This article was downloaded by: [121.54.17.12]On: 23 September 2011, At: 22:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School ViolencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

A Qualitative Analysis of the BullyingPrevention and InterventionRecommendations of Students in Grades5 to 8Charles E. Cunningham a , Lesley J. Cunningham b , Jenna Ratcliffe a

& Tracy Vaillancourt c da Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences,McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canadab Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Hamilton, Ontario,Canadac Faculty of Education and School Psychology, University of Ottawa,Ottawa, Ontario, Canadad Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMasterUniversity, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Available online: 27 Sep 2010

To cite this article: Charles E. Cunningham, Lesley J. Cunningham, Jenna Ratcliffe & TracyVaillancourt (2010): A Qualitative Analysis of the Bullying Prevention and InterventionRecommendations 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. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Journal of School Violence, 9:321–338, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15388220.2010.507146

A Qualitative Analysis of the BullyingPrevention and Intervention

Recommendations of Students in Grades 5 to 8

CHARLES E. CUNNINGHAMDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton,

Ontario, Canada

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

JENNA RATCLIFFEDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton,

Ontario, Canada

TRACY VAILLANCOURTFaculty 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 62Grade 5 to 8 students. Discussions were transcribed and ana-lyzed thematically. Students advocated a comprehensive approachincluding uniforms, increased supervision, playground activi-ties, group restructuring to prevent social isolation, influentialpresenters, prevention skills training, solution-focused posters,and meaningful consequences. In addition, students suggestedthat 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 awardfrom the Canadian Institutes for Health Research held by T. Vaillancourt, and the Jack LaidlawChair in Patient-Centred Health Care held by Dr. Cunningham. The authors express theirappreciation to Diana Urajnik, Stephanie Mielko, and Catherine Campbell who providededitorial assistance, to the school boards, students, and parents supporting this project, andto Tiziana Filice-Greco for assisting with the conduct of focus groups.

Address correspondence to Charles E. Cunningham, Department of Psychiatry andBehavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Evel Rm. 163, 565 Sanatorium Road,Hamilton, Ontario L9C 7N4, Canada. E-mail: cunnic@hhsc.ca

321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

322 C. E. Cunningham et al.

respond to aggression, limit exposure to media violence, andsupport school-based discipline. The failure to respond effectivelyto students who bully in defiance of antibullying presentations,and who retalitate when reported or disciplined, underminesprevention programs by reducing the willingness of bystandersto intervene or report bullying, and influencing the attitudes ofyounger pupils. The approach advocated by students is supportedby meta-analyses of the effective components of bullying preventiontrials.

KEYWORDS bullying, students, schools, prevention, focus groups,qualitative methods

Bullying poses risks to the health and emotional well-being of both victimsand perpetrators (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2009). Although reviewssuggest that promising approaches to bullying prevention are emerging, out-comes are often disappointing (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). A meta-analysis of16 bullying prevention trials, for example, concluded that, although pro-grams 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 lon-gitudinal trajectories of bullying, there is a need to improve prevention andintervention programs.

A growing number of investigators have concluded that the design ofmore effective bullying prevention programs should be informed by students(Booren & Handy, 2009; Camodeca & Goossens, 2005). In comparison toteachers, students know more about peers who bully, the conditions underwhich bullying occurs, students who are victimized, and the response oftheir peers to prevention programs (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007). Studentscould, therefore, provide a unique perspective on the components of pre-vention programs that work, factors limiting the impact of these programs,and modifications that might improve outcomes.

Previous studies have asked students to indicate how they wouldrespond to bullying (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Salmivalli, Karhunen, &Lagerspetz, 1998) or to rate the effectiveness of different approaches toprevention (Booren & Handy, 2009; Peterson & Rigby, 1999). When sur-veys provide an opportunity to record their comments, students suggestthat 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 examin-ing the bullying prevention suggestions of students in Grades 5 to 8, a timewhen bullying peaks (Vaillancourt et al., 2008) and students lose confidencein the ability of their teachers to solve this problem (Bradshaw & Sawyer,2007). Qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups) allowed the study to focus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 323

on prevention options of relevance to students, explore design recommen-dations in depth, compare the suggestions of boys and girls, identify factorsinfluencing the effectiveness of existing programs, and generate a rich nar-rative supporting inductive theory development and the interpretation offindings from the project’s quantitative stage.

