This article was downloaded by: [121.54.17.

12] On: 23 September 2011, At: 22:43 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School Violence

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

A Qualitative Analysis of the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Recommendations of Students in Grades 5 to 8
Charles E. Cunningham , Lesley J. Cunningham , Jenna Ratcliffe & Tracy Vaillancourt
a c d a b a

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
b

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

c

Faculty of Education and School Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
d

Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Available online: 27 Sep 2010

To cite this article: Charles E. Cunningham, Lesley J. Cunningham, Jenna Ratcliffe & Tracy Vaillancourt (2010): A Qualitative Analysis of the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Recommendations of Students in Grades 5 to 8, Journal of School Violence, 9:4, 321-338 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.507146

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Journal of School Violence, 9:321338, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 online DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2010.507146

A Qualitative Analysis of the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Recommendations of Students in Grades 5 to 8
CHARLES E. CUNNINGHAM
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

LESLEY J. CUNNINGHAM
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

JENNA RATCLIFFE
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

TRACY VAILLANCOURT
Faculty of Education and School Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Focus groups explored the bullying prevention suggestions of 62 Grade 5 to 8 students. Discussions were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Students advocated a comprehensive approach including uniforms, increased supervision, playground activities, group restructuring to prevent social isolation, inuential presenters, prevention skills training, solution-focused posters, and meaningful consequences. In addition, students suggested that parents should improve relationships with their children,
Received December 7, 2009; accepted July 2, 2010. This article was supported by a Community-University Research Alliance grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, a Canada Research Chair award from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research held by T. Vaillancourt, and the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centred Health Care held by Dr. Cunningham. The authors express their appreciation to Diana Urajnik, Stephanie Mielko, and Catherine Campbell who provided editorial assistance, to the school boards, students, and parents supporting this project, and to Tiziana Filice-Greco for assisting with the conduct of focus groups. Address correspondence to Charles E. Cunningham, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Evel Rm. 163, 565 Sanatorium Road, Hamilton, Ontario L9C 7N4, Canada. E-mail: cunnic@hhsc.ca 321

322

C. E. Cunningham et al.

respond to aggression, limit exposure to media violence, and support school-based discipline. The failure to respond effectively to students who bully in deance of antibullying presentations, and who retalitate when reported or disciplined, undermines prevention programs by reducing the willingness of bystanders to intervene or report bullying, and inuencing the attitudes of younger pupils. The approach advocated by students is supported by meta-analyses of the effective components of bullying prevention trials. KEYWORDS bullying, students, schools, prevention, focus groups, qualitative methods Bullying poses risks to the health and emotional well-being of both victims and perpetrators (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2009). Although reviews suggest that promising approaches to bullying prevention are emerging, outcomes are often disappointing (Farrington & Tto, 2009). A meta-analysis of 16 bullying prevention trials, for example, concluded that, although programs have a modest effect on knowledge, attitudes, and self-perceptions, they exert little effect on bullying behavior (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). Despite progress in understanding the prevalence, correlates, and longitudinal trajectories of bullying, there is a need to improve prevention and intervention programs. A growing number of investigators have concluded that the design of more effective bullying prevention programs should be informed by students (Booren & Handy, 2009; Camodeca & Goossens, 2005). In comparison to teachers, students know more about peers who bully, the conditions under which bullying occurs, students who are victimized, and the response of their peers to prevention programs (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007). Students could, therefore, provide a unique perspective on the components of prevention programs that work, factors limiting the impact of these programs, and modications that might improve outcomes. Previous studies have asked students to indicate how they would respond to bullying (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Salmivalli, Karhunen, & Lagerspetz, 1998) or to rate the effectiveness of different approaches to prevention (Booren & Handy, 2009; Peterson & Rigby, 1999). When surveys provide an opportunity to record their comments, students suggest that schools prevent bullying by increasing supervision (Varjas et al., 2008), intervening earlier (Varjas et al., 2008) or using effective consequences (Peterson & Rigby, 1999). This study builds on previous work by examining the bullying prevention suggestions of students in Grades 5 to 8, a time when bullying peaks (Vaillancourt et al., 2008) and students lose condence in the ability of their teachers to solve this problem (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007). Qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups) allowed the study to focus
Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Bullying Prevention

323

on prevention options of relevance to students, explore design recommendations in depth, compare the suggestions of boys and girls, identify factors inuencing the effectiveness of existing programs, and generate a rich narrative supporting inductive theory development and the interpretation of ndings from the projects quantitative stage.

