PSYC6330 - Week 11 - Bullying intervention slides.pptx

Bullying interventions, clinical psychology

1. Part 3 – Bullying Intervention Approaches

2. Q: What anti-bullying campaigns are there?   Sheffield Anti-bullying project

3. Different approaches   Improve awareness and support Develop social skills of at-risk individuals Encouraging student support Improving confidence in contact  3

4. Awareness campaigns Cybermentors via BeatBullying (but now no more!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAm-4uqeDU Awareness campaigns need to be continuous and interlinked to the school’s anti-bullying policy ( Schubotz & Sinclair, 2006). Focus groups have shown problems with negatively worded messages (like “don’t bully”). If focused on what NOT to do, then often ignored (Cunningham et al. 2010, 2015).

5. (1) Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme (OBPP) 5 Implemented worldwide over the past 35 years (Olweus & Limber, 2010) https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mcw19   Several components, including: T alks with bullies and their victims Classroom/assembly discussions Staff meetings Therefore, a multi-layered approach

6. Evaluation of OBPP (Olweus & Limber, 2010) 7 Main aim: Identify bullies and victims across all school grades and help them deal with the effects of bullying. Evaluated a 1 year OBPP programme using a cohort-longitudinal method with cross-lagged comparisons. ✔ Found significant “reductions” in bullying rates of approx. 50% or  more (compared to pre-intervention baseline rates).  ✔ Success of a multi-layered school-wide intervention.

7. (2) DfE Sheffield Anti-Bullying Project Sharp and Smith (1991): 16 Primary and 7 Secondary schools Social skills training focused on how to be assertive in the face of harassment (victim) and how to control your anger/develop empathy (bully). ✔ Whole-school policy ✔ P rimary =17% reduction ✔ Secondary=3-5% reduction. 8

8. (3) Role-play and the effect on bystanders   Multidisciplinary intervention N =128 Year 7 students (control/experimental). Method: Drama based Aim: ↑ self-efficacy via role play ↑ assertive bystanders Measures – outgroup name calling scenario, and cyber defender behaviour (online)    9 Abbott & Cameron (2019 )

9. Results ANOVA analysis revealed a significant main effect, whereby those in the experimental condition reported significantly higher assertive bystander intentions ( M = 3.58, SD = .56) compared to the control condition ( M = 2.59, SD = .66), F (1, 118) = 77.35, p <.001 , ηp² = .40.  10

10. β =.73** β =.21*** c = .99***(.11) c’ = .84***(.10 ) Intervention condition Assertive intentions Self-efficacy Main effect: F (1, 118) = 7.27, p =.01. Confidence intervals: lower= .0493, upper= .2884. Results

11. Results 12 “Be nice” Warning “unacceptable” End chat Moving beyond intentions, using a cyberbullying paradigm

12. Results Be nice= F (1, 60) = 4.71, p =.03 . Warning= F (1, 60) = 3.18, p =.08 . End chat= F (1, 60) = 5.60, p =.02 .

13. Results Be nice= F (1, 60) = 9.20, p =.01 . Warning= F (1, 60) = 6.45, p =.02 . End chat= F (1, 60) = 3.09, p =.09.

14. (4) NoTrap ! intervention 15 Peer-led approach to tackle traditional and cyberbullying. Palladino et al. (2016)  -  experimental group showed a significant decrease over time in victimization, bullying, cybervictimization, and cyberbullying. This reduction was stable at follow‐up 6 months later.

15. (5) Kiva programme Largest programme acknowledging peers (Kärnä et al., 2011). Prevention Intervention Monitoring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGcXssNIm8 https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2015-05-12/anti-bullying-scheme-encourages-classmates-to-speak-out/ Findings: Consistent beneficial effects on 7 of 11 DV’s     (e.g., self-reported victimisation/bullying, Peer reported victimisation). 16

16. Common themes: Importance of the school climate Trust in teachers: reporting is improved if children believe that adults will help. Student supportiveness: improves social adjustment and school safety. Autonomy and influence: induces ownership of anti-bullying schemes and encourages bystander intervention  Non-tolerance of harassment: associated with safer school conditions. 17

17. (6) Intergroup interventions Relatively new approach and not yet any interventions theoretically grounded in this approach, which have been empirically evaluated.  But...... what about intergroup contact?  18

18. Causes of prejudice in children – what do we know?  Cognitive abilites Lack of knowledge Socialization Fear of people who are different Lack of Inter Group Contact

19. Intergroup Contact Hypothesis 

20. Why is intergroup contact important for children?   Contact in childhood and adolescence particularly important Critical Age for the formation of attitudes which last into adulthood Cross group friendship especially effective CG friendships are one of the most powerful prejudice-reduction tools available (Wölfer et al., 2016)

21. Contact leads to more 'confidence in contact' Ripple effect: instilling confidence in contact, making them  ‘contact ready’  will increase the chances that they will have positive cross-group interactions and in turn form high quality cross-group friendships that are maintained over time.  Evidence from: Hewstone et al (2018) Cameron & Turner (2016) .   Find out more about ‘confidence in contact’  here  “a state of readiness for positive contact, whereby children have the necessary confidence, skills, beliefs, and experience for successful intergroup contact.”

