J Abnorm Child Psychol (2015) 43:77–80 DOI 10.1007/s10802-014-9948-8
Taking Peer Victimization Research to the Next Level: Complex Interactions Among Genes, Teacher Attitudes/Behaviors, Peer Ecologies, & Classroom Characteristics Dorothy L. Espelage
Published online: 28 October 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This commentary reviews research findings of the five papers in the special entitled “School-related Factors in the Development of Bullying Perpetration and Victimization”, which represent critical areas that are often overlooked in the literature. First, one paper points to the complex interaction between a genetic disposition for aggression and classroom norms toward aggression. Second, an intervention paper unpacks the underlying mechanisms of an efficacious schoolwide bully prevention program by opening the “black box” and testing for mediators. Third, the remaining studies employ a wide range of rigorous designs to identify how teachers’ attitudes, behaviors, and classroom practices play a critical role in the prevalence of victimization and bullying in the classroom. Further, teachers’ attitudes and behaviors are shown to be predictive of youth’s willingness to intervene to assist a peer who is being victimized. Results are situated in what is known about bullying prevention, and how the findings from these studies could maximize the sensitivity of future prevention efforts. Keywords Commentary . Peer victimization . Classroom norms . Teacher attitudes School-based bullying prevention programming has increased substantially over the last decade. However, their efficacy has varied tremendously across contexts, and program effects often have been modest. Ttofi and Farrington (2011), in one of the most comprehensive meta-analyses on bullying prevention programs to date, found that the programs, on average, were associated with a 20–23% decrease in bullying perpetration, and a 17–20% decrease in victimization. Further, effects D. L. Espelage (*) Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820-6925, USA e-mail: [email protected]
seem to vary by age; bullying appears to be effectively prevented up until 7th grade, in 8th grade there is a sharp drop to an average of zero and negative effects in high school (Yeager et al. 2014). Thus, it is imperative that basic developmental research continue: (1) to maximize the developmental sensitivities of prevention programs; (2) to unpack the underlying mechanisms of effective intervention and prevention efforts; and (3) to understand the impact of the various ecologies surrounding youth (e.g., peers, teachers, classrooms) on the prevalence of bullying and peer victimization. These imperatives are directly addressed in the papers in this special issue.
School Climate Improvement Process: Looking Inside Classrooms All of these special issue papers address teacher’s attitudes and behaviors and classroom norms around aggression or bystander behavior and their impact on victimization rates. Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2014) highlight an inherent disconnect in the bully prevention field with their statement “Although teachers are often called upon to reduce children’s bullying and aggression, little is known regarding teachers’ responses to students’ harassment of peers or the beliefs which may inform their response strategies.” A trend from having outside practitioners or school counselors implement curriculum to teacher implementers suggests that we need to know more about how teacher attitudes, behaviors, and practices might impede or foster prevention efforts. The studies in the special issue represent innovative methodological approaches that have direct implications as to how classroom-based bullying prevention should be developed or adapted to prevent victimization and protect youth. National websites on bullying prevention provide concrete steps on how teachers should respond to bullying (http://www.
78
stopbullying.gov/respond/index.html); however, the evidence for many of these suggestions is lacking and it is not clear which strategies actually lead to reductions in peer victimization. Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2014) address the gap in the literature by examining the short-term longitudinal relations between teachers’ beliefs and responses to peer victimization and how these beliefs and responses relate to students’ aggressive behavior and victimization. Many of the results in the paper are worthy of discussion, but I will highlight some of the most potent. First, gender of the victim makes a difference in how teachers respond; teachers contacted parents and separated students more for boys than girls; however, they were more likely to tell girls than boys to work out the problem on their own, to assert themselves, and avoid aggressive peers. Second, when teachers’ held beliefs that peer victimization is normative, they were more likely to tell children to work it out and less likely to reprimand the aggressor. Interestingly, when teachers advocated for the victim to take an assertive approach, this was associated with higher levels of aggression and victimization concurrently but not over the course of the year. Third, like previous research with younger kids (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier 2008), when teachers separated students in response to aggression this was associated with lower levels of aggression, declines in classroom-level peer victimization, and declines in aggression for highly aggressive girls. These findings suggest that there are simple strategies that teachers can engage in to prevent victimization, which is helpful at a time when teachers are asked to address bullying through curriculum in a climate of high-stakes testing, heightened teacher accountability, and diminishing resources. Oldenburg and colleagues (2014) expand on teacher characteristics to include attributions that teachers make about why bullying occurs, including internal (e.g., student fault) to external (e.g., due to things out of control of student), their own bullying and victimization experiences, and their teaching record. Further, these authors examined the association between multiple grade classrooms as predictors of classroomlevel victimization. External attributions were associated with more victimization, and if you look closely at the items with the 10-item scale, these items really tap into teachers blaming students and their families for the bullying. This finding parallels the research among youth where peers would defend a victim when they had empathy for the victim (e.g., Espelage et al. 2012) and feeling a personal responsibility to intervene (Pozzoli and Gini 2010). Surprising to the authors, teachers’ self-perceived ability to handle bullying was not related to classroom victimization, although it is reported as marginally significant (p