METHOD

Participants

This study was approved by the university/hospital Research Ethics Boardand the public and Catholic school systems that participated. Using a strati-fied purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 2002), the project was introducedto Grade 5 to 8 classes (see Table 1) at coeducational publicly fundedschools randomly selected from areas representing the diverse demographicsof an urban and suburban Canadian industrial community of 505,000 resi-dents. With one junior kindergarten (age 4) to Grade 5 exception, schoolswere junior kindergarten to Grade 8. A project description and consent formwas sent to parents, consents were returned, and 67 students were randomlyselected (39 girls and 28 boys); 62 students were present, signed assents, andparticipated. One focus group was conducted in each of five schools andtwo groups were conducted in three schools.

Procedures

Small group discussions were adopted as a familiar format allowing studentsto respond to the suggestions of their peers. Assuming boys and girls havedifferent 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. Usinga structured interview guide, a school social worker, with the support ofa research assistant, described the project and obtained assent. Studentswere assured they would not be named nor asked about their personalbullying experiences. Facilitators conducted introductions, defined bullying(Vaillancourt et al., 2008), and asked (in their own words), “Can anyonegive us an example of something that schools are doing to help stop bully-ing?” Facilitators flexibly encouraged discussion with the following prompts:“Could you tell us a little more about this example?”; “Could other stu-dents tell me about this example?”; “Do you think this reduces bullyingat school?”; “What do other students think?”; and “Why do you think thisreduces bullying at school?”

Next, the facilitator asked, “Does anyone have a suggestion about whatelse might reduce bullying at school?” Discussion was encouraged with thefollowing prompts: “What do others think of this suggestion?”; “Do others

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

324 C. E. Cunningham et al.

TABLE 1 Bullying Prevention Themes Emerging From the Study’s 11 Focus Groups

Girls Mixed Boys

Bullying prevention themes 5/6 6 7 7 7/8 8 5/6 5 6 6 8

Organizational & structuralapproaches

Increase monitoring andsupervision

• • • • • • • •Organize recess activities • • • • • • • •Mandate school uniforms • • •Restructure high risk settings • • • • • • • •

Relational approachesInclude isolated students • • • • • •Restructure peer groups • • • • • •Mobilize older student

influences• • • • • • •

Teach social skills • • • • • • •Improve parenting • • • • •

Antibullying campaignProvide inclusive definitions • • • • •Organize antibullying

presentations• • • • • • • • • • •

Post antibullying reminders • • • • • • • • •Responding to bullying

Encourage assertiveresponses

• • • • •Engage bystanders • • • • • • •Encourage reporting • • • • • • •Organize discussion groups • • • • • • •Give meaningful

consequences• • • • • • • • • •

Inform parents • • • •

think this would reduce bullying at school?”; and “Why do you think thiswould reduce bullying at school?”

Reliability coding showed that 95% of 7 key interview guide compo-nents were present. Data collection was discontinued when a review of thefinal focus group’s transcript revealed no new themes (Patton, 2002).

Data Analysis

Audio recordings were transcribed and identifiers were removed. The leadinvestigator, a research assistant, and a school social worker reviewedtranscripts and developed preliminary thematic categories (Patton, 2002).Investigators noted suppositions and biases (e.g., two investigators devel-oped and evaluated peer mediation programs) and attempted to limit theirinfluence (Patton, 2002). To reduce potential gender biases, for example,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 325

male and female investigators participated at all stages of the data anal-ysis. A researcher without links to the schools used NVivo-7 to code thetranscripts. Next, two investigators with expertise in school-based preventionindependently reviewed the transcripts. Table 1 summarizes the grade andsex of the participants in the study’s 11 focus groups and the distributionof bullying prevention themes across groups. Initial interobserver agreementon the occurrence of themes in a random sample of three groups was 81%.Discrepancies were resolved via consensus, definitions were revised, andnew codes were introduced. Quotations representing recurring themes wereselected and transcripts were searched for supporting and disconfirmingexamples (Patton, 2002).