METHOD Participants
This study was approved by the university/hospital Research Ethics Board and the public and Catholic school systems that participated. Using a stratied purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 2002), the project was introduced to Grade 5 to 8 classes (see Table 1) at coeducational publicly funded schools randomly selected from areas representing the diverse demographics of an urban and suburban Canadian industrial community of 505,000 residents. With one junior kindergarten (age 4) to Grade 5 exception, schools were junior kindergarten to Grade 8. A project description and consent form was sent to parents, consents were returned, and 67 students were randomly selected (39 girls and 28 boys); 62 students were present, signed assents, and participated. One focus group was conducted in each of ve schools and two groups were conducted in three schools.

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Procedures
Small group discussions were adopted as a familiar format allowing students to respond to the suggestions of their peers. Assuming boys and girls have different perspectives and are less inhibited in same sex groups (Nabors, Ramos, & Weist, 2001), four boy groups, six girl groups, and a mixed group (to determine whether new themes would emerge), were conducted. Using a structured interview guide, a school social worker, with the support of a research assistant, described the project and obtained assent. Students were assured they would not be named nor asked about their personal bullying experiences. Facilitators conducted introductions, dened bullying (Vaillancourt et al., 2008), and asked (in their own words), Can anyone give us an example of something that schools are doing to help stop bullying? Facilitators exibly encouraged discussion with the following prompts: Could you tell us a little more about this example?; Could other students tell me about this example?; Do you think this reduces bullying at school?; What do other students think?; and Why do you think this reduces bullying at school? Next, the facilitator asked, Does anyone have a suggestion about what else might reduce bullying at school? Discussion was encouraged with the following prompts: What do others think of this suggestion?; Do others

324

C. E. Cunningham et al.

TABLE 1 Bullying Prevention Themes Emerging From the Studys 11 Focus Groups Girls Bullying prevention themes Organizational & structural approaches Increase monitoring and supervision Organize recess activities Mandate school uniforms Restructure high risk settings Relational approaches Include isolated students Restructure peer groups Mobilize older student inuences Teach social skills Improve parenting Antibullying campaign Provide inclusive denitions Organize antibullying presentations Post antibullying reminders Responding to bullying Encourage assertive responses Engage bystanders Encourage reporting Organize discussion groups Give meaningful consequences Inform parents 5/6 6 7 7 7/8 8 Mixed 5/6 5 Boys 6 6 8

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

think this would reduce bullying at school?; and Why do you think this would reduce bullying at school? Reliability coding showed that 95% of 7 key interview guide components were present. Data collection was discontinued when a review of the nal focus groups transcript revealed no new themes (Patton, 2002).

Data Analysis
Audio recordings were transcribed and identiers were removed. The lead investigator, a research assistant, and a school social worker reviewed transcripts and developed preliminary thematic categories (Patton, 2002). Investigators noted suppositions and biases (e.g., two investigators developed and evaluated peer mediation programs) and attempted to limit their inuence (Patton, 2002). To reduce potential gender biases, for example,

Bullying Prevention

325

male and female investigators participated at all stages of the data analysis. A researcher without links to the schools used NVivo-7 to code the transcripts. Next, two investigators with expertise in school-based prevention independently reviewed the transcripts. Table 1 summarizes the grade and sex of the participants in the studys 11 focus groups and the distribution of bullying prevention themes across groups. Initial interobserver agreement on the occurrence of themes in a random sample of three groups was 81%. Discrepancies were resolved via consensus, denitions were revised, and new codes were introduced. Quotations representing recurring themes were selected and transcripts were searched for supporting and disconrming examples (Patton, 2002).

