

Additional comments

Possible reasons for the effectiveness of this non -traditional intervention approach havebeen discussed in some detail (Olweus, 1992a). They include a change ofthe opportunity andreward structures for bullying behaviour, resulting in fewer opportunities and rewards for bul­lying. It is also generally emphasized that bully/victim problems can be seen as an excellententry point for dealing with a variety of problems that plague today's schools. Furthermore,one can view the programme from the perspective ofplanned organizational change with quitespecific goals, and in this way link it with the current lively work on school effectiveness andschool improvement. It may also be pointed out that the programme in many ways representswhat is sometimes called a whole school policy approach to bullying in the English literature.It consists of a set of routines, rules, and strategies of communication and action for dealingwith existing and future bullying problems in the school.

This anti-bullying programme is now in use or in the process of being implemented in aconsiderable number of schools in Europe and North America. Though there have so far beenfew research-based attempts to evaluate the effects of the programme beyond the study inBergen, unsystematic information and reports indicate that the general approach is wellreceived by the adults in the school community and that the programme with or without cul­tural adaptations or addition ofculture-specific components, works well under varying culturalconditions including ethnic diversity. There has, however, recently been one additionallarge-scale evaluation of the basic approach, containing most of the core elements of the pro­gramme and with a research design similar to that of our study (Smith & Sharp, 1994). Also inthis project, comprising 23 schools with considerable ethnic diversity in Sheffield, U.K., theresults were quite positive (though fewer behavioural aspects were studied).

BULL YNICTIM PROBLEMS 507

It can be argued that the robustnessand possiblegeneralizability of the programmeis notreally surprising, since the existing evidence seems to indicate that the factors and principlesaffecting the developmentand modificationof aggressive, antisocialbehaviourare fairly simi­1aracross culturalcontexts,at least within the Western industrialized part of the world.

Final words

The basic message of our findings is quite clear: With a suitable intervention programme,it is definitely possible to reduce dramatically bully/victim problems in school and relatedproblem behaviours. This anti-bullyingprogramme can be implemented with relativelysimplemeans and without major costs; it is primarilya questionof changingattitudes, behaviour,androutines in school life, Introduction of the programme is likely to have a number of other posi­tive effects, as well.

References

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetic PsychologyMonographs, 75,43-88.

Bjorkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their ego picture, ideal ego picture and nor­mative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 23.307-313.

Boulton, MJ., & Smith, P.K. (1994). Bully/victim problems among middle school children: Stability, self-perceivedcompetence, and peer acceptance. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology. 12, 315-329.

Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., Neckerman, HJ., Gest, S.D., & Gariepy, J.L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behav­iour: Peel' support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24,815-823.

Cowen, E.L. (1984). A general structural model for primary programme development in mental health. Personnel andGuidance Journal, 62,485-490.

Dumas, J.E. (1989). Treating antisocial behaviour in children: Child and family approaches. Clinical PsychologyReview,9,197-222.

Farrington, D. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review ofresearch. Vol. 17 (pp. 348-458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gottfredson, G.D. (1987). Peer group interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behaviour: A selective review and anew evaluation. Criminology. 25,671-714.

Haeselager, GJ.T., & van Lieshout, C.F.M. (1992). Social and affective adjustment ofself- and peer-reported victimsand bullies. Paper presented at the European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Seville, Spain.

Hirano, K. (1992). Bullying and victimization in Japanese classrooms. Paper presented at the European Conference onDevelopmental Psychology, Seville, Spain.

Junger, M. (1990). Intergroup bullying and racial harassment in the Netherlands. Sociology and Social Research, 74,65-72.

Kazdin, A.E. (l (87). Treatment of antisocial behaviour in children: Current status and future directions. PsychologicalBulletin. l02, 187-203.

Lagerspetz, K.M., Bjorkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school children in threeschools. Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 23,45-52.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94,69-99.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of conduct problems andjuve­nile delinquency. In M.Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice, Vol. 7 (pp. 29-149). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Olweus, D. (1973a). Hackkycklingar och Uversiuare. Forskning om skolmobbning. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell.

508 D.OLWEUS

Olweus, D. (l973b). Personality and aggression. In J.K. Cole, & D.O. Jensen (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on

Motivation 1972 (pp. 261-321). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two short-term longitudinal studies of ratings.Child Development, 48,1301-1313.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press (Wiley).

Olweus, D. (1979). Stability ofaggressive reaction patterns in males: A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852-875.

Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behaviour in adolescent boys: A causalanalysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-660.

Olweus, D. (198Ia). Bullying among school-boys. In N. Cantwell (Ed.), Children and violence (pp. 97-131).Stockholm: Akademilitteratur.

Olweus, D. (198Ib). Vad skapar aggressiva barn? In A.O. Telhaug & S.E. Vestre (Ed.), Normkrise og oppdragelse (pp.67-82). Oslo: Didakta.

Olweus, D. (1983). Low school achievement and aggressive behaviour in adolescent boys. In D. Magnusson & V. Allen(Eds.), Human development. An interactional perspective (pp. 353-365). New York: Academic Press.

Olweus, D. (1984). Aggressors and their victims: Bullying at school. In N. Frude, & H. Gault (Eds.), Disruptive behav­

iour in schools (pp. 57-76). New York: Wiley.

Olweus, D. (1985). 80.000 barn er innblandet i mobbing. Norsk Skoleblad (Oslo, Norway), 2, 18-23.

Olweus, D. (1986). Aggression and hormones: Behavioral relationship with testosterone and adrenaline. In D. Olweus,J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development ofantisocial andprosocial behaviour (pp. 51-72). New York:Academic Press.