RESULTS

Organizational and Structural Approaches to Prevention

RESTRUCTURE HIGH-RISK SETTINGS

The architecture of schools contributed to bullying problems: “Like forour school for instance, some of the bullying happens near the portables[portable classrooms] because they’re out of sight and there’s not really anyteachers usually on the grass for duty, they’re 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 olderand younger students: “They should have teachers in the hall not letting theintermediates [Grades 7–8] all just rush out our door and to tell them to goto their own door.”

ORGANIZE RECESS ACTIVITIES

Because bullying occurs when students are unoccupied, schools could pre-vent bullying by organizing recess activities: “Bullying usually happens whenpeople need something to do . . . because a lot of them are bored andthey want something fun so they tease little kids”; “Maybe they could putup games, like different games for people to go and play at so the chil-dren would be occupied . . . they really [wouldn’t] want to bully they’d beplaying.”

INCREASE SUPERVISION

Playground supervisors are unable to observe many bullying episodes:“They can’t see everything that’s going on. It’s just not possible. There’stoo much area to cover.” Supervisors, moreover, do not pay attention tobullying: “They’re too busy talking to each other instead of looking for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

326 C. E. Cunningham et al.

situations.” Indeed, students questioned whether supervisors were motivatedto reduce bullying: “They make a big deal about [it] and they don’t evencare, the teachers.” Students who bully surreptitiously or enable bullying bydistracting teachers compounded this problem: “But if they know there’sa teacher around they would lower their voices so they wouldn’t getcaught . . .”; “They send their friends to talk to the teacher to distract themfrom it so they won’t know about it.” Increasing supervision in high risk set-tings was a recurrent theme: “Have more teachers on duty and spread themout more.” Increased supervision could also be accomplished via students:“The people who want to prevent bullying can be like monitors outside tohelp the kids.” Finally, several groups proposed the installation of surveil-lance cameras: “When the teachers are gone, it’s a totally different world forus kids so if they have cameras then, they can’t do it.”

MANDATE SCHOOL UNIFORMS

Because differences in clothing triggered bullying, some participants pro-posed that schools adopt uniforms: “I think it would definitely reducebullying because you can’t judge what other people are wearing becausethey’re wearing exactly the same thing.” Others felt that students wouldsimply exploit differences in the way uniforms were worn:

We always have debates on that because you might be the only per-son that’s wearing shorts, your uniform, and everybody in your classis wearing pants or a skirt and you’re the one that gets picked on forthe day.

Relational Approaches

INCLUDE ISOLATED STUDENTS

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 327

Friends are the main cause of bullying . . . because you tell them every-thing when you think they’re your best friend and then if . . . theyturn around on your back, then they can go tell everybody everythingyou told them. You’re being bullied because they can make stuff up. . .

Because they feel you’ve told them your deepest, darkest secrets becauseyou trusted them and then all of a sudden, they turn on you . . .

RESTRUCTURE PEER GROUPS

Because participants believed exclusive groups contributed to bullying byisolating students, schools should regroup students to prevent the emer-gence of cliques: “Getting more people involved in different things to meetnew friends. Because there’s like so many different cliques and stuff, butthat’s where most of the separation like group bullying and verbal bullyingcomes from.” One student reasoned:

You can end up hanging out with people that you wouldn’t normallythink of hanging out with because you used to not know them and youused to think, “Ah, I don’t want to hang out with them.” But now, afteryou’ve been on the same team as them, then you would end up hangingout with them after school and you realize that you did have a lot incommon 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 they’re probably going to try to copy us, so if we keepa good influence on them, probably it will spread and more and morepeople will be good to each other and not bully each other.