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

RESULTS Organizational and Structural Approaches to Prevention

RESTRUCTURE
HIGH - RISK SETTINGS

The architecture of schools contributed to bullying problems: Like for our school for instance, some of the bullying happens near the portables [portable classrooms] because theyre out of sight and theres not really any teachers usually on the grass for duty, theyre usually only on the pavement. Bullying could be prevented by restructuring the physical environment, reducing the number of students in high risk settings, and separating older and younger students: They should have teachers in the hall not letting the intermediates [Grades 78] all just rush out our door and to tell them to go to their own door. ORGANIZE
RECESS ACTIVITIES

Because bullying occurs when students are unoccupied, schools could prevent bullying by organizing recess activities: Bullying usually happens when people need something to do . . . because a lot of them are bored and they want something fun so they tease little kids; Maybe they could put up games, like different games for people to go and play at so the children would be occupied . . . they really [wouldnt] want to bully theyd be playing. INCREASE
SUPERVISION

Playground supervisors are unable to observe many bullying episodes: They cant see everything thats going on. Its just not possible. Theres too much area to cover. Supervisors, moreover, do not pay attention to bullying: Theyre too busy talking to each other instead of looking for

326

C. E. Cunningham et al.

situations. Indeed, students questioned whether supervisors were motivated to reduce bullying: They make a big deal about [it] and they dont even care, the teachers. Students who bully surreptitiously or enable bullying by distracting teachers compounded this problem: But if they know theres a teacher around they would lower their voices so they wouldnt get caught . . .; They send their friends to talk to the teacher to distract them from it so they wont know about it. Increasing supervision in high risk settings was a recurrent theme: Have more teachers on duty and spread them out more. Increased supervision could also be accomplished via students: The people who want to prevent bullying can be like monitors outside to help the kids. Finally, several groups proposed the installation of surveillance cameras: When the teachers are gone, its a totally different world for us kids so if they have cameras then, they cant do it.
Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

MANDATE

SCHOOL UNIFORMS

Because differences in clothing triggered bullying, some participants proposed that schools adopt uniforms: I think it would denitely reduce bullying because you cant judge what other people are wearing because theyre wearing exactly the same thing. Others felt that students would simply exploit differences in the way uniforms were worn:
We always have debates on that because you might be the only person thats wearing shorts, your uniform, and everybody in your class is wearing pants or a skirt and youre the one that gets picked on for the day.

Relational Approaches
INCLUDE
ISOLATED STUDENTS

Isolated students were perceived to be especially vulnerable to bullying: Bullying usually happens if youre alone and you have no one to be with, bullies tend to go for a lonesome person. Students and teachers should share responsibility for the inclusion of isolated pupils: If you see somebody like sitting there ask them if they want to play with you; If teachers see someone get discluded [sic] or whatever, they see other people going to help them and bring them into their group. The victimization of new students could be reduced by integrating them into existing peer groups: If there are any new kids like somebody from the class could go and greet them and maybe include them in a game instead of leaving them alone so . . . he or she could easily be a target for a bully. Although relationships afforded some protection, students with friends were also at risk:

Bullying Prevention

327

Friends are the main cause of bullying . . . because you tell them everything when you think theyre your best friend and then if . . . they turn around on your back, then they can go tell everybody everything you told them. Youre being bullied because they can make stuff up. . . Because they feel youve told them your deepest, darkest secrets because you trusted them and then all of a sudden, they turn on you . . .

