This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 15:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Victims & Offenders: An InternationalJournal of Evidence-based Research,Policy, and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

How to Reduce School BullyingDavid P. Farrington a & Maria M. Ttofi aa Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University , Cambridge, UKPublished online: 15 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: David P. Farrington & Maria M. Ttofi (2009) How to Reduce School Bullying,Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice, 4:4,321-326, DOI: 10.1080/15564880903227255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880903227255

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Victims and Offenders, 4:321–326, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564880903227255

321

UVAO1556-48861556-4991Victims and Offenders, Vol. 4, No. 4, Aug 2009: pp. 0–0Victims and OffendersHow to Reduce School BullyingReducing School BullyingD. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi

David P. Farrington and Maria M. Ttofi

Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

Abstract: A systematic review was conducted of the 30 largest and highest qualitycontrolled evaluations of antibullying programs. Most programs were effective. Theprevalence of bullying and being bullied was reduced by an average of 20–23% inexperimental schools compared to control schools. The most important programelements associated with a decrease in bullying and victimization were identified.A system for accrediting effective antibullying programs in schools was recommended.

Keywords: school bullying, intervention, meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

School bullying is defined by several key elements: physical, verbal, or psycho-logical attack or intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harmto the victim; an imbalance of power (psychological or physical); the absence ofprovocation by the victim; and repeated incidents between the same studentsover a prolonged period (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1993). School bullying canoccur in, or on the way to or from, school. The mutual victimization of twostudents (physical, psychological, or verbal) of the same strength is not consid-ered bullying.

Bullying is a type of aggressive behavior. However, not all aggression orviolence involves bullying and not all bullying involves aggression or violence.Bullying includes rumormongering, name-calling, teasing, threatening, rejec-tion, ostracizing, exclusion from activities, and the theft of belongings (Baldry &Farrington, 1999). This article is specifically concerned with bullying and itsreduction.

School bullying is a critical social problem that has negative short-termeffects on students’ physical and psychological health and long-term effects ontheir psychosocial adjustment (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008a). For example,adolescents who are bullied and those who are bullies have an increased risk ofdepression and severe suicidal ideation (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen,Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999). Being bullied is frequently a factor in the referral

Address correspondence to David P. Farrington, Institute of Criminology, CambridgeUniversity, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DA, UK. E-mail: dpf1@cam.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:38

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

322 D. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi

of adolescents for psychiatric services, especially for depression (Salmon,James, Cassidy, & Javaloyes, 2000).

Bullying others is also a risk factor for antisocial behavior, such asexcessive drinking and substance use (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, &Rimpela, 2000) and offending (Farrington, 1993). For example, studies inNorway indicated that, among those identified as bullies in the sixth to theninth grades, 70% were convicted of at least one crime by age 24 (Olweus,1997). Given the link between bullying and later offending, effective bullyingprevention programs should lead to later reductions in crime.

Much is known about the risk factors for bullying and victimization (Ttofi &Farrington, in press). For example, bullies tend to have low empathy and lowschool attainment, and tend to be high on measures of hyperactivity, impul-siveness, and attention deficit. Victims tend to have low self-esteem and lowschool attainment, and tend to be lonely, unpopular, rejected, and friendless.No general theory of bullying or victimization has been proposed, but impor-tant perspectives include social information processing (Crick & Dodge, 1994),social skills deficits (Slee, 1993), defiance theory (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008a),and reintegrative shaming (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008b).

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS

School-based intervention programs have been implemented in an attempt toreduce bullying by targeting bullies, victims, peers, teachers, or the school ingeneral. Some countries legally require schools to have an antibullying policy(Ananiadou & Smith, 2002). Many programs are based on commonsense ideasabout what might reduce bullying rather than on empirically validated theo-ries of why students bully, why they become victims, or why bullying occurs.

The first large-scale antibullying program was implemented nationally inNorway in 1983, following three well-publicized suicides of Norwegian boyswhich were attributed to bullying. A more intensive version of the nationalprogram was evaluated in Bergen (Olweus, 1991). The study showed adecrease in bullying of roughly 50% after program implementation. Sincethen, many other large-scale antibullying programs have been implementedand evaluated in several countries.

There have been previous reviews of the effectiveness of antibullying pro-grams (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2007; Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, &Sanchez, 2007; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Smith, Schneider,Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). In a project for theCampbell Collaboration and the Swedish National Council for Crime Preven-tion (Farrington & Ttofi, in press; Ttofi & Farrington, 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, &Baldry, 2008), we went beyond existing reviews by doing much more extensivemeta-analyses and searches for evaluations—focusing only on programs thatwere specifically designed to reduce bullying, and including only the largest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:38

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Reducing School Bullying 323

evaluations with the highest-quality controlled methodological designs. Wehand-searched all volumes of 35 journals from 1983 onward and also searched18 electronic databases, including evaluations in foreign languages.

We found 593 reports concerned with the prevention of bullying, of which59 (describing 30 different evaluations) were the highest-quality, best con-trolled, and largest (based on at least 200 students). After analyzing effectsizes in each study, we concluded that school-based antibullying programs aregenerally effective, reducing bullying and victimization (being bullied) by anaverage of 20–23% in experimental schools compared to control schools(Farrington & Ttofi, in press).