Older students could also influence younger students by making antibullyingpresentations: “Like older kids presenting to younger kids. I guess we sortof like set an example so they grow up to know that bullying isn’t okay.”

TEACH SOCIAL SKILLS

Several groups suggested that schools strengthen relationships by teachingsocial skills, rather than simply telling students not to bully: “Most peoplerespond better to positive things than negative things . . . if you teach themto be a good citizen it would end up helping them more over their entire lifethan just telling them not to bully.” Others felt schools should specifically

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

328 C. E. Cunningham et al.

teach bullying prevention skills: “They talk a lot about cyber bullying, phys-ical bullying, verbal bullying, group bullying, like they explain it a lot butI don’t know if they give us so many ways to prevent it.” Social skills trainingshould begin early: “Starting from little grades, getting them to share, kindof be together no matter your race, your religion stuff. I find that can be abig thing.” Schools should also reward prosocial behavior:

Something that’s like a good way to encourage students is, I know wehave monthly awards at our school, and it’s good because most of thetime almost everyone gets an award so it doesn’t make you feel like, “Ohyou got an award, you’re no good;” everybody gets one.

IMPROVE PARENTING

Parents exert an important influence on bullying: “I think most people bullybecause they want attention. They don’t have nothing at home. Their par-ents . . . don’t pay attention to their kids.” Students recommended thatparents improve relationships with their children: “The key to preventingbullying is letting their parents know and telling their parents to give themmore attention.” Other parents fail to deal effectively with coercive behavior:“Something at home like when they are swearing at their mom or dad orsister . . . [they’re] not going to think that’s bad for them to do that.” Studentsalso felt that violent media contributed to bullying at school: “They get thebullying from shows and stuff and they think that it’s really cool.” Schoolsshould encourage parents to monitor their child’s viewing: “Send a notehome . . . telling the parents watch what the kids are watching to make surethat they’re still appropriate.”

Antibullying Campaigns

DEFINE BULLYING INCLUSIVELY

Girls felt that students need to be better informed regarding relationalbullying:

I think we need to like really put it out there that like gossiping and allthat stuff is like bullying. Like it’s a form of bullying. Like I just learnedthat this year, that gossiping and I’m like really trying to stop. But, youknow, girls, it’s really hard.

Participants also included cyber bullying in their discussions:

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 329

conversation is and they tell it to the whole school and that’s howbullying is.

Some suggested cyberbullying was unintentional: “What happens aboutcyberbullying though is that they may be just joking around and then theother person will take it more offensively than it was supposed to be meant.”Others thought cyberbullying provided a safe way of retaliating. “I thinkmost people cyberbully because, in reality, they’re getting bullied and it’s away for them to feel that they’re in control in a way that they won’t get introuble.”

ORGANIZE ANTIBULLYING PRESENTATIONS

The design of antibullying communications was a recurrent theme.Presentations, for example, need to be brief, interesting, and timed strategi-cally: “[Presentations] should never be too long or like too boring becausepeople might just space out and then they don’t really listen so nothingwould be accomplished then,” or:

Maybe have one at the beginning of the year to remind the studentsabout it, then one in the middle to refresh their memories about it andthen one at the very, very end of the year . . . so they have that messagestuck in their head through the whole summer.

Videos would be more engaging than verbal presentations: “A schoolcould make a school commercial for itself about the bullying and stuff andthey could show it at the assemblies. . . . It’ll sort of be better than just lettingthe principal or teacher talk about bullying.”

Students suggested the source of antibullying messages influenced theireffectiveness. Students, for example, would have a greater influence thanadults:

Probably the students would listen more to the students than to theadults . . . because it’s better to hear from someone your own age, yeahand your own classmates, like you know them because you can trustthem more than some person you don’t even know.