Olweus, D. (1987). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren. In J.P. Myklebust & R. Ommundsen (Eds.),Psykologprofesjonen motiir 2000 (pp. 395-413). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Olweus, D. (1988). Vad menar man med termen mobbning? Psykologtidningen, 7,9-10.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based interventionprogramme. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment ofchildhood aggression (pp. 411­-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1992a). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R.D. Peters, R.1.McMahon, V.L.Quincy (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp. 100-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Olweus, D. (I 992b). Mobbning i skolan: Vad vi vet och vad vi kan gora. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Olweus, D. (l993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK, and Cambridge, MA, USA:Blackwell Publishers. (This book has been published in a number ofother languages as well).

Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K.H. Rubin, & J.B. Asendorf(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention programme.Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171-1190.

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26,331-359.

Olweus, D., & Smith, P.K. (in preparation). Manual for the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.

O'Moore, M., & Brendan, H. (1989). Bullying in Dublin schools. Irish Journal ofPsychology, 10,426-441.

Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercivefamily process. Eugene, Oregon: Castalia Publishing Co.

Patterson, G.R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432-444.

Patterson, G.R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency.Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.

Perry, D.G., Kusel, S.1., & Perry, L.c. (1988). Victims ofpeer aggression. Developmental Psychology. 24, 807-814.

Pulkkinen, L., & Tremblay, R.E. (1992). Patterns of boys' social adjustment in two cultures and at different ages: A lon­gitudinal perspective. International Journal ofBehavioral Development. 15, 527-553.

BULLYNICTIM PROBLEMS 509

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1991). Victims in school communities. Journal ofthe Australasian Society ofVictlmology; 25-31.

Ruiz, R.O. (1992). Violence in schools. Problems of bullying and victimization in Spain. Paper presented at the

European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Seville, Spain.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K., & Coie, J. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys' play groups. Child

Development, 64, 1755-1772.

Smith, P. K. (1991). The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimization in school peer groups. The Psychologist, 4,

243-248.

Smith, P.K., &; Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. Routledge.

Stortingsmelding nr.23. 199I-1992. (1992). Om kriminalitetens bekjempande og forebygging. Oslo: Justis- og politide­

partementet,

Ziegler, S., & Rosenstein-Marmer, M. (1991). Bullying at school: Toronto in an international context (Report No. 196).

Toronto: Toronto Board ofEducation, Research Services.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools.

Educational Research, 35, 3-25.

Notes

The updated package related to the intervention programme consists of the BullyNictim Questionnaire (Olweus,1989; Olweus & Smith, in preparation; can be ordered from the author up to time point for publication), a 20 -minutevideo cassette showing scenes from the everyday lives of two bullied children (with English subtitles; this video canbe ordered from the author), and a copy of the book Bullying at school- what we know and what we can do whichdescribes in detail the programme and its implementation (Olweus, I993a; this book is sold in bookstores or throughdirect order from the publisher: Blackwell, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 UF, Great Britain, or its NorthAmerican division: Blackwell, 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA).

Les problemes de brutalite entre enfants et jeunes a1 'ecole sontparticulierement preoccupants dans les pays Scandinaves et, de plus enplus, dans d'autres pays egalement. Des larges enquetes realisees par1'auteur, if ressort que du premier au neuvieme grade, pres de 9% deseleves sont tres regulierement victimes de brutalites et que 6-7% deseleves en agressent d' autres regulierement. En democratie, c'est undroit fondamental des enfants que d'etre proteges contre 1 'oppression etles humiliations repetees impliquees par ces pratiques. L 'auteur a misau point un programme d'intervention scolaire contre les brutalites,dont les effets ont ete evalues dans 42 ecoles pendant deux ans. Lesresultats montrent que lafrequence des problemes de violence a diminuede 50-70% . En outre, 1 'importance des comportements antisociaux engeneral, tels que Ie vandalisme, le vol, 1 'alcoolisme et les absences nonautorisees, a notablement diminue. Les principaux contenus du pro­gramme et ses principes-cles sont presentes. L 'objectifprimordial duprogramme peut etre decrit comme une "restructuration de l'environ­l'lement socici", Le programme met ['accent sur les comportements etles attitudes caracterises par 1 'association d'engagements positift desenseignants et des parents, des limites strictes aux comportements inac­ceptables (rnous n 'acceptons pas la brutalite dans notre classe/ecole "J,et I 'utilisation coherente de sanctions elles-memes non brutales en casde violation des regles. Les resultats positifs obtenus sont mis sur Iecompte de changements structuraux relatift aux occasions et aux bene­fices des comportements de brutalite.

510 D.OLWEUS

Key words:Aggression, Bully, Evaluation, Intervention, Victim.

Received: May 1997

Dan Olweus. Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL), University of Bergen, Emisties gate 13,N-5015 Bergen, Norway.

Current theme ofresearch:

The development and modification of externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors, with a special focus onbully/victim problems; Designand methodology.

Most relevantpublications in the field ofPsychology ofEducation:

Olweus,D. (1978).Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:Hemisphere press (Wiley).

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK and Cambridge MA, USA:BlackwellPublishers.

Olweus,D. (1991).Bully/victim problemsamongschoolchildren: Basic factsand effectsofa schoolbased interventionprogram.In D. Pepler& K. Rubin(Eds.), The development and treatment ofchildhood aggression (pp. 411-448).Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus,D. (1979).Stabilityof aggressive reactionpatternsinmales:A review.Psychological Bulletin, 86,852-875.

Olweus,D. (1980).Familialand temperamental determinants of aggressive behaviorin adolescentboys:A causalanaly­sis. Developmental Psychology, 16,644-660.