Problems addressed

Effectiveness

Promising

.

.

.

.

.

Promising

¿Quieres saber más acerca de esta clasificación? Consulte nuestro manual metodológico.

Description

Bullying comprises a range of aggressive behaviors, which may include physical, verbal, or psychological/relational aggression. It can occur in the school environment (“school bullying”) or online (“cyberbullying”), and individuals can engage in bullying as perpetrators or victims, as well as bystanders, defenders, or reinforcers of those behaviors.
Bullying prevention programs (whether in school or in other settings) can be characterized by different methods, scopes, and objectives, as their building blocks vary depending on the intervention’s target audience.
For perpetrators and victims, these include prevention-themed curricular materials, teacher training, individual attention to victims, informative conferences, meetings with parents, and cooperative work with experts, among others. Interventions focused on bystanders may include classroom dramatizations, reproduction of videotaped scenes, using interactive technological resources, and so on.
Specifically in relation to cyberbullying, intervention and prevention programs adopt several different approaches to discourage student participation and develop responses to negative online behaviors. In general, these approaches can be categorized as individual-level, multilevel, and universal.
Individual-level strategies focus on students and aim to improve their emotional skills and perceived self-efficacy when dealing with cyberbullying. The programs also teach students alternatives for responding to this type of bullying, either through assertiveness or humor, through parental or teacher assistance, or by interrupting the interaction. The multilevel systemic approach may involve a combination of classroom, teacher/student, family, or individual strategies. The universal approach involves school-wide strategies to address cyberbullying.

Country of application
  • Spain
  • United States
Evidence

With respect to bullying prevention-focused programs, two meta-analyses were found (one based on 36 studies and the other on 19 other studies) [1] [2]. The main conclusions point to the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs to reduce perpetration by about 19%-20% and victimization by about 15%-16% [1].
Another systematic review examined the results of 36 individual studies focused on conflict resolution education programs and found that the proportion of bullying victims decreased from 28% to 20% among students in the treatment group as a result of the effects produced by the program, and the proportion of students who reported being called names using hateful words decreased from 11% to 7.5% [3].
Regarding the impact of bullying prevention programs focused on bystanders (witnesses of bullying), a systematic review found, based on 12 studies, that there was an increase in bystander interventions to interrupt bullying situations [4].
Regarding cyberbullying, a systematic review found a statistically significant reduction in both perpetration and victimization for students who participated in cyberbullying intervention or prevention programs compared to the students in the control group [5].
An earlier systematic review (focused on interventions aimed at preventing and reducing various abusive and/or risky online behaviors, including online bullying) did not find any statistically significant impacts on the reduction of online risky behaviors per se, but did identify positive effects of these programs in terms of increasing online safety awareness [6].

Bibliography

[1] Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M. and Farrington, D. P [David P.] (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45(4), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001

[2] Wong, J. S. (2009). No Bullies Allowed: Understanding Peer Victimization, the Impacts on Delinquency, and the Effectiveness of Prevention Programs [dissertation]. Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS). https://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD240.html

[3] Garrard, W. M. y Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Conflict resolution education and antisocial behavior in U.S. Schools: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(1), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.188

[4] Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., Pigott, T. D. y Betts, J. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Bullying Prevention Programs' Effects on Bystander Intervention Behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087375

[5] Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., and Ttofi, Maria M. (2019). Are Cyberbullying Intervention and Prevention Programs Effective? A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 134–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002

[6] Mishna, F., Cook, C., Saini, M., Wu, M.‑J. y MacFadden, R. (2011). Interventions to Prevent and Reduce Cyber Abuse of Youth: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509351988

Evaluated cases

Why might the cases evaluated have different levels of effectiveness in relation to their respective type of solution?
Click here to understand why.

Some cases were not included in the evidence bank due to deficiencies detected in the methodology of their impact evaluations.
Click here to see the list

 

Image
flag

Send us your study!

Have you participated in impact evaluation studies of interventions to prevent crime, violence or disorder? Send us your study. It will be evaluated and may be included in the Evidence Bank!

Contact us