Key Elements and Mechanisms in Bullying Prevention and Intervention
Chair(s): Maud Vunderink-Hensums (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The)
Discussant(s): Geertjan Overbeek (University of Amsterdam)
Bullying remains a pressing global issue, necessitating effective, targeted interventions to reduce its prevalence and adverse outcomes. In this symposium, we aim to identify and evaluate key components of anti-bullying programs, and to examine underlying mechanisms that could inform intervention strategies. Together, these studies aim to deepen our understanding of what precisely should (not) be targeted to decrease bullying.
Garandeau et al., investigate the role of fear of victimization and status aspirations as potential factors influencing bystander behavior. Surprisingly, fear of victimization seemed to discourage bully-following but not defending behavior. Caring about popularity predicted more bully-following and was unrelated to defending. These insights may deepen our understanding of the extent to which these factors should (not) be targeted in anti-bullying interventions.
Harakeh et al., evaluate the core elements of an anti-bullying program (Prima), investigating which elements work, for whom, and in what contexts. Using real-time assessments during a 10-week implementation of the Prima program, this study examines the processes and mechanisms—such as shifts in attitudes, empathy, self-efficacy, and norms—underlying changes in bullying behavior for subgroups of children.
Vunderink-Hensums et al., build on prior Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (Hensums et al., 2022) by incorporating additional trials and intervention programs, broader cultural diversity, and implementation fidelity markers, to investigate the effectiveness of anti-bullying intervention components worldwide. Subgroup analyses examine moderators such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status, exploring how interventions can be tailored to maximize effectiveness while mitigating unintended effects.
Last, Prof. Geertjan Overbeek will serve as the discussant, integrating insights from these studies and reflecting on their implications for research and practice.
This integrative exploration advances our understanding of what works, for whom, and why, providing critical insights for developing more precise and effective anti-bullying interventions.
Presentations of the Symposium
Do Fear of Victimization and Caring About One’s Popularity Predict Victim-Defending and Bully-Following Behaviors?
Claire Garandeau1, Julia Nuckols1, Daniel Graf1, Sarah Malamut1, Tessa Lansu2
1University of Turku, 2Radboud University Nijmegen
One promising avenue for decreasing bullying is to discourage bystanders from joining in the bullying and encourage them to defend victims. This requires an understanding of the motivations underlying these behaviors. Fear of becoming a target might explain why some students refrain from defending victims and why some choose to support those who initiate bullying. Caring about one’s popularity may also promote bully-following. However, its possible role in predicting defending remains unclear. This study examines the concurrent and prospective effects of fear of victimization and finding popularity important on bully-following and two types of defending behaviors, controlling for age, gender, victimization and popularity.
Participants included 2709 Finnish adolescents in grades 7-9 (Mage = 13.79, SD = .95; 51.5% boys) who provided data in the middle (T1) and end (T2) of one school year. Classrooms with participation rates <40% and no bullying were excluded from analyses. Fear of victimization was self-reported (3 items). Bully-following was peer-reported (3 items); defending was victim-reported and binary-coded (1 = nominated at least once; 0= never nominated).
Contrary to expectations, fear of victimization did not predict a lower likelihood of defending behaviors but was concurrently and longitudinally associated with lower bully-following, suggesting that fear may inhibit harmful peer alignment rather than defending. Finding popularity important was positively associated with bully-following over time, but showed no associations with defending. These findings highlight the nuanced role of fear and status motives in shaping bystander behavior and inform intervention strategies that aim to foster prosocial engagement in bullying situations.
Which elements from an anti-bullying program are effective for which victims and which perpetrators?
Zeena Harakeh, Olmo van der Mast, Iris Eekhout, Minne Fekkes
TNO Child Health
Research shows that using more different core elements of antibullying programs leads to a greater reduction in bullying, but we do not yet know which elements contribute most to reducing bullying behavior. The aim of our study is to investigate the core elements of anti-bullying program and study what elements work for whom, when and how? The following research questions will be studied:
1. What works?: Which elements make the greatest contribution to this decrease in bullying?;
2. For whom?: For which victims and perpetrators do the effective elements work?;
3. When? In which bullying situations and which class compositions are these elements most effective?;
4. Why?: What are the explanatory mechanisms (changes in attitude, empathy, self-efficacy and norms) why these elements work?
Method: Between October 2024 and February 20-25 at five schools the Prima anti-bullying program will be implemented. Through Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMAs) bully victims and perpetrators have been followed during a 10-week period in which several anti-bullying measures were executed. During this 10-week period teachers filled out a questionnaire on their anti-bullying measures every week. Analyses are currently executed and will focus on determining which elements and processes precede the resolving of a bullying incident. Results will be presented on the individual bullying and victim cases in our sample and the intervention elements that are related to a change in bullying behavior.
How do School-Based Anti-Bullying Intervention Components Impact Youth Across Continents? An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis 2.0
Maud Vunderink-Hensums1, Liina Björg Laas Sigurðardóttir2, Brechtje de Mooij1, Minne Fekkes3, Suzanne Jak1, Geertjan Overbeek1
1University of Amsterdam, 2University of Oxford, 3TNO Child Health
Bullying remains a pervasive global issue, with significant adverse outcomes for children and adolescents (UNESCO, 2018). While school-based anti-bullying interventions demonstrate general effectiveness, we’re still learning more about how specific intervention components might impact subgroups of youth differentially. To this end, we previously conducted a first and explorative, Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (IPDMA) assessing what works for whom in school-based anti-bullying interventions (Hensums et al., 2022). Building on this work, we expanded our dataset to include more trials, implemented in more diverse cultural contexts, including more information on implementation fidelity. To date, we pooled data from 97.519 children and adolescents aged 5–20 years. This extended dataset includes 29 trials (testing 19 interventions) in 13 countries. Multilevel logistic regression models, which are currently executed and will be presented in August, will investigate the effects of school-based anti-bullying interventions on self-reported victimization and bullying perpetration, with a focus on subgroup analyses such as age, baseline victimization and perpetration, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. We aim to replicate prior findings, which showed small overall intervention effects (i.e., reductions in victimization: d = −0.14, perpetration: d = −0.07), particularly for younger children and heavily victimized youth. Importantly, we aim to further elucidate the role of individual intervention components, including the potential iatrogenic effects observed in our earlier work. In additional analyses, we examine whether new moderators, such as cultural context or implementation fidelity, impact intervention effectiveness. Our findings may provide novel insights into tailoring interventions to maximize their effectiveness for diverse subgroups of youths.