Similarly, police officers bring greater authority to antibullying presen-tations than other adults:

Most people see a police officer or somebody who, like, he’s in charge,he runs things and if we do something wrong we’re going to get introuble for it. And all the younger kids look up to a police officer morethan, say, like a principal or just some guy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

330 C. E. Cunningham et al.

Others questioned the effectiveness of antibullying presentations: “Fromwhat I’ve seen I don’t think it really affects how they bully. They’ll sitthere and they’ll be like, ‘Okay, okay,’ and then they’ll go back to bullyingright after.” Indeed, some suspected presentations might compound bully-ing problems: “They won’t listen they’ll do exactly the opposite.” Anotherstudent suggested that antibullying videos might have a paradoxical effecton some younger students:

But we wouldn’t show them [younger students] the actual videos becausethen after they’ll tend to like they’re more immature so then after they’llsay like, “Oh my God this is funny,” and start laughing at it and startdoing it.

POST ANTIBULLYING REMINDERS

Posters should focus on solutions and consequences: “Maybe we could putposters that would show some of the consequences or what a victim woulddo or what a bully does instead of just saying ‘Don’t Bully!”’ Posters need tobe developmentally appropriate, placed strategically, and changed regularly:“. . . the poster should be more age appropriate for the older grades and theyounger grades . . .”; “. . . put them in . . . places where everybody is going.Like the one I usually see is by the water fountain”; “. . . when we putposters up in our school everyone notices them because nothing’s beenthere before, so like maybe change the posters after a while . . .” Othersquestioned the effectiveness of antibullying posters: “Well, it kind of dependson what your character is . . . if I was a bully I’d probably be like, ‘Oh, it’sjust some dumb poster, I don’t really care”’; “. . . bullies just like rip them offand put them in the garbage.”

Responding to Bullying

ENCOURAGE ASSERTIVE RESPONSES

Some suggested that students respond assertively when bullied: “You couldstand up for yourself but not be starting anything more. Just tell them theway you feel but not do it back because then you’re not treating them theway that you would want to be treated.” Others cautioned that respondingassertively was risky: “If you try to stand up for yourself, they’re gonna thinkyou’re a fool. When you just try to stand up for yourself, it’s not cool butthen you can’t do nothing to prevent it.” Similarly:

I think a lot of the time kids won’t take charge, stand-up or they won’tsay anything because they know if they say something to the teacher,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 331

they know they’ll get in a bit of trouble but then that kid will get morebullied that they have ever been.

ENGAGE BYSTANDERS

Bystanders perpetuate bullying and increase the distress experienced byvictims:

You could bring all the bystanders together and tell them that if you werebullied, you wouldn’t like anybody else to by stand, you’d like some oneto go to the teacher for you and stand up to the bully. How would youfeel if you were the victim?

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 seesomething going on, like maybe someone is being mean to anotherperson, then we should go over there and be like, “Okay what you’redoing isn’t cool.”

Others were concerned about the risks of bystander interventions:“Usually when you try to stick up for somebody who is different you’llend up getting bullied and there will no one to stick up for you.”

ENCOURAGE REPORTING

Some students advocated anonymous reporting options: “I think that maybethe kids can go tell their teacher; let’s say if you talk to the person, sayit’s anonymous. Then no problems will happen. It will just fix it.” Otherscautioned that reporting bullying could complicate an incident, damage rep-utations, or prompt retaliation: “If you tell your parents, then they’re gonnatell their friends and it’s gonna spread”; “Usually people are afraid of beingcalled a rat and being made fun of so they don’t report it”; “Well, if you tolda teacher he [the student who bullies] would probably try to beat you upagain.”

ENCOURAGE DISCUSSION

Girls thought discussion groups could support students who are victims:“Maybe bring the victims in together; when they see other people that arebullied it would help them.” Some girls felt that interacting with victimsmight help students develop a different perspective: “If you bring themtogether they might start realizing what all these people have done andthen after they’ll see, ‘Oh my God, there’s so many people bullying, maybe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

332 C. E. Cunningham et al.

I should stop.”’ Other girls advocated groups encouraging the expressionof feelings: “If someone says something or bullies someone in class theyshould send those people to that class . . . they should send the bully andthe person who got bullied . . . they should say something like, ‘Let out theirfeelings.”’

