Blueprints
Model Programs
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP)
Program
Background
An
Historical Thumbnail Sketch
Bullying among school children is no doubt a very
old phenomenon. The fact that some children are frequently
and systematically harassed and attacked by other
children has been described in literary works, and
many adults have personal experiences of it from their
own school days. Though many are acquainted with the
"bully/victim problem," it was not until
fairly recently—in the early 1970s—that
efforts were made to systematically study it. For
a number of years, these attempts were largely confined
to Scandinavia. More recently, however, bullying among
school children has received considerable public and
research attention in countries such as England, Scotland,
Ireland, Japan, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the
United States.
A strong societal interest in bully/victim problems
began in Sweden in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
and the issue quickly spread to the other Scandinavian
countries. In Norway, for example, bully/victim problems
received attention from the mass media and was of
great concern to teachers and parents for a number
of years. At first, the school authorities did not
officially address the phenomenon, but 15 years ago,
a marked change took place. In late 1982, a newspaper
reported that three 10-14 year old boys from the northern
part of Norway had committed suicide, in all probability
as a consequence of severe bullying by peers. This
event generated considerable uneasiness in the mass
media and general public, and eventually it triggered
a chain of reactions which ultimately resulted in
a nationwide campaign against bully/victim problems
in Norwegian primary and junior high schools, launched
by the Ministry of Education in the fall of 1983.
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program described
in this Blueprint was developed, refined, and systematically
evaluated in an intervention project involving 2,500
children in 42 schools from the city of Bergen,
Norway, during the two-year period from 1983 through
1985 (Olweus, 1991; 1993a; 1994). There have been
several recent replications of the program, both
within Norway and in several other countries, including
the United States. Whitney and colleagues (Whitney,
Rivers, Smith,
& Sharp, 1994) implemented and evaluated the
effectiveness of the program in 16 primary and 7
secondary schools in Sheffield, England. Hanewinkel
and Knaack (1997) tested the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program among approximately 6,400 3rd-9th graders
in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The first systematic
evaluation of the program within the United States
was conducted by Melton and colleagues (Melton et
al., 1998) and involved 6,388 elementary and middle
school children from non-metropolitan communities
in South Carolina. Most recently, a new large-scale
intervention project involving 3,200 students in
30 schools was initiated in Bergen, Norway. Although
all of the replications were true to the goals and
approach of the original Norwegian model, several
projects (most notably the Sheffield and South Carolina
initiatives) made several additions and modifications
to the model in order to meet the perceived needs
of the particular populations. These replication
projects are described in detail in Chapter 4.
What is Bullying?
Bullying or victimization can be generally defined
in the following way: A student is being bullied or
victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and
over time, to negative actions on the part of one
or more other students. Such negative actions include
intentionally inflicting, or attempting to inflict,
injury or discomfort upon another. These behaviors
can be carried out physically (e.g., hitting, kicking,
pushing, choking), verbally (e.g., by calling names,
threatening, taunting, malicious teasing, spreading
nasty rumors), or in other ways, such as making faces
or obscene gestures, or intentional exclusion from
a group. The latter (usually more subtle) forms are
usually termed "indirect bullying," whereas
"direct bullying" comprises behaviors that
represent relatively open (usually verbal or physical)
attack on the victim.
In order to be considered bullying, there should
also be an imbalance in power or strength (an asymmetric
power relationship). In other words, students who
are exposed to the negative actions generally have
difficulty in defending themselves and are somewhat
helpless against the student or students who harass.
It is not considered bullying when two students of
approximately the same physical or psychological power
are in conflict, nor is friendly or playful teasing
considered bullying. However, repeated degrading and
malicious teasing which is continued despite clear
signs of distress and opposition on the part of the
target does qualify as bullying.
In the context of school bullying, the victim is
usually a single student, who is generally harassed
by a group of two or three students, often with a
"negative leader." A considerable proportion
of the victims, 20-40 percent, report, however, that
they are mainly bullied by a single student.
Bullying is thus characterized by the following three
criteria: (a) it is aggressive behavior or intentional
"harmdoing;" (b) it is carried out repeatedly
and over time; and (c) it occurs within an interpersonal
relationship characterized by an imbalance of power.
One might add that bullying behavior often occurs
without apparent provocation. These characteristics
clearly suggest that bullying can be considered a
form of abuse: peer abuse. What sets it apart from
other forms of abuse such as child or domestic abuse
is the context in which it occurs and the relationship
of the interacting parties.
The following newspaper clippings illustrate two
forms of bullying:
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, tied a string around his neck, and
led him around as a "pet." When Johnny's
torturers were asked about the bullying, they said
they pursued their victim because "it was fun."