Taking Peer Victimization Research to the Next Level: Complex Interactions Among Genes, Teacher Attitudes/Behaviors, Peer Ecologies, & Classroom Characteristics Dorothy L. Espelage
Published online: 28 October 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This commentary reviews research findings of the five papers in the special entitled “School-related Factors in the Development of Bullying Perpetration and Victimization”, which represent critical areas that are often overlooked in the literature. First, one paper points to the complex interaction between a genetic disposition for aggression and classroom norms toward aggression. Second, an intervention paper unpacks the underlying mechanisms of an efficacious schoolwide bully prevention program by opening the “black box” and testing for mediators. Third, the remaining studies employ a wide range of rigorous designs to identify how teachers’ attitudes, behaviors, and classroom practices play a critical role in the prevalence of victimization and bullying in the classroom. Further, teachers’ attitudes and behaviors are shown to be predictive of youth’s willingness to intervene to assist a peer who is being victimized. Results are situated in what is known about bullying prevention, and how the findings from these studies could maximize the sensitivity of future prevention efforts. Keywords Commentary . Peer victimization . Classroom norms . Teacher attitudes School-based bullying prevention programming has increased substantially over the last decade. However, their efficacy has varied tremendously across contexts, and program effects often have been modest. Ttofi and Farrington (2011), in one of the most comprehensive meta-analyses on bullying prevention programs to date, found that the programs, on average, were associated with a 20–23% decrease in bullying perpetration, and a 17–20% decrease in victimization. Further, effects D. L. Espelage (*) Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820-6925, USA e-mail: [email protected]
seem to vary by age; bullying appears to be effectively prevented up until 7th grade, in 8th grade there is a sharp drop to an average of zero and negative effects in high school (Yeager et al. 2014). Thus, it is imperative that basic developmental research continue: (1) to maximize the developmental sensitivities of prevention programs; (2) to unpack the underlying mechanisms of effective intervention and prevention efforts; and (3) to understand the impact of the various ecologies surrounding youth (e.g., peers, teachers, classrooms) on the prevalence of bullying and peer victimization. These imperatives are directly addressed in the papers in this special issue.
School Climate Improvement Process: Looking Inside Classrooms All of these special issue papers address teacher’s attitudes and behaviors and classroom norms around aggression or bystander behavior and their impact on victimization rates. Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2014) highlight an inherent disconnect in the bully prevention field with their statement “Although teachers are often called upon to reduce children’s bullying and aggression, little is known regarding teachers’ responses to students’ harassment of peers or the beliefs which may inform their response strategies.” A trend from having outside practitioners or school counselors implement curriculum to teacher implementers suggests that we need to know more about how teacher attitudes, behaviors, and practices might impede or foster prevention efforts. The studies in the special issue represent innovative methodological approaches that have direct implications as to how classroom-based bullying prevention should be developed or adapted to prevent victimization and protect youth. National websites on bullying prevention provide concrete steps on how teachers should respond to bullying (http://www.
78
stopbullying.gov/respond/index.html); however, the evidence for many of these suggestions is lacking and it is not clear which strategies actually lead to reductions in peer victimization. Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2014) address the gap in the literature by examining the short-term longitudinal relations between teachers’ beliefs and responses to peer victimization and how these beliefs and responses relate to students’ aggressive behavior and victimization. Many of the results in the paper are worthy of discussion, but I will highlight some of the most potent. First, gender of the victim makes a difference in how teachers respond; teachers contacted parents and separated students more for boys than girls; however, they were more likely to tell girls than boys to work out the problem on their own, to assert themselves, and avoid aggressive peers. Second, when teachers’ held beliefs that peer victimization is normative, they were more likely to tell children to work it out and less likely to reprimand the aggressor. Interestingly, when teachers advocated for the victim to take an assertive approach, this was associated with higher levels of aggression and victimization concurrently but not over the course of the year. Third, like previous research with younger kids (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier 2008), when teachers separated students in response to aggression this was associated with lower levels of aggression, declines in classroom-level peer victimization, and declines in aggression for highly aggressive girls. These findings suggest that there are simple strategies that teachers can engage in to prevent victimization, which is helpful at a time when teachers are asked to address bullying through curriculum in a climate of high-stakes testing, heightened teacher accountability, and diminishing resources. Oldenburg and colleagues (2014) expand on teacher characteristics to include attributions that teachers make about why bullying occurs, including internal (e.g., student fault) to external (e.g., due to things out of control of student), their own bullying and victimization experiences, and their teaching record. Further, these authors examined the association between multiple grade classrooms as predictors of classroomlevel victimization. External attributions were associated with more victimization, and if you look closely at the items with the 10-item scale, these items really tap into teachers blaming students and their families for the bullying. This finding parallels the research among youth where peers would defend a victim when they had empathy for the victim (e.g., Espelage et al. 2012) and feeling a personal responsibility to intervene (Pozzoli and Gini 2010). Surprising to the authors, teachers’ self-perceived ability to handle bullying was not related to classroom victimization, although it is reported as marginally significant (p