Boys, in contrast, expressed concern about the risks of grouping stu-dents who bully with their victims: “I think it would be a bad idea becausethen the bully may hurt the kid even more because then they’re even closerand could get even more annoyed.” Boys proposed solution-focused discus-sions: “I think there should be like a class where if people who get bulliedthey have to go to this class and they can’t leave until they resolve the prob-lem 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 theirideas with everyone else”; “It’s kind of more relaxed when you’re with yourfriends and there’s not an adult there.”

GIVE MEANINGFUL CONSEQUENCES

The absence of effective consequences perpetuated bullying: “If they’renot clear on the consequences they think, oh, there’s not any seriousconsequences so I’m going to do it anyway.” The need for meaningful con-sequences was a recurrent theme: “If you made the consequences bad Idon’t really think they are going to do it over and over again.” Studentswho bully, for example, could lose recreational activities: “They could havetheir recesses taken away.” Rather than minimizing the problem of bullyingby younger students, schools should treat early signs of bullying more seri-ously: “I think they find like okay they’re little so maybe they just did thewrong thing but you do need to correct mistakes and show what’s right andwhat’s wrong.”

Other students acknowledged the limits of consequences. Educators, forexample, may discipline innocent students: “I think that supervisors shouldcare more about what happened because a few times kids get blamed andget more in trouble than the kid who actually did it.” Teachers, moreover,may be biased by their relationships with students: “If a teacher likes astudent and she or he sees something they’re doing to somebody duringher detail, she won’t give him as big a punishment than she would toother people.” Participants expressed conflicting views regarding suspen-sions: “Maybe when they come back to school they’ll be a whole differentperson and not bully people.” Conversely, “If they know that they are goingto get suspended and . . . they don’t care if they bully anyway because theythink that, ‘Oh cool there is no school.”’ Suspensions could also promptretaliation:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 333

If you tell a teacher or something or get suspended maybe the next timethey’re coming to school they’re going to be really mad, start saying allthis stuff to him or start a fight, so I think it might be a bad idea.

INFORM PARENTS

Participants recommended that schools inform the parents of students whobully: “I think they should contact the parents and let them know whattheir kid is doing to the other kid.” Consequences at home and school wereperceived to be more effective: “They’ll have to deal with the school’s con-sequences on top of what their parent’s consequences are.” Unfortunately,not all parents would support the school’s disciplinary efforts: “I don’t knowif it does work because some parents, they don’t really care what their kidsdo at school . . . so they’re just going to do it again.”

DISCUSSION

The approach to bullying prevention recommended by students wasgrounded in a contextual framework with structural, organizational, rela-tional, social learning, and developmental components (O’Connell, Pepler, &Craig, 1999; Salmivalli, 1999). According to a structural and organizationperspective, bullying occurs in settings where students are unoccupied andsupervision is limited or ineffective (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000; Vaillancourtet 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 isassociated with improved prevention program outcomes (Farrington & Ttofi,2009).

Students also recommended that prevention programs address thesocial and relational architecture of their schools (Pepler, 2006) by ensur-ing that socially isolated peers are included in group activities, restructuringpeer groups to prevent the emergence of cliques, and encouraging the devel-opment of new friendships. Because victims lacked the power to respondeffectively (Olweus, 1994), participants recommended that older studentsand bystanders take a more active role in the prevention of bullying. Somestudents advocated a preventive approach strengthening relationships in theprimary grades by teaching social skills. Others suggested that programsfocus more specifically on strategies for preventing and responding to bully-ing. Given reviews questioning the benefits of social skills training as anapproach to bullying prevention (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007), the relativeeffectiveness of these approaches merits study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

334 C. E. Cunningham et al.

Students felt that bullying was also influenced by relationships athome, an assumption with empirical support (Holt, Kantor, & Finkelhor,2009). They recommended that parents spend more time with their chil-dren, deal more effectively with aggression, support the school’s disciplinaryefforts, and limit exposure to media violence. These suggestions are consis-tent with those of educators supporting parental participation in bullyingprevention (Cunningham et al., 2009) and reviews finding parental involve-ment associated with improved prevention outcomes (Farrington & Ttofi,2009).