............
Having a child who is bullied means seeing your
child become an outcast, frozen out and completely
isolated. But most of what you read is about bullies
and victims who are boys. Bullying is to be found
amongst girls, but it is not so obvious from the outside.
It is not usually a matter of damaged clothes or damaged
arms and legs. Bullying amongst girls bypasses physical
pain and goes right into the soul. Bullying amongst
girls is less concrete or visible.
How can I as a mother accuse the girls bullying
my 14-year-old daughter for having stopped phoning,
for not saying hello, for speaking badly of her behind
her back, for changing places in the classroom, for
always commenting on and making fun of what she says,
etc. Nothing they do (or don't do) is against the
rules.
As a mother, I have a great sense of grief and
helplessness in the face of what my daughter has to
go through. In desperation I have tried to talk to
the mothers of two of my daughter's previous friends.
It wasn't particularly helpful; some parents just
can't accept that their children are criticized by
outsiders. They defend their children at any cost,
no matter how ridiculous this may be.
I wouldn't wish the grief and helplessness I
feel on any parents, but I wish you and your children
could actually feel just for a short time what my
daughter and our family have had to live with for
the last six months or so. Then perhaps you would
understand.
—Despairing mother
Prevalence of Bullying
According to more than 150,000 Norwegian and Swedish
students who completed the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire,
15 percent (1 out of 7) of the students in Norwegian
or Swedish elementary and lower secondary/junior high
schools (grades 1-9, roughly corresponding to ages
7 -16) are involved in bully/victim problems. Approximately
9 percent are victims and 7 percent bullied other
students (see Figures 1 and 2). A relatively small
percentage of the students are both victim and bully
(1.5 percent of the total student population, or 17
percent of the victims). Five percent of the students
are involved in more frequent bullying problems (as
bullies or victims or bully/victim), occurring once
a week or more frequently. As the prevalence questions
in the Questionnaire typically refer to a limited
time period of three to five months, there is little
doubt that the figures presented actually underestimate
the number of students involved in such problems during
a whole year.
These figures emphasize that bullying is a considerable
problem in Norwegian and Swedish schools, affecting
a very large number of students. Moreover, data collected
in many other countries (primarily collected with the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire), including the United
States, clearly indicate that these problems are not
limited to Scandinavia. In fact, the prevalence rates
in these countries are as high, if not higher, than
those reported in Scandinavia.
For example, in a recent large-scale study (Melton
et al., 1998) of more than 6,000 middle school students
from grades 4 through 6 in rural South Carolina, 23
percent reported that they had been bullied by other
students "several times" or more frequently
during the past three months. Approximately 20 percent
reported that they had bullied other students with the
same frequency (see Figures 3 and 4).
It should be emphasized, however, that comparisons
of prevalence figures from different countries must
be made with considerable caution. In spite of the fact
that the Questionnaire gives a fairly detailed definition
of bullying (written in simple language), it is likely
that prevalence rates will be affected by the students'
familiarity with the concept of bullying, the degree
of public attention to the phenomenon and similar factors.
At the same time, it should be underscored that the
general pattern of findings and interrelationships,
such as gender and age trends, has been found to be
fairly similar across countries and cultures, suggesting
that the existence of a phenomenon has some relatively
universal characteristics.
In terms of gender differences, boys are much more
likely to bully others than are girls, and a relatively
large percentage of girls report that they are bullied
mainly by boys. Also, a slightly higher percentage of
boys report being victims of bullying. Although direct
bullying is a greater problem among boys, bullying also
occurs among girls. Girls are less apt to use physical
means of bullying; instead, they use more subtle and
indirect ways of harassment such as slandering, spreading
rumors, intentionally excluding others from the group,
and manipulating friendship relations (e.g., depriving
a girl of her "best friend"). In addition,
these forms of bullying may be more difficult for adults
to detect.
Age trends in bullying also exist. Generally, younger
and weaker students are more often exposed to bullying.
Although most incidents occur among students in the
same grade, a good deal of bullying is also carried
out by older students towards younger ones. (More details
about bullying in different grades and among boys and
girls are given in, Olweus, 1993a; Melton, et al, 1998).
Most bullying occurs on the playground or in the classroom
(in Norway, 65 percent and 38 percent, respectively;
in the U.S., 26 percent and 29 percent, respectively),
but these behaviors also occur in hallways/corridors,
the gymnasium, the locker room, and the bathroom. Although
a substantial portion of students are bullied on their
way to and from the school, this percentage is usually
considerably lower than the percentage being bullied
at school.
Why Focus on Bully/Victim Problems?