Based on feedback from the evaluators of 24 of the 30 antibullyingprograms, we correlated the effect size of each program with the interventioncomponents and evaluation features (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009). The mostimportant program elements associated with a decrease in bullying weredisciplinary methods, parent meetings, playground supervision, informationfor parents, school conferences, classroom rules, and classroom management.In addition, the total number of program elements and the duration andintensity of the program for students and teachers were significantly associ-ated with a decrease in bullying. Also, programs inspired by the work of DanOlweus worked best. Programs worked better with older children (in Norwayspecifically, and in Europe more generally), and they were less effective in theUnited States.

The most important program elements associated with a decrease invictimization (being bullied) were videos, disciplinary methods, work withpeers, parent meetings, and cooperative group work. In addition, the durationand intensity of the program for children and teachers were significantly asso-ciated with a decrease in victimization. As with bullying, programs workedbetter in Norway specifically and in Europe more generally, and they wereless effective in the United States.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In developing new policies and practices to reduce bullying, policy makers andpractitioners should draw on high-quality, evidence-based programs. Newantibullying initiatives should be inspired by successful programs such as theOlweus Bullying Prevention Program, but modified in light of the key pro-gram elements that are highly correlated with effectiveness. In addition, asystem of accrediting effective antibullying programs should be developed toensure that the programs contain elements that have been proved effective inhigh-quality evaluations. This accreditation system could be organized by aninternational body such as the International Observatory on Violence inSchools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:38

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

324 D. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi

The intensity and duration of a program are directly linked to its effective-ness, with a dose-response relationship between the number of components ofa program and its effect on bullying (Olweus, 2005). Programs need to beintensive and long-lasting in order to have an impact. A considerable timeperiod may be needed in order to create an appropriate school ethos to tacklebullying. Antibullying initiatives should also enhance playground supervisionbecause a lot of bullying occurs during recess. Improving the school play-ground environment (e.g., through reorganization and identification of “hotspots”) may also be a promising and low-cost intervention component.

Firm disciplinary methods are significantly related to both bullying andvictimization. To some extent, this finding may be attributable to the substan-tial effects of the Olweus program, which includes a range of sanctions includingadmonishing bullies, sending them to the principal, making them stay close tothe teacher during recess, and depriving them of privileges. Antibullying initi-atives should also target the family. Studies indicate that bullied childrenoften do not communicate their problem to anyone, while parents and teach-ers often do not talk to bullies about their conduct (e.g., Fekkes, Pijpers, &Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). In our systematic review, parent meetings weresignificantly related to a decrease in both bullying and victimization, suggest-ing that parents should be sensitized about school bullying through educa-tional presentations and teacher-parent meetings.

Future programs should be based more on theories of bullying and victim-ization such as defiance theory and restorative justice approaches (Ttofi &Farrington, 2008a, 2008b). For example, poor social relationships in schoolcan be repaired through restorative justice techniques that bring together stu-dents (bullies, victims, and others) “in a participatory process that addresseswrongdoing while respecting the parties involved” (Morrison, 2007). Defiancetheory is useful because it emphasizes bonding with the sanctioner; shamemanagement; and legitimate, respectful sanctioning of antisocial behavior.

In conclusion, a great deal has been learned about how to reduce schoolbullying and victimization. A coordinated, cross-national program of researchshould be conducted to advance knowledge about prevalence, development,risk factors, theories, and the effectiveness of antibullying interventions.

REFERENCES

Ananiadou, K., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Legal requirements and nationally circulatedmaterials against school bullying in European countries. Criminal Justice, 2,471–491.

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Types of bullying among Italian schoolchildren. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423–426.

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent schoolbullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 2, 183–204.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:38

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Reducing School Bullying 325

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,115, 74–101.

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.),Crime and justice (vol. 17, pp. 381–458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (in press). Reducing school bullying: Evidence-basedimplications for policy. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (vol. 38). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, P. S. (2005). Bullying: Who doeswhat, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullyingbehavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81–91.

Ferguson, C. J., Miguel, C. S., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness ofschool-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal JusticeReview, 32, 401–414.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999).Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey.British Medical Journal, 319, 348–351.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying atschool: An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal ofAdolescence, 23, 661–674.

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective areschool bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research.School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42.

Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response tobullying, violence and alienation. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effectsof a school-based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Thedevelopment and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495–510.

Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design and effects of the Olweus bullyingprevention program. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 389–402.

Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E. L., & Javaloyes, M. A. (2000). Bullying: A review;Presentations to an adolescent psychiatric service and within a school for emotion-ally and behaviorally disturbed children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry,5, 563–579.

Slee, P. T. (1993). Bullying: A preliminary investigation of the nature and effects onsocial cognition. Early Child Development and Care, 87, 47–57.

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness ofwhole- school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. SchoolPsychology Review, 33, 548–561.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008a). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects,and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims andOffenders, 3, 2–3, 313–336.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:38

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

326 D. P. Farrington and M. M. Ttofi

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008b). Reintegrative shaming theory, moralemotions and bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352–368.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventing bullying? Effectiveelements of anti-bullying programs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and PeaceResearch, 1, 13–24.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (in press). School bullying: Risk factors, theories, andinterventions. In F. J. Brookman, M. Maguire, H. Pierpoint, & T. H. Bennett(Eds.), Handbook of crime. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programs toreduce school bullying: A systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Councilfor Crime Prevention.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventionsto prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:38

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14