Girls evidenced a greater interest in relational approaches to preven-tion. They were more likely to propose the inclusion of socially isolatedstudents, provide support to victims, suggest groups encouraging the expres-sion of feelings, acknowledge the impact of relational bullying, and supporttheir recommendations with empathic rationales. Boys, in contrast, wereconcerned about the risks associated with groups combining bullies andvictims. They proposed small peer led groups focusing on solutions tobullying problems. Future studies should determine whether boys andgirls respond to different antibullying rationales or prevention programcomponents.

Within a broader contextual framework, student recommendationsreflected an information processing approach to bullying prevention. Tomaximize attention, for example, students recommended that antibullyingposters be positioned strategically and changed frequently, recommen-dations consistent with marketing research (Moorthy & Hawkins, 2005).They recommended that schools ensure students understand the behaviorsincluded in antibullying policies, a suggestion supported by evidence thatadult definitions of bullying are more comprehensive than those adoptedby students (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). They advocated solution-focusedrather than negative messages and reminded developers that the contentof bullying prevention programs needs to be developmentally appropriate.Students suggested that the effectiveness of antibullying communicationsvaried as a function of their source. Although they questioned the bene-fits of presentations by teachers, they proposed that talks by older studentsand police officers would have a greater influence. Given evidence that theimpact of health promotion communications varies as a function framingeffects (Rothman & Salovey, 1997), congruence with dispositional motiva-tions (Mann, Sherman, & Updegraff, 2004; Sherman, Mann, & Updegraff,2006), and message quality (Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007),studies examining the effectiveness of different approaches to antibullyingpresentations should be helpful.

The recommendations of students were also grounded in a sociallearning perspective, with older students acting as models influencingthe attitudes and behavior of younger pupils (Bandura, 1977). Studentsproposed that the response of bystanders and the absence of effective

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 335

consequences reinforced bullying (O’Connell et al., 1999). Although theythought moderate consequences deterred bullying, an assumption consis-tent with meta-analyses (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009), they acknowledged thedifficulties associated with punishment: teachers fail to detect most bul-lying episodes, punish innocent students, and bring relational biases todisciplinary decisions. Severe consequences (e.g., suspensions), moreover,produced inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical effects.

Trajectory studies identify a cluster of students who are persistentlyinvolved in bullying (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008). This study’sparticipants described students who ignore antibullying communications,victimize peers in defiance of antibullying presentations, remove posters,distract supervisors, seem immune to consequences, and retaliate whenreported or suspended. These students undermine prevention programs byinfluencing the attitudes of peers and reducing the willingness of otherstudents to intervene in, or report, bullying episodes. The comments ofthis study’s participants, the perception that teachers complicate bullyingproblems (Bradshaw & Sawyer, 2007), and evidence that group interven-tions for externalizing problems may yield negative outcomes (Dishion,McCord, & Poulin, 1999), emphasize the importance of identifying mech-anisms via which programs might compound bully-victim problems ina subset of students (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). Practically, these find-ings suggest the need to combine the school-wide approaches favoredby students and teachers (Cunningham et al., 2009) with strategies tar-geting students who do not respond to the universal components of theprogram.

Study Limitations

This study’s findings must be understood within the context in which focusgroups were conducted. The approach to prevention emerging from thisstudy reflects the views of students in Canada, a country where the preva-lence of bullying remains relatively high (Currie et al., 2008; Pinheiro,2006). Because schools operated according to mandated violence preven-tion policies, students had been exposed to antibullying programs and wereknowledgeable about this problem. Both factors may limit the generality ofthe study’s conclusions.