There are several key reasons for examining and attempting
to counteract bully/victim problems in school relating
to:
- The short-term effects on the victims
- The long-term effects on the victims
- The long-term effects on the bullies, if the bullying
behavior goes unchecked
- School social climate
Each of these points is elaborated below.
Short-term Effects on
Victims. In addition to being painful and humiliating,
bullying experiences make victims unhappy, distressed,
and confused. These students tend to lose self-esteem
and become anxious and insecure. Moreover, victims may
suffer physical injury, their concentration and learning
may be affected, and they may refuse to go to school.
They may tend to feel stupid, ashamed and unattractive,
and gradually begin to view themselves as failures.
Many of the victims develop psychosomatic symptoms such
as headaches and stomach pains. In some cases, the victims'
devaluation of themselves becomes so overwhelming that
they see suicide as the only possible solution.
Long-term Effects on
Victims. Persistent bullying during the school
years may also have long-term negative effects on the
victims many years beyond school (Olweus, 1993b). As
young adults (age 23), former victims (who were bullied
primarily in grades six through nine) tended to be more
depressed and had poorer self-esteem than their nonvictimized
peers. The pattern of results suggested that earlier,
persistent bullying can leave many scars. Thus, it is
obviously crucial to stop bullying in school in order
to reduce and prevent its negative, short and long-term
consequences.
Long-term Effects on
Bullies. Bullying is not just isolated behavior
on the part of its perpetrators; instead, it is part
of a more generally antisocial and rule-breaking (conduct-disordered)
behavior pattern. As our research has shown, students
(particularly boys) who bully others are especially
likely to engage in other antisocial/delinquent behaviors
such as vandalism, shoplifting, truancy and frequent
drug use. We have also found that this antisocial behavior
pattern often continues into young adulthood. Approximately
60 percent of boys who were characterized as bullies
in grades 6-9 (on the basis of both teacher nominations
and peer ratings) had been convicted of at least one
officially registered crime by the age of 24, compared
to 23 percent of boys who were not characterized as
bullies. Even more dramatic, as many as 35-40 percent
of the former bullies had three or more convictions
by this age, while this was true of only 10 percent
of the control boys (those who were neither bullies
nor victims in grades 6-9). Thus, as young adults, the
former school bullies had a fourfold increase in the
level of relatively serious, recidivist criminality
as documented in official crime records (Olweus, 1993a).
With regard to (potential) bullies, then, it is important
to try to stop their development along an antisocial
pathway and to redirect it in a more prosocial direction.
School Social Climate.
In addition, there is a connection between the level
of bully/victim problems in a classroom or school and
aspects of the social climate of the unit concerned.
In classrooms or schools with high levels of bullying
problems, students tend to feel less safe and are less
satisfied with school life. This implies that, for many
students, and particularly for the victims, the classroom
is no longer a place of concentrated work and learning.
A classroom or school climate characterized by bully/victim
problems may have other negative effects. It is natural
to assume that most students in a classroom or a school
are affected by a bully/victim problem in some way.
For example, if a "neutral" student observes
bullying behavior going unchecked, possibly with open
or tacit support from other students or even the teacher,
this will teach him or her to regard bullying behavior
as acceptable. Over time, such episodes can result in
harsher, less empathetic social climates which foster
new bullying episodes and other problems. Conversely,
classrooms or schools with a friendly and positive social
climate are likely to elicit and encourage different,
more appropriate reaction patterns in their students.
Accordingly, when counteracting bullying, it is important
to involve the students surrounding the bully/ies and
the victim and affect their views regarding bullying
behavior. The various roles and related attitudes that
other students in the class or school may adopt regarding
bully/victim problems are portrayed in the "bullying
circle," shown in Figure 5.
Theoretical
Rationale/Conceptual Framework
Common Myths About Bullying
In the public debate, several hypotheses about the causes
of bully/victim problems have been advanced. Even though
these have failed to receive support in controlled,
empirical research, they are still quite popular, and
it is important to briefly discuss and dispel some of
these myths.
One assumption is that bully/victim problems are, in
part, a consequence of large classes and/or schools:
the larger the class or the school, the higher the level
of bully/victim problems. Closer analysis of this hypothesis,
using the Norwegian survey data from more than 700 schools
and several thousand classes (with great variations
in size) reveals that the size of the class or the school
is of negligible importance for the relative frequency
or level of bully/victim problems (Olweus, 1993a). Moreover,
a large-scale Irish study has found an inverse relationship:
the larger the class or the school, the lower the level
of bully/victim problems (e.g., O'Moore, Kirkhan, &
Smith, 1997).