RESTRUCTURE

PEER GROUPS

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Because participants believed exclusive groups contributed to bullying by isolating students, schools should regroup students to prevent the emergence of cliques: Getting more people involved in different things to meet new friends. Because theres like so many different cliques and stuff, but thats where most of the separation like group bullying and verbal bullying comes from. One student reasoned:
You can end up hanging out with people that you wouldnt normally think of hanging out with because you used to not know them and you used to think, Ah, I dont want to hang out with them. But now, after youve been on the same team as them, then you would end up hanging out with them after school and you realize that you did have a lot in common and that would keep you from bullying him.

MOBILIZE

OLDER STUDENT INFLUENCES

Older students could reduce bullying by setting a positive example:

Well, little kids looking up to us and all, if they see us doing things bad, well of course theyre probably going to try to copy us, so if we keep a good inuence on them, probably it will spread and more and more people will be good to each other and not bully each other.

Older students could also inuence younger students by making antibullying presentations: Like older kids presenting to younger kids. I guess we sort of like set an example so they grow up to know that bullying isnt okay. TEACH

SOCIAL SKILLS

Several groups suggested that schools strengthen relationships by teaching social skills, rather than simply telling students not to bully: Most people respond better to positive things than negative things . . . if you teach them to be a good citizen it would end up helping them more over their entire life than just telling them not to bully. Others felt schools should specically

328

C. E. Cunningham et al.

teach bullying prevention skills: They talk a lot about cyber bullying, physical bullying, verbal bullying, group bullying, like they explain it a lot but I dont know if they give us so many ways to prevent it. Social skills training should begin early: Starting from little grades, getting them to share, kind of be together no matter your race, your religion stuff. I nd that can be a big thing. Schools should also reward prosocial behavior:
Something thats like a good way to encourage students is, I know we have monthly awards at our school, and its good because most of the time almost everyone gets an award so it doesnt make you feel like, Oh you got an award, youre no good; everybody gets one.

IMPROVE
Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

PARENTING

Parents exert an important inuence on bullying: I think most people bully because they want attention. They dont have nothing at home. Their parents . . . dont pay attention to their kids. Students recommended that parents improve relationships with their children: The key to preventing bullying is letting their parents know and telling their parents to give them more attention. Other parents fail to deal effectively with coercive behavior: Something at home like when they are swearing at their mom or dad or sister . . . [theyre] not going to think thats bad for them to do that. Students also felt that violent media contributed to bullying at school: They get the bullying from shows and stuff and they think that its really cool. Schools should encourage parents to monitor their childs viewing: Send a note home . . . telling the parents watch what the kids are watching to make sure that theyre still appropriate.

Antibullying Campaigns
DEFINE
BULLYING INCLUSIVELY

Girls felt that students need to be better informed regarding relational bullying:
I think we need to like really put it out there that like gossiping and all that stuff is like bullying. Like its a form of bullying. Like I just learned that this year, that gossiping and Im like really trying to stop. But, you know, girls, its really hard.

Participants also included cyber bullying in their discussions:

Some people do this, like when they go on the computer talking to their friend, some people know whats going on and know what their

Bullying Prevention

329

conversation is and they tell it to the whole school and thats how bullying is.

Some suggested cyberbullying was unintentional: What happens about cyberbullying though is that they may be just joking around and then the other person will take it more offensively than it was supposed to be meant. Others thought cyberbullying provided a safe way of retaliating. I think most people cyberbully because, in reality, theyre getting bullied and its a way for them to feel that theyre in control in a way that they wont get in trouble. ORGANIZE
Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011
ANTIBULLYING PRESENTATIONS

The design of antibullying communications was a recurrent theme. Presentations, for example, need to be brief, interesting, and timed strategically: [Presentations] should never be too long or like too boring because people might just space out and then they dont really listen so nothing would be accomplished then, or:
Maybe have one at the beginning of the year to remind the students about it, then one in the middle to refresh their memories about it and then one at the very, very end of the year . . . so they have that message stuck in their head through the whole summer.