22. Types of contact (1): Direct contact Wealth of evidence supporting direct contact as a strategy to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations  Example – The Linking Network          " The students value making friends with someone who is different to them, they will do that  with less fear moving forward. It de-mystifies the ‘other’ and breaks down that ‘ otherism ’.  (Linking Network Secondary School Teacher).  But there are disadvantages to direct contact: It is not always feasible or possible the impact of cross-group friendships on attitudes to be weaker (and sometimes non-existent) among minority group members (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Binder et al., 2009; Feddes et al., 2009) cross-group friendships may be less common in minority versus majority status groups (Aboud et al., 2003).  minority and majority status children face different barriers to cross-group friendship.  Majority of research in the US

23. Types of Contact (2): Indirect Contact  

24. Vicarious Contact  Learning about ingroup members who have outgroup friends e.g., through reading stories about cross group friendships (Cameron et al., 2006) or watching films (West & Turner, 2014).  Cross group friendship key element https://kar.kent.ac.uk/4163/1/CameronetalCD2006.pdf

25. Vicarious Contact through fiction: Harry Potter “Can Harry Potter be used as a tool for improving attitudes towards stigmatized groups? ( Vezzali  et al. (2014)   More positive attitudes to immigrants Only when they identified with Harry Potter (and disidentified with 'he who shall not be named).  Read more about this research  here

26. Parasocial contact  Inter-group experiences via media such as TV, films, books Develop ‘relationship’ with characters As with direct contact: impact via stereotype busting information, empathy, perspective taking, increased similarity

27. Why is this important? 

28. Imagined Contact  Imagining a positive interaction with an outgroup member (Crisp & Turner, 2009; 2012)  Interventions based on theory of imagined contact - getting children to imagine playing with an outgroup child (at the park, beach etc) and then create  pictures or write stories about this experience (Cameron et al., 2011; Stathi et al., 2014;  Vezzali  et al., 2011)  Positive impact on younger children’s: attitude, intended behaviour For more see  here Cameron et al. (2011)

29. E-Contact   Collaborative, shared goal Support of authority figures (via chat moderator, or facilitator) Both parties can contribute equally to the task  Space for informal contact to allow personal contact

30. Example E-Contact programme Religious segregated Christian and Muslim high schools in Australia,  Groups of two Christian and two Muslim children worked cooperatively online  9 weeks  Synchronous chat-room, communicate via text-based inter-group communication, similar to MSN,  facebook Common goal: environment project Outcomes:  Improved outgroup attitudes Greater belief interaction will go well Improved knowledge of outgroup Reduced anxiety about intergroup interaction  Increased confidence in contact  White et al., 2012; 2014, 2015)

31. Direct and Indirect Contact Summary Greater willingness to engage in contact (Cameron et al, 2011;  Vezzali  et al, 2012) Positive outgroup attitudes and reduced intergroup anxiety (e.g., Cameron et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2008, 2013; Birtel & Crisp, 2012; Turner et al., 2007) Successful actual contact (e.g. West & Turner, 2014;  Britel  & Crisp, 2012). Positive social norms  Greater self-efficacy about contact ( e.g.Stathi  et al., 2011) Does not require physical contact Useful in situations where direct contact not possible Used prior to contact to boost confidence in contact Most successful when it incorporates the principles of effective direct contact Direct Contact  Indirect Contact 

32. Examples of interventions using some form of contact http://www.schoolslinkingnetwork.org.uk/#sthash.Q0iAPP7H.dpbs http://www.3ff.org.uk/ http://www.annefrank.org.uk/ See  here  for more on indirect and direct contact interventions

33. Number of established bullying intervention programmes (Kiva, OBPP etc ).  Historically/Usually take an intra or interpersonal approach. Often (but not always) neglect the potential for others (e.g., bystanders). Roles of group norms is important to consider More recent focus on prejudiced based bullying Interventions starting to draw on contact theory 34 Summary of interventions

34. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

35. References/Useful Links Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes towards refugees: Testing different models of extended contact.  Child Development ,  77 , 1208-1219.  doi : 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00929.x Stathi, S., Cameron, L., Hartley, B., & Bradford, S. (2014). Imagined contact as a prejudice ‐ reduction intervention in schools: The underlying role of similarity and attitudes.  Journal Of Applied Social Psychology ,  44 , 536-546. doi:10.1111/jasp.12245 West, K., & Turner, R. N. (2014). Using extended contact to improve physiological responses and  behavior  toward people with schizophrenia.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50,  57-64. White, F. A., & Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2012). A dual identity-electronic contact (DIEC) experiment promoting short-and long-term intergroup harmony.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ,  48 (3), 597-608. Vezzali , L., Hewstone , M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wolfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact.  European Review of Social Psychology, 25,  314-389. Crisp , R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009).  Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact.  American Psychologist, 64,  231-240.  doi: 10.1037/a0014718 Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2012). The imagined intergroup contact hypothesis. In M. P. Zanna, & J. Olson (Eds.),  Advances in Experimental Social Psychology  (vol. 46, pp. 125-182). Burlington: Academic Press. Cameron, L., Rutland, A.,  Turner, R.N. , Blake, B., Holman-Nicolas, R., Powell, C. (2011b).  Changing attitudes with a little imagination: Imagined contact effects on young children's implicit attitudes.   Anale  de  Psicologia , 27 (3). pp. 708-717.  Vezzali , L., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Stathi, S. (2011). Improving implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with elementary school children.  Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15,  203-212. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,  73 (1), 73-90.

36. Support services/links https://www.kent.ac.uk/student-support https://www.nationalbullyinghelpline.co.uk/contact.html Helpline: 0300 323 0169 Telephone: [phone] https://headspace.org.au/explore-topics/for-young-people/bullying/ https://respectme.org.uk/