Second, it has been commonly maintained that bullying
is a result of competition and striving for grades in
school. More specifically, it has been argued that the
aggressive behavior of the bullies toward their environment
can be explained as a reaction to failures and frustrations
in school. This hypothesis has also failed to receive
support from detailed analyses of longitudinal data.
Though there was an association (of moderate magnitude)
between aggressive behavior and (poor) grades, no evidence
suggests that aggressive behavior is a consequence of
poor grades and failure in school (Olweus, 1983).
Third, a widely held view, especially among students,
is that external deviations cause victimizations. It
is argued that students who are fat, red-haired, wear
glasses, speak with an unusual dialect, or have a different
ethnic background, for example, are particularly likely
to become victims of bullying. This hypothesis received
no support in empirical analyses in several European
studies (e.g., Junger, 1990; Olweus, 1978), and suggests
that external deviations play a much smaller role in
the origin of bully/victim problems than generally assumed.
The relationship between ethnic background and victimization
has not been closely examined in the United States,
however. Given the greater ethnic heterogeneity of the
U.S., it is possible that ethnic background may be related
to victimization.
It may be added that in the case of Scandinavian students,
being a bully or a victim is unrelated to the socioeconomic
conditions of the student's family such as parental
education or income. Accordingly, the common belief
that bullying behavior is more prevalent in lower social
classes can be considered a myth as regards Scandinavia.
However, this hypothesis has not yet been well investigated
in large-scale North-American studies. Given the greater
socioeconomic heterogeneity of the U.S., it is possible
that there may be such link, although it is likely to
be weak.
Causes of Bullying
All of these assumptions or hypotheses have failed to
receive support from empirical data. As a result, one
must look for other factors to determine the (partial)
origins of these problems. In this context, it is important
to realize that the search for causes must be conducted
at different levels of analyses, including the individual,
the classroom, and school levels. The research evidence
collected to date clearly suggests that personality
characteristics and typical reaction patterns, in combination
with physical strength or weakness in the case of boys,
are quite important for the development of these problems
in individual students (making them more likely to become
victims or bullies). At the same time, environmental
factors such as the teachers' attitudes, routines, and
behaviors play a major role in determining the extent
to which the problems will manifest themselves in a
larger unit such as the classroom or the school. In
addition, environmental-organizational factors such
as the way in which break periods are arranged, may
be of some importance.
Basic Principles
Given the considerable stability of aggressive behavior
over time and the generally low or modest success
in reducing such behavior with a number of individual-oriented
approaches, an important premise of the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program is that bullying behavior can
be checked and redirected into a more prosocial direction
through a systematic restructuring of the social
environment. Among other outcomes, this restructuring
is expected to result in fewer opportunities for
bullying behavior and fewer or smaller rewards (e.g.,
in the form of prestige or peer support) for displaying
such behavior. More specifically, the program aims
to effect systematic changes of the "opportunity" and "reward
structures" for bullying and similar behavior
in the school and other relevant contexts. In addition,
positive, friendly, and prosocial behaviors are
encouraged and rewarded.
Generally, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
is built around a limited set of key principles and
findings derived chiefly from research on the development
and modification of problem behaviors, particularly
aggressive behavior. More specifically, the program
strives to develop a school (and ideally, a home) environment:
- characterized by warmth, positive interest, and
involvement by adults;
- firm limits to unacceptable behavior;
- where non-hostile, nonphysical negative consequences
are consistently applied in cases of violations of
rules and other unacceptable behaviors; and,
- where adults act as authorities and positive role
models.
The first three principles represent the antithesis
of child-rearing dimensions that research has linked
to the development of aggressive reaction patterns:
negativism on the part of the primary caretaker, general
permissiveness, lack of clear limits, and use of power-assertive
methods such as spanking and violent verbal outbursts.
The fourth principle encourages adults to emulate an
authoritative (not authoritarian) adult-child interaction
model in which they take responsibility for the students'
total situation, including both academic learning and
social relationships in school.
A basic premise of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program is that most efforts to create a better school
environment must be initiated and driven by the adults
at school. However, a number of the program measures
(below) include the students in these efforts. Moreover,
the students' role in changing the normative context
of the school will gradually increase in importance
as the program evolves.
Brief Description of Intervention
General Prerequisites:
Awareness and Involvement
Adult behavior is crucial to the success of the Bullying
Prevention Program, and in order to achieve the program's
goals the following two conditions must be met. First,
the adults at school and, to some degree, at home must
become aware of the extent of bully/victim problems
in their own school. Secondly, the adults must engage
themselves, with some degree of seriousness, in changing
the situation. Without adults' acknowledgment of schools'
existing bully/victim problems and a clear commitment
by a majority of the school staff to participate actively
in the anti-bullying efforts, the program is likely
to have limited success. Administration of the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire is usually an effective way
to achieve awareness and involvement. In general, staff
members will be more inclined to initiate countermeasures
if they realize the number of students in their own
school who are directly involved in bully/victim problems
and learn how these problems affect students.