Videos would be more engaging than verbal presentations: A school could make a school commercial for itself about the bullying and stuff and they could show it at the assemblies. . . . Itll sort of be better than just letting the principal or teacher talk about bullying. Students suggested the source of antibullying messages inuenced their effectiveness. Students, for example, would have a greater inuence than adults:
Probably the students would listen more to the students than to the adults . . . because its better to hear from someone your own age, yeah and your own classmates, like you know them because you can trust them more than some person you dont even know.

Similarly, police ofcers bring greater authority to antibullying presentations than other adults:
Most people see a police ofcer or somebody who, like, hes in charge, he runs things and if we do something wrong were going to get in trouble for it. And all the younger kids look up to a police ofcer more than, say, like a principal or just some guy.

330

C. E. Cunningham et al.

Others questioned the effectiveness of antibullying presentations: From what Ive seen I dont think it really affects how they bully. Theyll sit there and theyll be like, Okay, okay, and then theyll go back to bullying right after. Indeed, some suspected presentations might compound bullying problems: They wont listen theyll do exactly the opposite. Another student suggested that antibullying videos might have a paradoxical effect on some younger students:
But we wouldnt show them [younger students] the actual videos because then after theyll tend to like theyre more immature so then after theyll say like, Oh my God this is funny, and start laughing at it and start doing it.

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

POST

ANTIBULLYING REMINDERS

Posters should focus on solutions and consequences: Maybe we could put posters that would show some of the consequences or what a victim would do or what a bully does instead of just saying Dont Bully! Posters need to be developmentally appropriate, placed strategically, and changed regularly: . . . the poster should be more age appropriate for the older grades and the younger grades . . .; . . . put them in . . . places where everybody is going. Like the one I usually see is by the water fountain; . . . when we put posters up in our school everyone notices them because nothings been there before, so like maybe change the posters after a while . . . Others questioned the effectiveness of antibullying posters: Well, it kind of depends on what your character is . . . if I was a bully Id probably be like, Oh, its just some dumb poster, I dont really care; . . . bullies just like rip them off and put them in the garbage.

Responding to Bullying
ENCOURAGE
ASSERTIVE RESPONSES

Some suggested that students respond assertively when bullied: You could stand up for yourself but not be starting anything more. Just tell them the way you feel but not do it back because then youre not treating them the way that you would want to be treated. Others cautioned that responding assertively was risky: If you try to stand up for yourself, theyre gonna think youre a fool. When you just try to stand up for yourself, its not cool but then you cant do nothing to prevent it. Similarly:
I think a lot of the time kids wont take charge, stand-up or they wont say anything because they know if they say something to the teacher,

Bullying Prevention

331

they know theyll get in a bit of trouble but then that kid will get more bullied that they have ever been.

ENGAGE

BYSTANDERS

Bystanders perpetuate bullying and increase the distress experienced by victims:

You could bring all the bystanders together and tell them that if you were bullied, you wouldnt like anybody else to by stand, youd like some one to go to the teacher for you and stand up to the bully. How would you feel if you were the victim?

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Older students, in particular, need to stand up for those who are bullied:
We should help the younger kids when we are outside. So, if we see something going on, like maybe someone is being mean to another person, then we should go over there and be like, Okay what youre doing isnt cool.

Others were concerned about the risks of bystander interventions: Usually when you try to stick up for somebody who is different youll end up getting bullied and there will no one to stick up for you. ENCOURAGE
REPORTING

Some students advocated anonymous reporting options: I think that maybe the kids can go tell their teacher; lets say if you talk to the person, say its anonymous. Then no problems will happen. It will just x it. Others cautioned that reporting bullying could complicate an incident, damage reputations, or prompt retaliation: If you tell your parents, then theyre gonna tell their friends and its gonna spread; Usually people are afraid of being called a rat and being made fun of so they dont report it; Well, if you told a teacher he [the student who bullies] would probably try to beat you up again. ENCOURAGE
DISCUSSION

Girls thought discussion groups could support students who are victims: Maybe bring the victims in together; when they see other people that are bullied it would help them. Some girls felt that interacting with victims might help students develop a different perspective: If you bring them together they might start realizing what all these people have done and then after theyll see, Oh my God, theres so many people bullying, maybe