Because focus groups may have included students who bully, individ-ual interviews might have revealed views that participants were hesitant toexpress in a group setting. Moreover, although an approach to data analy-sis designed to enhance the credibility of the study’s findings was adopted,the possibility that interviewers or coders influenced the findings cannot beruled out. Finally, although this qualitative study suggests important bully-ing prevention themes, quantitative studies are required to determine howwidely these views are shared.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

336 C. E. Cunningham et al.

Conclusions

Qualitative methods could enable students to provide their schoolswith valuable insights during the program implementation process.Collectively, students advocated a comprehensive approach that was con-sistent with the conclusions of meta-analyses examining the components ofbullying prevention programs that are associated with improved outcomes(Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). Although their schools had implemented compo-nents of the approach participants recommended, students identified manyopportunities to improve these programs. To translate these findings intopractice, one participating school system presented educators with bully-ing prevalence data for their school, composed a checklist of this study’sstudent recommendations, encouraged school teams to identify programimprovement opportunities, and to share the results of this process withcolleagues.

Although the comprehensive approach students proposed is consistentwith meta-analyses (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009), educators prefer programsrequiring less training and implementation time (Cunningham et al., 2009).Introducing the more comprehensive programs needed to reduce bullyingwill require a greater investment in administrative support, staffing, andtraining (Cunningham et al., 2009).

REFERENCES

Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths andmental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 40,717–729. 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 SchoolViolence, 8, 233–250. 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 PsychologyReview, 36 , 361–382.

Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Children’s opinions on effective strate-gies to cope with bullying: The importance of bullying role and perspective.Educational Research, 47 , 93–105. doi:10.1080/0013188042000337587

Craig, W., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the play-ground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 22–36.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 preferencesof educators: A discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 37 , 929–943. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Bullying Prevention 337

Currie, C., Gabhainn, S., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, R., Currie, D., et al., (2008).Inequalities in young people’s health: Health behaviour in school-aged children(HBSC) study: International report from the 2005/2006 survey. Copenhagen,Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groupsand problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bul-lying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6 , 1–147. doi:10.4073/

csr.2009.6Holt, M. K., Kantor, G. K., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance

about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullyingand peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 42–63. doi:10.1080/

15388220802067813Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and mes-

sage framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. HealthPsychology, 23, 330–334. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.3.330

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. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Moorthy, S., & Hawkins, S. A. (2005). Advertising repetition and quality perception.Journal of Business Research, 58, 354–360. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00108-5

Nabors, L. A., Ramos, V., & Weist, M. D. (2001). Use of focus groups as a toolfor evaluating programs for children and families. Journal of Educational andPsychological Consultation, 12, 243–256. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1203_04

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insightsand challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0238

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a schoolbased intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35,1171–1190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitativeresearch and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 209–257). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Pepler, D. J. (2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of theCanadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 16–20.

Pepler, D. J., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectoriesof bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325–338. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x

Peterson, L., & Rigby, K. (1999). Countering bullying at an Australian secondaryschool with students as helpers. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 481–492. 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 behav-ior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3

Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications forinterventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453–459. doi:0.1006/jado.1999.0239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

338 C. E. Cunningham et al.

Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). How do the victimsrespond to bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 99–109. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:2<99::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-P

Sherman, D. K., Mann, T., & Updegraff, J. A. (2006). Approach/avoidance moti-vation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruencyeffect. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 165–169. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9001-5

Updegraff, J. A., Sherman, D. K., Luyster, F. S., & Mann, T. L. (2007). The effects ofmessage quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communi-cations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 249–257. 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 unsafeand high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25,40–54. doi:10–1177/0829573509358686

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K.,et al., (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about thesame thing? International Journal of Behavioural Development, 32, 502–511.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 bul-lying. Journal of School Violence, 7 , 97–118. doi:10.1080/15388220801973912

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based inter-ventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161,78–88. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

121.

54.1

7.12

] at

22:

43 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011