Interventions at the
School, Class, and Individual Levels
The principles described above have been translated
into a number of specific measures, or interventions,
that are used at the school, class, and individual levels,
and taking action at all of these levels is vital to
counteract bully/victim situations. In this way, students
will be exposed to consistent messages, from different
persons/sources and in different contexts, regarding
the school's views of and attitudes toward bullying.
All of the components are very important; however, the
focus has been to highlight adult involvement because
adults are the key implementors of the program. The
basic message of the program is successfully demonstrated
through all the components: Bullying is not
accepted in our class/school, and we will see to it
that it comes to an end.
Table 1 presents an overview of the components that
are considered, on the basis of both statistical analyses
and our experience with the program, to be particularly
important in any implementation of the Bullying Prevention
program.
School
Level. Core interventions at the school level
include administration of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire
to assess the nature and prevalence of bullying at
each school, a school conference day/meeting, formation
of a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, and
the development of a coordinated system to supervise
students during break periods. The school conference
day provides an opportunity for program consultants
and school personnel to review results of the survey,
discuss elements of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program, and make specific plans for implementing
the program during the upcoming school year. Ongoing
coordination of the school's efforts will be guided
by a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee,
which may include a school administrator, a teacher
representative from each grade, a guidance counselor
and/or a school-based mental health professional,
and parent and student representatives. The final
core component, increasing teacher supervision of
students in locations where bullying occurs most
frequently at school, can be implemented after the
Questionnaire has identified particular "hot
spots" within a school, which
commonly include the playground, classroom, and lunchroom.
Classroom Level. Core
program interventions at the classroom level include
establishing and enforcing specific rules against bullying,
as well as holding regular classroom meetings with students
to discuss various aspects of bullying and related antisocial
behaviors and adherence to agreed upon classroom rules.
Classroom meetings also are used to engage students
in a variety of activities (e.g., role playing, writing,
and small-group discussions) through which they gain
a better appreciation of the harm caused by bullying
and learn strategies to combat it. Meetings with parents
to foster their active involvement are considered highly
desirable components both at the classroom and the school
levels.
Individual Level. Additional
core components of the program involve interventions
with individual bullies (or small groups of bullies),
victims, and their parents to both ensure that bullying
behaviors cease and that victims receive necessary support
to avoid future bullying.
In order to foster the implementation and execution,
the program emphasizes using the existing social environment:
teachers and other school personnel, students, and parents.
Thus, non-mental health professionals play a major role
in the desired restructuring of the social environment.
However, experts such as school mental health professionals,
guidance counselors, and social workers also serve important
functions as planners and coordinators,
in counseling and consulting with the school, and in
possibly handling more serious cases.
Evidence of Program Effectiveness
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has been implemented
in a variety of cultures (e.g, Bergen, Norway; the
southeastern United States; Sheffield, England; and
the state of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany) and school
contexts (elementary, middle, and junior high schools).
The first and most comprehensive evaluation was conducted
with 2,500 students from elementary and junior high
schools in Bergen, Norway, between 1983 and 1985. Results
from this quasi-experimental study revealed substantial
reductions (typically by 50 percent or more) in the
frequency with which students reported being bullied
and bullying others. Roughly similar results were obtained
using peer and teacher ratings of levels of bully/victim
problems. Furthermore, there were substantial reductions
in students' reports of participation in general antisocial
behaviors such as vandalism, fighting, theft, and truancy.
Improvements were also observed in the social climate
of classrooms. Students reported better order and discipline
at school, more positive social relationships, and
more positive attitudes toward schoolwork and school.
The effects of the program appeared to be cumulative:
for some of the outcome variables studied, the program
effects were more marked after 20 months than after
8 months of intervention. Finally, a "dosage-response" relationship
was documented: those classrooms that had implemented
certain essential components of the intervention program
(including establishment of classroom rules against
bullying and use of regular classroom meetings) showed
larger reductions in bully/victim problems than those
classrooms that implemented fewer components.
Evaluations of programs in the United States, England,
Germany, and a subsequent study in Bergen, Norway, have
produced somewhat more modest but still quite positive
findings. For example, the U.S. study of middle school
students revealed significant decreases in students'
self-reports of bullying in the intervention schools
compared to control schools. Moreover, the program appeared
to slow the natural rate of increase in students' engagement
in several other antisocial behaviors.
|