332

C. E. Cunningham et al.

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

I should stop. Other girls advocated groups encouraging the expression of feelings: If someone says something or bullies someone in class they should send those people to that class . . . they should send the bully and the person who got bullied . . . they should say something like, Let out their feelings. Boys, in contrast, expressed concern about the risks of grouping students who bully with their victims: I think it would be a bad idea because then the bully may hurt the kid even more because then theyre even closer and could get even more annoyed. Boys proposed solution-focused discussions: I think there should be like a class where if people who get bullied they have to go to this class and they cant leave until they resolve the problem and they get along again. They preferred small peer-led groups: Like, in a small group everybody has an equal opportunity to talk and share their ideas with everyone else; Its kind of more relaxed when youre with your friends and theres not an adult there. GIVE
MEANINGFUL CONSEQUENCES

The absence of effective consequences perpetuated bullying: If theyre not clear on the consequences they think, oh, theres not any serious consequences so Im going to do it anyway. The need for meaningful consequences was a recurrent theme: If you made the consequences bad I dont really think they are going to do it over and over again. Students who bully, for example, could lose recreational activities: They could have their recesses taken away. Rather than minimizing the problem of bullying by younger students, schools should treat early signs of bullying more seriously: I think they nd like okay theyre little so maybe they just did the wrong thing but you do need to correct mistakes and show whats right and whats wrong. Other students acknowledged the limits of consequences. Educators, for example, may discipline innocent students: I think that supervisors should care more about what happened because a few times kids get blamed and get more in trouble than the kid who actually did it. Teachers, moreover, may be biased by their relationships with students: If a teacher likes a student and she or he sees something theyre doing to somebody during her detail, she wont give him as big a punishment than she would to other people. Participants expressed conicting views regarding suspensions: Maybe when they come back to school theyll be a whole different person and not bully people. Conversely, If they know that they are going to get suspended and . . . they dont care if they bully anyway because they think that, Oh cool there is no school. Suspensions could also prompt retaliation:

Bullying Prevention

333

If you tell a teacher or something or get suspended maybe the next time theyre coming to school theyre going to be really mad, start saying all this stuff to him or start a ght, so I think it might be a bad idea.

INFORM

PARENTS

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Participants recommended that schools inform the parents of students who bully: I think they should contact the parents and let them know what their kid is doing to the other kid. Consequences at home and school were perceived to be more effective: Theyll have to deal with the schools consequences on top of what their parents consequences are. Unfortunately, not all parents would support the schools disciplinary efforts: I dont know if it does work because some parents, they dont really care what their kids do at school . . . so theyre just going to do it again.

DISCUSSION
The approach to bullying prevention recommended by students was grounded in a contextual framework with structural, organizational, relational, social learning, and developmental components (OConnell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999; Salmivalli, 1999). According to a structural and organization perspective, bullying occurs in settings where students are unoccupied and supervision is limited or ineffective (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Vaillancourt et al., 2010). Students recommended alert, strategically located supervision, organized recess activities, and the deployment of surveillance cameras. Meta-analyses suggest that the increased supervision students advocated is associated with improved prevention program outcomes (Farrington & Tto, 2009). Students also recommended that prevention programs address the social and relational architecture of their schools (Pepler, 2006) by ensuring that socially isolated peers are included in group activities, restructuring peer groups to prevent the emergence of cliques, and encouraging the development of new friendships. Because victims lacked the power to respond effectively (Olweus, 1994), participants recommended that older students and bystanders take a more active role in the prevention of bullying. Some students advocated a preventive approach strengthening relationships in the primary grades by teaching social skills. Others suggested that programs focus more specically on strategies for preventing and responding to bullying. Given reviews questioning the benets of social skills training as an approach to bullying prevention (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007), the relative effectiveness of these approaches merits study.

