Problem 1
BULLYING
Bullying = Systematic, repetitive and intentional abuse of others in almost all school around the world – Tend to be stable
Physical, psychological or moral aggression carried out by one student or group with a power imbalance
o Direct = Direct confrontation - (e.g., Physical aggression, name-calling, threats, intimidating in front of an audience
o Indirect = Involves spreading of rumors, backstabbing and exclusion from the group -> Requires more social insight
No age differences in the use of direct and indirect tactics
Males are more likely to be physically aggressive (e.g., Hitting, kicking) while males & females are more
relationally aggressive (e.g., Spreading rumors)
Causes = Psychological, family functioning, deviant friends, changing factors (e.g., School transition), lack of empathy,
dominant position, high social status and inflated positive self-view (information-processing bias)
o Victims = Likely to display adjustment problems as anxiety and depression, psychosomatic problems
(e.g., Headaches), academic difficulties (e.g., Rejections and drops out), social alienation, relationship problems, low
level of well-being at school
In the future: Problem drinking, becoming unemployed, psychiatric disorders, high risk of suicide-related
behaviors
o Witness = Likely to suffer from anxiety & depression, less comfortable at school and social adjustment problems
Unintentionally can reinforce bully behaviors by smiling and laughing
PLIGHT OF VICTIMS
Psychological characteristics
Submissive victims -> Anxious, insecure, sensitive, lack of confidence in social interactions
Aggressive victims -> Emotional regulation problems and ADHD
Nonbehavioral characteristics
Obesity, off-time pubertal maturation, disabilities and LGBT members
Social misfit = People whose social behavior deviates from group norms -> Vulnerable to self-blaming attribution
Emotional or behavioral problems (e.g., Depression -> Marginal social status and lack of friends -> Bullied)
Peer victimization and internalizing problems affect each other
Organization of instruction
Less demanding curriculum and more deviant peers are at greater risk of antisocial behavior
Teaming in small group increase the experience of victimization experiences
UNDERLYING MECHANISMS
Victims:
Likely to internalize attribution and self-blame -> It affects their reputation and level of emotional distress
Likely to be absent from school and to receive low grades -> Party caused by emotional distress and somatic
complaints (e.g., Headaches)
o HPA axis = High cortisol released after stress associated with more health problems
o Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) = Increased activity associated with stress
CYBERSPACE AND SCHOOLS
Cyberbullying = Bullying involving texting via cell phone, emailing or instant messaging, or posting messages on social
networking sites and in chat rooms - Either direct or indirect
Difference with bullying = Messages can quickly reach the target and a vast number of other individuals – Anonymity
, INTERVENTIONS
Schools are encouraged to implement some form of anti-bullying to handle it – Reactive strategies:
1. Punitive approach
o Bullies are directly confronted with their behavior and sanctioned for it
2. Non-punitive approach
o Involves problem-solving (e.g., Support group approach, no-blame method or method of shared concern), aim to
change the behavior of bullies and bystanders by increasing their feelings of discomfort and feelings of awareness of
the victim’s suffering
SCHOOLWIDE INTERVENTIONS
Schoolwide intervention = Targets all students, their parents and adults within the school (teachers, stuff)
Core idea: Bullying is a responsibility of everyone in the school -> Aims to change the culture of the whole school
o Increased awareness of the nature of the problem, heightened monitoring and systematic and consistent responses
to incidents of bullying (e.g., Student create their rules about bullying)
o Teachers and stuff receive training about strategies for preventing problems associated with bullying
Results: Modest effects = Decreased self-reported bullying and victimization and increase in students’ perceptions of
positive school climate
o The school’ degree of involvement was directly related to positive effects (especially for girls)
Limitations: Inconsistency in the principles of good research, self-reports, difficulty in implementing in big classrooms
and understanding whether school climate has changed for the better
ARTICLE
Curriculum interventions = Rather than decrease bullying, in some group even increased it (e.g., Lectures)
Multi-disciplinary interventions = Decreased bully and increased school climate (e.g., New school rules)
Social skills training groups = Mixed results, no clear reduction in bully -> There may be confounding variables
Mentoring = Decreased bully if someone has a mentor
Increased social work support = Decreased drug abuse when individual seeks support
Results: Hard to generalize – Less bulling in primary school but more in secondary
KIVA ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMME
Support group approach - 3 teachers or other school personnel trained in addressing pervasive cases
Core idea: Others can alter the bullies’ motivations to bully by focusing on bystanders and defenders
Article: Effectiveness of the intervention over the course of a school year concerning the victims’ well-being
o Procedure: Checked whether victimization, defending behavior and well-being increased, remained the same,
decreased or stopped
Results: In short-term the victims were positive about the effect of the support group approach but not in long-term
o Effectiveness not long-lasting
No difference in level of victimization between with and without support group
Without support group intervention = Frequency of victimization decreased
Support group intervention = More defenders
Limitations: Small sample size, victims may have been unrecognized, different methods in establishing short and long
term effectiveness (interview vs anonymous questionnaire), intervention is more beneficial for some than others
TARGETED INTERVENTIONS
Core idea: Focus on bullies – Address dysfunctional thoughts and behaviors (e.g., Hostile attributional bias)
Social-cognitive model = Aims to alter the maladaptive social cognition - Supported
1. Inaccurate interpretation of social cues associated with ambiguous peer provocation
2. Goal formulation
3. Possible behavioral responses
4. Choose a response
, EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-BULLYING SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Meta-analysis on the efficacy of anti-bullying school programs on children and adolescent aged from 7 to 16 years
Results: Programs of preventions of bullying and violence in school are effective
o Reduction in frequency of bullying or school violence and modest reductions in frequency of school victimization
o Moderate impact on attitudes toward school violence (favorable attitudes and attitudes school violence) -> Gain the
most benefit from such programs
Limitations: Only high-quality studies were included, heterogeneity reduced by statistical software
FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research should assess aggressive behavior during the critical developmental period
More research is needed on the racial/ethnic composition of classrooms and schools
Problem 2
SPECIAL EDUCATION NEED (SEN)
Social participation = Engagement in activities, feelings of belonging and social interaction -> Students with SEN often
experience difficulties in being accepted and acquire friends
Study aim: Variables related to peer acceptance and friendship of students with disabilities
Child related variables = Physical appearance, socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, aggression and withdrawal
o No influence
Peer-related variables = Negative attitudes of peers towards students with SEN, gender
o Girls’ social behavior is more important than boys in acceptance
o Girls are less accepted by their same-sex peers
o It is hard than a girl/boy have a student with SEN of the opposite gender as friend
Classroom-related variables = Resources and teacher assistance
o Teacher assistance negatively affects peer acceptance of students with SEN -> Reduced direct contact
Limitations: Bidirectional problem (social behavior leads to less peer acceptance and the other way around), omission of
others involved (parent/teachers)
SOCIAL PARTICIPANTIONS OF PUPILS WITH SEN
Social acceptance
o Children without special needs prefer not to work with people with SEN or low-achieving students
o Children with behavioral difficulties (BD) = Greater risk of being rejected compared to learning disabilities and others
Self-perception
o Children with SEN perception is positive even if low
o Friendship can have a positive influence on the socio-emotional development and can reduce the social rejection
Social interaction
o Children with SEN are less involved in social interactions (especially ASD, down syndrome & intellectual disabilities)
with their peers
o Children with SEN tend to have less friends and experience more difficulties in social participations
INTERVENTIONS
Teaching social skills to children with SEN
o Intervention often implemented outside of natural context or without involving others -> Weak effect
o Involving classmates when implementing interventions ensure the maintenance of positive effects
School based intervention