334

C. E. Cunningham et al.

Students felt that bullying was also inuenced by relationships at home, an assumption with empirical support (Holt, Kantor, & Finkelhor, 2009). They recommended that parents spend more time with their children, deal more effectively with aggression, support the schools disciplinary efforts, and limit exposure to media violence. These suggestions are consistent with those of educators supporting parental participation in bullying prevention (Cunningham et al., 2009) and reviews nding parental involvement associated with improved prevention outcomes (Farrington & Tto, 2009). Girls evidenced a greater interest in relational approaches to prevention. They were more likely to propose the inclusion of socially isolated students, provide support to victims, suggest groups encouraging the expression of feelings, acknowledge the impact of relational bullying, and support their recommendations with empathic rationales. Boys, in contrast, were concerned about the risks associated with groups combining bullies and victims. They proposed small peer led groups focusing on solutions to bullying problems. Future studies should determine whether boys and girls respond to different antibullying rationales or prevention program components. Within a broader contextual framework, student recommendations reected an information processing approach to bullying prevention. To maximize attention, for example, students recommended that antibullying posters be positioned strategically and changed frequently, recommendations consistent with marketing research (Moorthy & Hawkins, 2005). They recommended that schools ensure students understand the behaviors included in antibullying policies, a suggestion supported by evidence that adult denitions of bullying are more comprehensive than those adopted by students (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). They advocated solution-focused rather than negative messages and reminded developers that the content of bullying prevention programs needs to be developmentally appropriate. Students suggested that the effectiveness of antibullying communications varied as a function of their source. Although they questioned the benets of presentations by teachers, they proposed that talks by older students and police ofcers would have a greater inuence. Given evidence that the impact of health promotion communications varies as a function framing effects (Rothman & Salovey, 1997), congruence with dispositional motivations (Mann, Sherman, & Updegraff, 2004; Sherman, Mann, & Updegraff, 2006), and message quality (Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007), studies examining the effectiveness of different approaches to antibullying presentations should be helpful. The recommendations of students were also grounded in a social learning perspective, with older students acting as models inuencing the attitudes and behavior of younger pupils (Bandura, 1977). Students proposed that the response of bystanders and the absence of effective

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Bullying Prevention

335

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

consequences reinforced bullying (OConnell et al., 1999). Although they thought moderate consequences deterred bullying, an assumption consistent with meta-analyses (Farrington & Tto, 2009), they acknowledged the difculties associated with punishment: teachers fail to detect most bullying episodes, punish innocent students, and bring relational biases to disciplinary decisions. Severe consequences (e.g., suspensions), moreover, produced inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical effects. Trajectory studies identify a cluster of students who are persistently involved in bullying (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008). This studys participants described students who ignore antibullying communications, victimize peers in deance of antibullying presentations, remove posters, distract supervisors, seem immune to consequences, and retaliate when reported or suspended. These students undermine prevention programs by inuencing the attitudes of peers and reducing the willingness of other students to intervene in, or report, bullying episodes. The comments of this studys participants, the perception that teachers complicate bullying problems (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007), and evidence that group interventions for externalizing problems may yield negative outcomes (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999), emphasize the importance of identifying mechanisms via which programs might compound bully-victim problems in a subset of students (Farrington & Tto, 2009). Practically, these ndings suggest the need to combine the school-wide approaches favored by students and teachers (Cunningham et al., 2009) with strategies targeting students who do not respond to the universal components of the program.

Study Limitations
This studys ndings must be understood within the context in which focus groups were conducted. The approach to prevention emerging from this study reects the views of students in Canada, a country where the prevalence of bullying remains relatively high (Currie et al., 2008; Pinheiro, 2006). Because schools operated according to mandated violence prevention policies, students had been exposed to antibullying programs and were knowledgeable about this problem. Both factors may limit the generality of the studys conclusions. Because focus groups may have included students who bully, individual interviews might have revealed views that participants were hesitant to express in a group setting. Moreover, although an approach to data analysis designed to enhance the credibility of the studys ndings was adopted, the possibility that interviewers or coders inuenced the ndings cannot be ruled out. Finally, although this qualitative study suggests important bullying prevention themes, quantitative studies are required to determine how widely these views are shared.

336

C. E. Cunningham et al.

Conclusions
Qualitative methods could enable students to provide their schools with valuable insights during the program implementation process. Collectively, students advocated a comprehensive approach that was consistent with the conclusions of meta-analyses examining the components of bullying prevention programs that are associated with improved outcomes (Farrington & Tto, 2009). Although their schools had implemented components of the approach participants recommended, students identied many opportunities to improve these programs. To translate these ndings into practice, one participating school system presented educators with bullying prevalence data for their school, composed a checklist of this studys student recommendations, encouraged school teams to identify program improvement opportunities, and to share the results of this process with colleagues. Although the comprehensive approach students proposed is consistent with meta-analyses (Farrington & Tto, 2009), educators prefer programs requiring less training and implementation time (Cunningham et al., 2009). Introducing the more comprehensive programs needed to reduce bullying will require a greater investment in administrative support, stafng, and training (Cunningham et al., 2009).

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

REFERENCES
Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: Much ado about nothing? Psychological Medicine, 40, 717729. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991383 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Booren, L. M., & Handy, D. J. (2009). Students perceptions of the importance of school safety strategies: An introduction to the IPSS survey. Journal of School Violence, 8, 233250. doi:10.1080/15388220902910672 Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361382. Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Childrens opinions on effective strategies to cope with bullying: The importance of bullying role and perspective. Educational Research, 47, 93105. doi:10.1080/0013188042000337587 Craig, W., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 2236. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002 Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, H., Deal, K., Cunningham, L. J., Short, K., & Chen, Y. (2009). Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 929943. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002

Bullying Prevention

337

Currie, C., Gabhainn, S., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, R., Currie, D., et al., (2008). Inequalities in young peoples health: Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2005/2006 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Ofce for Europe. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755764. Farrington, D. P., & Tto, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1147. doi:10.4073/ csr.2009.6 Holt, M. K., Kantor, G. K., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 4263. doi:10.1080/ 15388220802067813 Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology, 23, 330334. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.3.330 Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 2642. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26 Moorthy, S., & Hawkins, S. A. (2005). Advertising repetition and quality perception. Journal of Business Research, 58, 354360. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00108-5 Nabors, L. A., Ramos, V., & Weist, M. D. (2001). Use of focus groups as a tool for evaluating programs for children and families. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 243256. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1203_04 OConnell, P., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437452. doi:10. 1006/jado.1999.0238 Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 11711190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x Patton, M. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 209257). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pepler, D. J. (2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 1620. Pepler, D. J., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325338. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x Peterson, L., & Rigby, K. (1999). Countering bullying at an Australian secondary school with students as helpers. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 481492. doi:10. 1006/jado.1999.0242 Pinheiro, P. S. (2006). World report on violence against children. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 319. doi:10. 1037/0033-2909.121.1.3 Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453459. doi:0.1006/jado.1999.0239

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

338

C. E. Cunningham et al.

Downloaded by [121.54.17.12] at 22:43 23 September 2011

Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). How do the victims respond to bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 99109. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10982337(1996)22:2<99::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-P Sherman, D. K., Mann, T., & Updegraff, J. A. (2006). Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 165169. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9001-5 Updegraff, J. A., Sherman, D. K., Luyster, F. S., & Mann, T. L. (2007). The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 249257. doi:10.1016/j. jesp.2006.01.007 Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., et al., (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 4054. doi:101177/0829573509358686 Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al., (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioural Development, 32, 502511. doi:10.1177/0165025408095553 Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Bellmoff, L., Lopp, E., Birckbichler, L., & Marshall, M. (2008). Missing voices: Fourth through eighth grade urban students perceptions of bullying. Journal of School Violence, 7, 97118. doi:10.1080/15388220801973912 Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 7888. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78